WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We run education organizations. We have students and staff working on campus. We wanted to be protected within the campus as well as outside the campus.

I am using WatchGuard Firebox XTM 850, and I have its latest version.

In terms of users within the campus, the policy-based usage helps us where we allow something during the daytime, something after school hours, and something during the night. In terms of outside the campus, it helps us in monitoring our mail services. All our deployments are protected from external users.

Policy VPN, site-to-site VPN, traffic monitoring, anti-spam filters, and all other advanced features are valuable.

The way Secure Sign-On authentication is happening needs to be improved. When the Secure Sign-On portal is turned on, anybody who comes into the campus, whether he or she is a staff member or a guest, has to go past the initial portal. One of the shortcomings is the username. It shouldn't allow permutations or combinations with upper or lower cases. For example, when there is a username abc, it shouldn't allow ABC or Abc. It should not allow the same username, but currently, two separate people can go in. Therefore, its authentication or validation should be improved, and the case sensitiveness should be picked up. If I have restricted someone to two devices, they shouldn't be able to use different combinations of the same username and get into the third or fourth device. It shouldn't allow different combinations of alphabets to be used to log in. 

I have been using WatchGuard solutions for the last ten years.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We have about 1,200 users at this point in time, but the number of devices exceeds 2,200. There are multiple devices per person in today's world. A staff member is using three or four devices, and students are using at least two, which makes it 2,500 or 3,000 devices.

Their technical support is very good. You get a response within 15 minutes to an hour at the max.

We had Cisco ASA Firewall. It was a very simple firewall.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. It took 30 minutes.

A consultant from WatchGuard was there. He showed it once, and our people could do it easily. They have deployed it again and again. It is pretty simple. 

You just need one person for its deployment and maintenance. Security personnel is the one who manages it.

They have an annual subscription license. Initially, we had opted for three years. After that, we went for another three years, and after that, we have been doing it yearly. They also have a license for five years.

We evaluated SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Cisco, but this was the best.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use them for perimeter security and also to manage virtual LANs.

The main benefit for us is the ability to manage the VLANs. It allows us to monitor types of traffic and to actually review and determine what traffic we want to allow and deny. It also allows us to modify the categories of restrictions that need to be applied.

It has also simplified some of the processes that we have. For example, we were having some issues in identifying where most of our bandwidth was being used up, which devices and which users, and what they were using the bandwidth to do. Were they watching videos or were they looking at some other bandwidth-intensive site or application? We have been able to determine user behavior on the network.

We are quite happy with the Firebox. It really helps us with the ease of managing firewalls at other locations. It has really helped us save time by not having to go to other locations. We have devices at two smaller offices, where we don't have IT staff. It has allowed us to remotely manage and update the firewalls at those locations. It's saving us at least four hours a week.

I don't think it has helped improve productivity in terms of efficiency, but it has enabled us to improve the security of the network. We don't have to worry as much about where the users are going. And if a user was blocked, it will let us know why they were blocked, what category of trip was being blocked, or what policy it was blocked under. Even if our staff is going to a legitimate site, but the site is under a wrong category, it allows us to put that site on our exemption list to allow it.

It has also really helped us with our management and to monitor internet usage. Our department is just three people and it has made it very easy for us to manage.

• Two of the functionalities we use most are the traffic monitoring and the full panel dashboard. Those are two things that are very useful for us.
• It's very easy to use. The interface does not present a challenge for the user. It is a great device for small businesses with up to 500 users. It allows easy management of all devices from one central device and updates are very easy as well.
• The performance is also very good. The throughput is excellent. I've not had any issues with that so far.
• The reporting and management features are excellent. They're easy to navigate and very intuitive, and reports are easy to read.
• In addition, it provides us with layered security. It allows us to determine what types of access, to which networks, we want to allow or deny.
• We also like the site-to-site VPN that allows us to connect to and securely access devices at other locations.

I would like to have a little more control over access points and the ability to see the bandwidth that is passing through a specific access point. We are not able to see that. We can see what traffic is passing through the Firebox itself, but we can't identify if it is coming from a particular access point or not.

