We use this firewall to protect our perimeter. We create NAT policies and have a DMZ set up.
It is also used to filter the internet for all of our users.
We use this firewall to protect our perimeter. We create NAT policies and have a DMZ set up.
It is also used to filter the internet for all of our users.
The most valuable feature is the sandbox.
The content filter needs to be improved. I would also like to see better application filtering.
When we are troubleshooting problems, we find that the logs we see are not sufficient. It makes it difficult to find out what the main issue is. It means that we have to search further or perform another test to see what happened.
Technical support is in need of improvement.
We have been using SonicWall for approximately 15 years, and more specifically, SonicWall NSA for the past 10.
The stability is fine and we don't have any issues. We have never needed to report a problem.
We have about 20 people in the company who are protected by this product, and I think that the scalability is fine. However, I would say that it is best for small to medium-sized organizations.
When we have gone to the vendor for support, I don't think that the quality was very good. I would rate the vendor support a six out of ten.
I used to work with Check Point, and they are very good when it comes to application filtering.
The initial setup is easy and the deployment can be completed in between two and four hours. This includes installation and adjustments that need to be made.
We have an in-house SonicWall specialist.
When implemented properly, the total cost of operation is very low.
My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing SonicWall NSA is that they have to be very clear about what it is that they're looking for. It is a good solution for small and medium-sized businesses, and when you are very clear about what you need, you can implement a lot of other security services with a total cost of operation that is very low.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
I am a consultant. I work with a software dealer in the IT security business.
I deployed SonicWall for a customer just last month.
It's very simple to use and the support is great. I am in India and they have a support office here. As a company product, SonicWall firewalls and their support has been excellent.
It's a simple, rugged product. When I say rugged, mechanically, it's a very rugged box. The same thing applies to Sophos also, it's also a very rugged box. It's rugged technology, it can take a beating and still be operational.
One of the greatest strengths of the SonicWall system is that they have multiple portals for multiple tasks, whereas all the other solutions have no single tool for doing multiple tasks. That has been one major advantage of SonicWall. Regarding the SonicWall box, you need to be capable of taking multiple loads compared to the competition. That's a very unique feature of the SonicWall system. They also have an antivirus solution that is tied to their system which is called SentinelOne.
The support is very good. The product is also very reliable. There are always new, frequent updates — nothing more or less. It's very flexible; it's ready to go right out of the box, unlike some other solutions which require a lot of training. The GUI is very user-friendly. Even if you've never touched a firewall in your life, with a bit of time and practice, you'll get the hang of it.
In terms of improvement, they should consider changing the logic of how the rules are created. Everything is spread out into multiple pockets, so to speak; it should be more condensed. The technology is sound; I am not saying that it's brilliant, but it is very sound for most mid-range uses — it does a fantastic job.
They should consider upgrading the capabilities within the GUI. The way the GUI is configured for creating rules, I would say they should consider making that a bit more flexible. That would really help a lot.
I have used SonicWall NSA for three years.
SonicWall NSA is very stable. I ran my last box for 10 years before I switched it off. 10 years is a long time for anything. If it can run for 10 years, it's stable. It's money made twice over. It might not be technologically up to speed and it may not be upgradeable, but that's a different matter.
These boxes are well-known for the amount of mechanics and users they can handle.
The initial setup is very easy.
The basic setup takes roughly half an hour. After that, when it comes to configuring the rules and dependencies, with ideal conditions, I would say that it takes roughly a week. Overall, within two to three weeks, we were in production.
Roughly 90% (50% in the worst-case scenario) of the customer's settings are ready within a couple of days from the time the box is powered up. When you power up the box, you have to set the rules. So, I implement it, engage the rules, and then ask somebody to test some of the connections and give me some feedback. That takes a bit of time, but otherwise, it only takes a couple of days until the box is ready. If you want to push it, within a week it's possible to reach roughly 90% to 95% production — the rules and the performance have to be fine-tuned which takes a little bit of time.
I would definitely recommend SonicWall for their simplicity of use, but if you can configure SonicWall, have a look at Sophos also. Sophos has put a lot of hard work into their connections and the GUI. SonicWall's GUI is slightly lacking compared to Sophos' GUI; however, capabilities-wise, Sophos doesn't have a lead over SonicWall.
If I had to make a recommendation to a customer, I would tell them to look at both products. I would push the Sophos box because it has certain advantages, technologically, compared to SonicWall. For example, they have their own antivirus solution — the Sophos antivirus solution. It's a firewall as well and the tool will communicate with the central cloud. From the cloud instance, you can control the system.
The Sophos gateway has got allied products, like SD run connectors. You can manage the same rules between multiple firewalls because they're all connected to the same account. Overall, Sophos is superior to SonicWall.
The first requirement of a paying customer, independent of their choice of product, is to check if the technical support of the product is locally available. That's the first requirement I would give to any customer. The product may be great but if the support in your geographical region is not there, then it's not worth it.
Take Trend Micro for example. If you're a customer of Trend Micro but you're not in the immediate support region, then what happens? You will have to raise a ticket and wait, but you don't have anybody on the ground to come to your office and do an emergency scan and raise your ticket, so it's a bit of a dangerous issue. I would recommend a product that has both local technical and physical support.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give SonicWall a rating of eight.
We primarily use the solution for just securing our users and creating a LAN through VPN tunnels. We use it to provide remote access to a cloud service.
It has allowed us to work remotely when the order to shelter in place went into effect in March of this year due to COVID-19.
The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ability to work like any other firewall.
The product is pretty easy to configure. It's easy to maintain and it works well with Windows.
There are features that offer 3G, 4G, failover, wireless, and things like that are very good. I'm not a firewall expert, however, in my opinion, the solution pretty much covers the needs of small and medium businesses.
Currently, I just have the basic modules turned on. I'd love to see how it works in terms of preventing more malware from getting through.
We still get phishing emails that manage to come through from time to time.
The solution could use a bit more security.
We had issues with the VPN tunnel between two sites. It wouldn't stay up. That was a problem for us. They need to fix it if they find it happens across the board to other customers.
This company has been using the solution for good three years.
The solution is stable. I've had one running for a little over 300 days without any problem. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
The scalability is pretty good. I can scale out and add a firewall within a new office if I need to. If an organization wants to scale, they should be able to do so with no problems. Everyone working in our office uses the solution. Anybody that has a work laptop that needs to remote work from outside the office can do so as well. It's 100% used across the board.
I had to call support when one of my VPNs was failing. The VPN tunnel between two sites wouldn't stay up and they had us use a different security protocol.
They were very helpful. I found them to be quite responsive and knowledgeable. I don't think the problem with the VPN should have been there in the first place, however, that said, they did help us. I'd rate them, overall, at a nine out of ten.
The initial setup isn't too complex. My understanding is that it's straightforward. I didn't set it up myself, however, it's got configuration wizards to walk a user through. This no doubt is quite helpful and makes it pretty simple in terms of implementation.
The pricing is pretty reasonable. We don't find it to be overly expensive.
The version we are using is NSA 20 or 60.
If a company is looking for a good product that's easy to configure, I would suggest they consider SonicWall.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If we didn't have that trouble with the VPN tunnel, I would give it a perfect score.
We are a solution provider and SonicWall NSA is one of the firewalls that we implement for our clients. I have implemented it for many companies and currently, I have four or five clients that we are supporting.
The most valuable features are the VPN, SSL VPN, and IPSec VPN.
The port forwarding functionality works well.
The number of concurrent VPN users is too limited.
SonicWall does not support DynDNS, yet this is an important feature for smaller companies that do not have a static IP address. It means that if the IP address changes then it would automatically be picked up by the firewall and it will assist with site-to-site VPN connections.
I have been working with SonicWall NSA for two years.
SonicWall NSA is a stable firewall.
I have set up SonicWall NSA for smaller companies in Dubai. Most of my customers are small to medium-sized with between 20 and 100 users. I would say that it is scalable.
The support offered by SonicWall is good. I would rate them a six or seven out of ten.
I also have more than five years of experience with Fortinet FortiGate. I have worked with models such as the 30E, 50E, 60E, 100E, and 60D. I also have experience with the Meraki Firewall.
The VPN limitations are better with FortiGate. Even with the lower versions, such as the 30E, it supports 100 tunnels and 100 users. With SonicWall, you are limited to five IPSec VPN connections at one time.
FortiGate also supports DynDNS, which is an important feature for smaller companies.
The initial setup is okay and I don't have any issues with it. When you configure any UTM box, whether it's new or if you are configuring it for the first time, it will take some time to complete. Once you get through it for the first time, it is much easier from then on.
If you want to connect more than five concurrent users by VPN then you have to pay an additional fee.
Overall, this is a good firewall and they would do much better in the market if they included support for DynDNS and additional VPN connections for free.