We have used WatchGuard Firebox for seven years.

The Firebox is very stable. We have not had a failure over the seven years we've used them.

In terms of scalability, we would need to add another device to the M300 that we have right now. I know there are models of Firebox that you can actually add hardware to, to get them scaled up and for additional portals. But the one that we have, in terms of subscription, is very scalable in terms of features, and it integrates with WatchGuard's central interface where it can update our firmware as the updates come out.

What we want to do is put in some more redundancy in our network access. We want to have a second Firebox at each location. We have two ISPs at each location, so instead of both ISPs going to one Firebox, we want to split the ISPs between the two Fireboxes and have load balancing through the internet on firewalls.

We have 100 employees at our head office, and we have 10 employees at our sub-offices. In terms of devices, we probably have about 150 devices, including printers and computers at our head office, and about 12 devices at each of our sub-offices.

We used the technical support once, when we had some issues with employees trying to access legitimate sites. That is when we learned about setting exemptions for certain sites. A company might be a travel site, for instance, but due to the amount of advertising they do, it might be flagged as an advertising site. To resolve that issue, when it's a legitimate site that does a lot of advertising, you can go to support for help in figuring that out, and also for help in putting necessary exemptions in place. 

The support was very professional. They were very patient, and they explained the issues and the solutions fully.

I don't have a lot of experience with other firewalls. There was a Cisco Certified office that I was exposed to before we moved to the WatchGuard Firebox. It felt like the WatchGuard was a lot easier to use, and easier to set up than the Certified Office device.

The primary reason that we went with Firebox was its cost. It is very economical and it provided us with all the security functions that we were looking for at the time. And the throughput was more than what we required, so it was a very cost-effective device to deploy on our network.

The initial setup of Firebox was straightforward. It was not complex.

For our deployment we configured all three access points at one location, our head office, and tested them in that one environment. Then, at the various offices, it was just a matter of changing the IP address. We had one technician go to one office and another technician go to the other office to install the Fireboxes and connect them to the network. As they were plugged in, they connected and it provided the service that we wanted from day one. We didn't have to do too many reconfigurations. The policies that come with it out-of-the-box provide adequate network protection, and we just had to put in special policies to allow various types of traffic, either both ways or one way, to various ports on the firewall. We didn't have many problems in getting them up and running at each office.

Deployment took one day at each location. Overall, we were able to prepare the Fireboxes and test them in less than a week. We prepared everything at one location, did the testing on the second day, and on the third and fourth days we went to the other two office locations to install them.

With the Firebox solutions we have had a lot more accessibility, in the network, to our third-party vendors and suppliers. Prior to that, we did not have a direct connection to those companies, but with the Firebox we were able to configure a DMZ, and that allowed us to apply the granular restrictions that we really wanted. It allowed us to reduce the number of devices that we have on one desk, at certain workstations. Instead of having the supplier's computer and our computer, we were able to use just one computer, and connect to the supplier.

Going with the Firebox is a no-brainer. It provides the necessary security, out-of-the-box, for your configuration of the policies. It's very easy to use and it also gives you a reporting dashboard that can be customized. It makes a lot of sense out of all the data. It's very easy to read. We use a 40-inch display in our office and have it connected to the Firebox so that we can see what's going on on the network. We can look at it and see how the traffic is going through it.

It's a perimeter device and I use it as a DNS server for my domain, but I'm not the typical user for this type of device. I'm a hobbyist when it comes to this type of product and I use it in a small office environment.

It's competent. There's really nothing technically wrong with it. This is just a small device, and I don't use it for intrusion monitoring. I am only using it as a basic front-end and I have port-forwarding for services behind the network.

I use it to give access to some remote users. I give them access to their desktops with RDP and I have a client so they can register on the domain network with dynamic DNS. The ports that I have assigned appear to be unattainable to outside "mal-actors," unless they have an address registered on the internet that this thing is expecting. That's a layer of security.

I don't think I can get a full-blown DNS client from it. I've been trying to have DNS services. It has forwarding, but I don't get the services of a full DNS client. My main difficulty with it is that I can't run a complete service. I need NTP. I need DNS. I need DHCP for my domain, but I only get forwarding. As far as I can tell, I don't get caching and the kinds of reporting and registration needed to host a DNS for a domain. I have to have a separate solution for that.

I also struggle with its usability a little bit. I come from an open source background, so I'm accustomed to BIND and DHCP from Linux builds. With their tools I'm struggling to have a web interface. I'm not getting a third-party web interface, so I'm using Webmin, which I have become accustomed to. You have to relearn or find services that you know are there. You have to figure out what they mean by an alias. Setting up a network interface or port-forwarding isn't necessarily using the language that I'm accustomed to. Every time you deal with a new user interface, they structure things differently. Where do you go and how do you maintain it and how do you document it?

So I'm frustrated often when I get involved in vertical software where they start to brand or rename things, or they've adopted terminology. An example with WatchGuard is that every time I want to find a log, I have to search forever to find just basic logging. It's in there someplace, consistently. It's just that there isn't a button that says "logging."

I've been using Firebox for two or three years.

The stability seems perfect. The last time I rebooted it was a half a year ago. 

Hardware-wise, it's comparable to a Linksys consumer perimeter device. It's obviously got more bells and whistles behind it. It's some sort of ARM processor. I'm sure it's pretty low power. It sits there and idles and I can always get on it, and I can set it up with additional security to keep the ports safe. 

The DNS works fine, although it's a little clumsy to find, and get at, and get set up. And I can set up some sort of VPN on it. I haven't at this point, but I've got a couple of licenses for VPN if I needed that for my home office.

In terms of scalability, I would imagine they know what they're doing. I would imagine you could make it as big as you want it. I've seen some of their devices, with the intrusion detection, that are designed for large networks. We've got 15 or 20 devices here. At any given time, I have five active users, and they're mostly just getting Gmail or streaming music to their desktops. Our needs are really small, but I would imagine that a company like WatchGuard knows what it's doing and that they could scale it up as much as you need it to. 

There's also WatchGuard Cloud. I think it's part of a subscription service and it maintains some sort of a threats database or maybe prevents users from getting on certain items. But those things are frustrating. You set them up and then people can't get where they want to go, and you have to crack the cloud on that. It's one thing if you're administering hundreds of desktops, but I can see all of mine. I know where my security problems are.

When I first got the device I was thinking, "Oh, I could at least, just out of curiosity, dig into the intrusion detection and traffic monitoring stuff." I was reading some of the guides. It has the power, but it's going to start to slow network traffic at a certain point. So I just didn't pursue it anymore. My impression was that you would want to buy models that are two steps larger than this if you wanted to actually do any effective stuff. 

For my purposes, I would just fire up a virtual machine, install pfSense and Snort, and figure out how that works. I could have as much hardware as I needed anytime I needed it.

I had an inexpensive perimeter device, a $100 Linksys product. Behind that, I had DNS, DHCP, NTP, print servers, and my domain management. I use Samba for that. I just used whatever firewall was there.

I switched to WatchGuard because I was experimenting with this VAR—he's a friend—to see if I could take what I've done and to get to know some of his tags and put some sort of a service agreement on my infrastructure, through his resources. We talked about it and they were seemingly interested. They do documentation or I might bring them in to do some of the coding projects I suffer with.

My experience has been, in my unique situation, that when I end up bringing somebody in from a third-party, it's more work to train them. You're training somebody from a VAR and they are going to charge $150 an hour or so. That's a pretty healthy investment. The training would take a lot of my time. If I take that time and just solve my problem on my own, I get a two-for-one. I don't have to pay for it outside the company.

But that's why I was bringing in this WatchGuard device in my particular situation. I was just experimenting and seeing if I could find a guy at this VAR whom I felt was worth investing more in, and having him be a third-party to maintain my system if it goes down or I get hit by a bus.

I had to learn it. I had to find where they put stuff.

It took minutes to get the thing up and operating. I started to configure DHCP and puzzle through what they meant by that, and find ways to identify what leases were there and if it was able to register with this other DNS server I have on it.