At this point, because of the restrictions with the VPN, we are recommending Fortinet rather than SonicWall. If in the future these concerns are dealt with, then I will recommend SonicWall.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
The solution is primarily used as a perimeter firewall for a gateway toward public internet traffic. Basically, it is a gateway between our internal network and public traffic.
Feature wise, the content filtering is good.
The basic firewall rules of the solution are great.
The product has a lot of bugs, actually. We are facing some issues with this product. The DPI SSL feature which is there, it is not working properly.
The IRL, when it was installed, had us facing some issues. However, as they kept on uploading the images, the issues are starting to get fixed.
They already have this feature of advanced capture, set rotation, and so it is a next-generation firewall only. They could improve on their software side. Their software, which is managing the hardware, it's not up to the mark.
We've been using our current particular model (NSA 5600, the most current model) for the last two years. The other firewall we were using, SonicWall 5500 we've used for the last seven or eight years.
It took some time for us to establish stability within the solution at the beginning. At this point, we find it to be quite stable except for the DPI SSL feature.
We had already scaled from the older version, the 5500, however, the 5600, is quite a new product. They have since changed the OS, so it ended up being a bit complex from the earlier version. The complexity is there, obviously. It's not that easy to manage. You really need to have someone with knowledge right there with you.
It is an internal firewall. All of our traffic, internal traffic, goes through this firewall only. There are somewhere around, at any point in time, 600, 700 users. We have total sync of 2,000 users, 2,000 plus. But at any point in time, 600 users are there, connected. It runs continuously, on a daily basis.
We've never contacted technical support in the past. We go through our vendor. We don't call SonicWall.
While there are a lot of options on the market, we only use SonicWall at this time. We have used Sophos in the past previously. We found that Sophos Firewall had more flexibility compared to SonicWall, especially in the configuration capabilities.
he initial setup was actually it was done by our vendor partner. And it was not difficult for them. However, during the initial set up, we faced some issues. It was not easy until there were image upgrades, and now those issues are fixed.
We've also outsourced the maintenance part of the solution's upkeep to our vendor. We only do the followup and we level call. Basic manageability, they do the operation, we manage at our end. Basic operations. But for other calls, we level call with the vendor.
We hired our vendor partner to do the initial implementation for us. We didn't handle it in-house.
I'm not sure what the pricing of the product is. It falls within a middle range in terms of pricing. It' not the cheapest or more expensive.
The SSL VPN feature, which is what we needed to purchase, is a separate license.
There's a lot of firewalls available, including Cisco, FortiGate, and Juniper firewalls too. There are many alternatives.
We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with SonicWall.
I wouldn't recommend the solution, actually. It's hard to set up and the stability takes a while to establish. They need to do better on their software side, and other solutions, like Sophos, have more flexibility in their configuration capabilities.
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
The solution helps with VPN.
The most valuable feature I've found is VPN and web protection, particularly with navigation assessment. We use the application control feature to create rules controlling specific application navigation.
The web interface administration of SonicWall NSa could be improved. Compared to Sophos and FortiGate, making rules is easier with those systems.
The solution is expensive. Its pricing is based on the number of users.
I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.
Our primary use case of NSa is for security. We are customers of SonicWall and I'm an IT administrator.
The solution is user-friendly with good security and application control which is very important these days.
The support is severely lacking with very slow response times. There are latency issues with this solution. I'd like to see improved performance and an updated dashboard.
I've been using this product for seven years.
The stability is fine although there are some security and latency issues.
The scalability is fine.
Customer support requires additional engineers because their long response times are problematic.
Neutral
The initial setup is relatively straightforward. We have several hundred users, predominantly IT specialists, engineers and developers. I'm the maintenance person for this product.
I rate this solution eight out of 10.
Licensing costs are reasonable.
In general, this is a good solution and I rate it eight out of 10.
Our primary use case is at the perimeter of all of our customer's sites with all of the security services turned on. That is anti-malware, anti-spyware, geo IP filtering is an important thing for us, web filtering and the Capture ATP. We are looking at preventing downloading of any virus-infected files.
Geo-IP filtering has made a large impact on us and it is very important to us.
The most valuable features to us are the security services which is a critical factor in our deployment. Today we need to have all the security services enabled because firewalls are not enough.
When it comes to security I think all of the features are currently open to improvement.
I have been using SonicWall NSa for the past ten to fifteen years.
Technical support used to be very good and now we are dealing with long response times. On a scale of one to ten today we are looking at a four or five instead of a nine or ten.
The setup is straightforward however you want to have a good technical support individual involved for proper deployment.
I would rate SonicWall NSa a nine out of ten as an overall solution in security.