I've fussed with it any number of times, setting up the port-forwarding for the RDP clients. I knew where to go and what to do, and I got that working pretty quickly. But that was one of the situations where I needed to see a log to see what was happening—it wasn't answering—and to find out what the function was, I had to find the log. It took me an age to find the log. Once I found out what was being rejected, then I figured it out. I've had a couple of bouts of that.

The VAR came in—they charged me plenty, a couple of hundred dollars—to set the thing up. He put the thing down. I said, "How do I get onto it?" He made an account for me on it, but it wasn't, by design, to be user-configurable. Normally, they would configure it from their side and every time I would want to make a change I would have to call them.

Then I asked him about the DNS , and he said, "Well, is this it?" He didn't really know it very well. He was just a mid-level tech for a VAR who can set the things up in their base configuration, but he couldn't answer any questions.

From there, it was me. I can't get support from the WatchGuard group itself because they work through the VARs. So I'm looking at those websites that have server guys who talk about things that frustrate them, to find where the DNS is. Even now, I can't easily find logging. I have to search for it every time I want to see a log. The frustration I have with these devices is that they're put together in a certain way and you've got to learn where they want you to go to get what you want.

I spent $600 or $800 on this product and I'm paying a couple of hundred dollars a year in a subscription service to keep the lights on, on it. I imagine there's some aspect of it that I won't be able to utilize if it goes off of support.

For what it is—for example, for a doctors' office building or a situation with remote offices and no tech guy on staff—it's perfect. It has antivirus subscription services, IPS, web blocker, file exception, spam blocker, application control, reputation defense, botnet detection.

It works out to $100 or $200 a year if you buy several years at once. It's fair. But when you get into the intrusion detection and gateway stuff, it can be fairly expensive and you're going to need more expensive hardware.

I looked at a lot of stuff. I'm familiar with pfSense. I have used that a little bit here and there over the years, so if I went to an open-source solution I would go straight to that. And I looked at the professional versions and this one had a $700, three-year service contract on it and it handled VPN. The VAR supported it and they like it.

I don't really feel that it improves anything compared to a more common firewall device. It's certainly less capable or less configurable compared to something like a pfSense, an open source perimeter device that can be integrated with intrusion detection and network monitoring on a computer or on a virtual machine-type of setting.

The thing that the Firebox adds is it's managed and a VAR can support it. It's a known entity. It's supportable, whereas it's more difficult to support a pfSense-type of setup. You pretty much have to maintain the latter yourself.

It's there for a reason. It's there for VARs to be able to put in a known device that they can train on and the user doesn't need to manage it much. In my circumstances, I'm the IT guy of the company, and it's a small company. I'm also the owner and I understand this stuff. It's somewhat of a hobby for me to be able to configure and have a competent domain, without having to pay a VAR tens of thousands of dollars a year, and without having to pay subscription services. I'm not the targeted client for it. I'm more like the hobbyist and the super-geeks who use open source, freely available tools. The types of people who need this sort of service shouldn't listen to me. A hobbyist would never touch this product.

Use it. It's very unlikely that a perimeter device is going to be cracked unless you leave something really crazy open. Most consumers are going to have some sort of perimeter device involved with their internet delivery and they're going to have some sort of a reasonably clean plug, with some port forwarding for their outbound connections coming into their network. And then if they're geeks, they're going to set up a pfSense virtual machine or get a little ARM processor.

I wanted to have a physical device at the network that I could just glare at. But you can set up a perimeter device with hardware, pfSense, or virtual pfSense, in the back of a 20-year-old computer. As long as you're careful about how you set up your routing, it's as effective as anything.

In terms of its throughput, we barely use it. All we're really doing is using it as a perimeter device and gateway. It's just fine. It's a tiny little thing. It has two interfaces plus the WAN interface. It's fine for what I do. I trust it being maintained. And until I got to the point of wanting to use it for domain monitoring, and traffic shaping or IDS-type of stuff, it really didn't require any processing power. It's competent for that.

It's a firewall so it provides my business with layered security. But it's got additional options, many of which you have to pay for. My device is too low-powered to efficiently host any of that stuff. I'd probably have to upgrade hardware in order to do the layered security types of things, and I would probably have to pay a fairly expensive subscription.

For the cost, if I got to the point where I was going to make a change, I would probably go to an open source tool, and suffer through that too, but get it to the point where I could do pretty much anything I wanted with it.

I should be in a situation where I have somebody else maintaining this stuff and not doing it myself. If that was the case, I would use a device just like this. But if I'm still playing around with the nuts and bolts of IT management in my company, then I'm probably going to revert to an open source tool again.

Firebox is 10 out of 10 at what it does. In terms of usefulness and reducing frustration, at my level, it's a three. It's not targeted for me, but it's good at what it does. Overall I would rate it at eight. I don't have a bad thing to say about the hardware and the software, for what it is. It's just frustrating for my particular use case.

I'm deploying the WatchGuard Firebox for many of my clients, and they all stay satisfied with the product. The primary reason as a common request from most of the users is to protect the environment from the outside network attacks. It is popular because of its security layers dependencies and its great performance.

The proxy policy and packet filtering templates make it very clear while I am configuring the Firebox for customers. Also, the variety of actions that are designed per kind of packet payload are dependent on the protocol's payload.

The Firebox is developing most of my client's infrastructures, starting from internet access and its amazing protocol-oriented proxy policies. It also has a deep understanding of the packets, meanwhile the most powerful HTTPS inspection features.

It is supported by the VPN, either Branch office or mobile users.

In addition to its impressive extraordinary DNS security, it has an access portal, which is a feature for publishing web applications, cloud applications, or even publishing internal RDP and SSH. 

https://www.watchguard.com/wgrd-resource-center/2019-nss-labs-ngfw-group-test

The traffic management feature is very flexible and it let you manage varieties of our customer's needs as it is working per policy, for all policies, and per IP address. You can apply it also per application or application category, all in the same proxy policy.

The differences between backup and restore and the configuration file allow us to perform a migration from one box to another in a single click.

The security that is used for defending from the attacks is very good. As an example, for the HTTP packet, you will find botnet protection, Reputation Enabled Defense "RED" and DNSWatch "the DNS security", in addition to the AV gateway. They are all working together to protect internet access.

I would like to see the number of management consoles reduced. As it is now, Firebox can be configured using the web UI, WatchGuard System Manager, Dimension server, and from the cloud. This should be done without affecting the way we deal with the configuration file, as it's one of the strongest points in making its implementation smooth and easy.

I would like to see the devices made more flexible by adding modules to increase the ports that we can use. As it's started from T80, the last edition of tabletop appliances, it should also be applied to all M series appliances.

As I work as a services provider, I have used many different solutions. I find WatchGuard Firebox provides very good value. as you find in the following points "Not everything":-

1. Configuration migration between boxes.

2. More flexible while applying traffic management.

3. Best performance.

4. Security layers and its dependencies.

5. Protocol oriented.

6. Rapid deploy feature that it let you make a total configuration remotely for a box on its default factory mode.

7. total protection for inbound and outbound traffic by applying the policies with a deep understanding of the traffic. 

8. The DNS security and how it stops the malicious DNS requests on the scale of network security and its endpoint for mobile users to apply the same while they are outside the environment.

9. SD-WAN feature and how it deals with lines quality by its Jitter, loss, and latency.

10. The exception for sites, ports, and IPs, it has a huge variety and you can do it at many levels. Before the policies starting already in the default threat protection, Or in the global settings but after the policies starting to scan then you can avoid all of that per policy per protection type which is meaning that you can expect something from geolocation or WebBlocker or APT Blocker, etc...

11. there are some other features in the box Access Portal, Application Control, APT Blocker, Botnet Detection, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Gateway AntiVirus, DNSWatch, Geolocation, IntelligentAV, Intrusion Prevention Service (IPS), Reputation Enabled Defense (RED), spamBlocker, Threat Detection and Response, and WebBlocker.

We have had some difficulty introducing the brand on the market because, in Angola, we have another brand with a more aggressive approach than WatchGuard. The end users prefer other brands like Sophos and Check Point over WatchGuard Firebox. We will soon be an expositor of WatchGuard Firebox. We have some customers that use Panda Security just for endpoints. We have some customers that use WatchGuard Firebox directly or indirectly.

WatchGuard Firebox is the most powerful firewall for Wi-Fi security.

The scalability of the solution needs improvement.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for more than one year.

WatchGuard Firebox is a stable solution.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten for stability.

At the moment we are providing support to five customers.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support team is very good. We have always received quick responses from the support team.

WatchGuard Firebox’s initial setup is very easy. The configuration is easy since the solution is user-friendly and has an intuitive platform and dashboard.

The solution is not expensive and customers pay for a yearly license.

We have a direct relationship with the master distributor of WatchGuard Firebox in Angola and Africa. WatchGuard Firebox is the only solution we work with for firewalls and cybersecurity.

When we start WatchGuard Firebox's deployment, we redirect it to the cloud.

Overall, I rate WatchGuard Firebox ten out of ten.

The WatchGuard Firebox is our version of a firewall. It has several use cases. 

WatchGuard Firebox's two-factor authentication feature is particularly useful and provides an added layer of protection. It's been a reliable and stable solution for us.

When working with WatchGuard, specifically in configuring Panda Security on the portal for the first time, it was challenging for me. Creating the partner center and setting up the account in Panda Security was not straightforward. Although working with the Panda Security part itself is easy, I faced difficulties in creating the partner center. So, maybe this could be an area of improvement. 

Another area of improvement is the license. The price could be cheaper. 

We currently use WatchGuard Firebox T20 model.

There are around 26 users using this solution. In terms of user capacity, the T20 model can support up to 20 users.

WatchGuard Firebox is easy to use and set up. I work with the solution every day, so I'm quite familiar with it. In my experience, setting up WatchGuard has been straightforward. It didn't require much effort. 

Although I have spoken to others who mentioned that implementing it for the first time can be challenging, I personally found it easy. I had no issues with the setup.

Whether it was deployed in the cloud or locally, it took a month. I maintain the solution and provide technical support. 

I recall when I bought the first Firebox; someone advised me to start by seeking assistance from the WatchGuard support center. I found all the necessary information to implement the solution. That's why I believe it was relatively easy for me to implement it the first time. However, I am aware that many people find it challenging to implement WatchGuard on their first attempt.

Currently, we use an internal lead to sell WatchGuard to our clients. So, the price varies. However, it's worth mentioning that our internal use of WatchGuard includes Panda Security as well.

We do pay for a license. It's a three-year license. It is an expensive solution. The price could be lower.

WatchGuard is not a widely known solution in my country. People here tend to use CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Palo Alto more. However, I believe WatchGuard is a good solution that more people should be aware of and consider. We are actively working to promote it in Angola. In fact, there might be more companies in our country that could benefit from using the WatchGuard solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

WatchGuard integrates with our firewall to provide threat detection and remediation. 

I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies.

WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port. 

I have used WatchGuard for about 10 years.

I rate WatchGuard nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate WatchGuard nine out of 10 for scalability. 

WatchGuard is easy to set up.

We have seen an ROI. 

The price is excellent. 

I rate WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response nine out of 10. I recommend it. 

The main use case is to avoid zero-trust attacks because, from Application Control, I can only run known applications. Every unknown application is placed on hold or blocked.

Zero-trust and threat-hunting services are most valuable.

It is easy to use, and with the features it has, you feel that you are being protected.

The time they take to classify an application once they find that it is unknown can be better.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

Their technical support is very good. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of the setup. The duration depends on the number of computers. For less than a hundred computers, it can take one or two days. We have one engineer for its deployment and maintenance.

Our clients have seen an ROI. Because of its ease of use, they don't have to invest a lot in human resources to maintain this solution.

Its cost is okay. It is not too expensive, not too low. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of pricing.

To those who are planning to use WatchGuard Application Control, I would say that you can use it with confidence.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.