WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

The big issue with data-loss protection is the end-to-end encryption between the user and whatever site they're connecting to. And that diminishes the effectiveness of the data loss protection because it can't inspect all of the data contents. Formatting is still reliant on numbers, letters, and sequences recognizable as credit cards, driver's license birthdays, etc. There's a lot of other sensitive material that could be at a client site, for example, that doesn't have a known methodology. It can be challenging to set it up to recognize instances of information unique to an environment. Unfortunately, it's even the case with a company like Microsoft. I would compare it to the data loss protection within Office 365 and say that it has the same inherent problems that you see with any encrypted email.

WatchGuard Data Loss Prevention catches so little. When I've implemented it, it just can't look at the traffic in a thorough enough manner to capture as much as it should. And I find that I'm disenchanted with all data loss protection solutions I've tested and looked at. WatchGuard certainly is not any better or worse than the others. It's just not a technology I have much faith in. 

You can get awfully granular in the setup, but it reminds me of antivirus software. True antivirus software catches very little. It's rare that antivirus software identifies a true virus. Everything's becoming more complicated, so now you need to look at detection and correlated threat response systems that are more effective than traditional antivirus. Data loss protection, I'm afraid, is kind of in that space.

We've used Watchguard Data Loss Prevention off and on for several years depending on the client's needs.  

Overall, I have utilized WatchGuard solutions for at least 20 years. I have been with them as they switched from private to public ownership and back again. So I've been a pretty faithful user for an excessive amount of time.

I find that their tech support is excellent. And as a reseller, my relationship with my point of contact is also strong. WatchGuard does a good job of maintaining that. So even if you are not getting the best response from support, you have a method to escalate it. I have so few incidents where I need to reach out to support. My most recent incident was handled very quickly, but with my experience, I don't have to call them often. At most, I maybe contact them once or twice a year. I have a lot of WatchGuard devices in service with my clientele.

It's a very simple setup.

I've never licensed it as a separate solution. It's always included in the licensing that would be appropriate for a medical facility, so I've never purchased DLP as an add-on to their basic licensing. I wouldn't say that I can give you a straight answer. It's never even come up in conversation to license it as a standalone solution.

I would rate WatchGuard five out of 10, but all of the data loss protection solutions I've looked at would be in that five range. I haven't found one that I would put much faith in.

Honestly, I think that data loss protection is just part of a whole configuration. Let's say you need granular control, reporting, and things of that nature. In that case, you need to do an extensive job configuring the firewall. It's probably insufficient to run the quick setup wizard and say that's good enough. So if you're looking to implement a feature like data loss protection, you probably need to have a relatively advanced technical person doing that configuration. So it's not difficult. But conceptually, to be effective, you need to have an excellent understanding of firewalls and firewall methodology.

We are using it for firewalling and providing wireless network connectivity for access points. It is a standard product for our infrastructure. 

We can implement it very easily. There are some standards that we can explain to our colleagues. It is easy to maintain the same type of installation at various customer locations. It is easy to pass on the information to our team about how to implement it in the same way.

The ease of use is most valuable. You can quickly train someone who hasn't seen a firewall in life. You can get people up to speed, and in a few months, they are able to manage this product very easily. It is a very user-friendly, scalable, and stable product. Its price is also spot-on.

Its documentation could be improved. Sometimes, you need to search a bit longer to find what you are looking for.

I have been using this solution since 2014.

It is a very stable product. Usually, we have several years of uptime on WatchGuard Fireboxes. They can run for very long without any issues.

It is very scalable. We have several customers with several sites, and we can easily extend the network by using Fireboxes at several sites with site-to-site tunnels. If you use the WatchGuard system management software, you can even drag two Fireboxes together, and they automatically make their own tunnel. You don't even have to perform any additional tasks. It is very user-friendly in terms of scalability.

We get good support. It can take a bit longer only in the case of a specific problem that even they are not aware of, but that's the case with many of their competitors. In general, their support is very good.

It is fairly easy to deploy. You can also deploy it remotely. It provides a very easy and out-of-the-box experience.

It has a very good price. It is not the most expensive one, and it is also not the cheapest one. It is just spot-on in terms of price.

We evaluated Fortinet and Cisco. We chose WatchGuard because we wanted our engineers to be able to learn and work with the product in a very short amount of time.

When comparing Fortinet and WatchGuard, in the past, Fortinet was before WatchGuard in providing the features for directly resolving DNS names and hostnames and making additions to the rules. A few months later, WatchGuard also implemented these features. Nowadays, it goes both ways.

I would advise others to definitely take the WatchGuard Essential Security training course, which is a four-day or three-day course. It really gives a broad overview of the product. You get a good, basic, and overall feeling of the product. You can take it in groups. We normally go with four to five engineers of our company. Most of the time, after that course, you can implement the basic product and even scale it out to many more locations without requiring additional training.

I would rate WatchGuard Firebox a nine out of ten. I am pretty satisfied with this solution.

We provide the solution to our customers. It's primarily used for security.

The reporting aspect of the solution is what is most valuable to us.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The product has been very easy to use.

We've found the stability to be very good.

The scalability is excellent.

The pricing of the product is reasonable.

We've been in touch with technical support and found them to be very helpful.

There are many fantastic features.

Often, customers don't end up using a lot of the features.

They should move more towards integration with other OEMs such as web application firewalls, et cetera. There should be better integration and a way to configure multiple vendors into the same data center in order to offer more flexibility. 

We've been working with the solution for about seven to eight years at this point. It's been a while. 

The stability of the solution is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite reliable in terms of performance.

We've found the scalability to be very good. There are no limitations. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

We've contacted technical support in the past. We've found them to be very good. They are helpful and responsive. I would say that we are quite satisfied with the level of support we've received.

The pricing of the product is pretty good. I would describe it as fair. It's not overly expensive.

One of our customers wanted us to compare this solution against Azure Firewall to see which would be better. We're still looking into that.

We are resellers.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's a pretty fantastic solution overall.

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.

We basically use this solution to filter traffic so that the network can be secured and no one can hack the network. We are using WatchGuard as a gateway security product. It is installed on the gateway to filter the traffic for our network, stop access to malicious websites, and protect our interwork network from any kind of hack attempt from outside.

We are also using the VPN feature. The traffic is encrypted via a VPN, and no one can hack it. We are using the latest version of this solution.

The VPN and the filtering features are the most valuable. Its VPN is very strong, and its services are very nice.

The main problem in India is the service. There are not enough Check Point and Fortinet Firewall services, but for this product, the service is very good.

Its graphical user interface could be improved because not everybody is technical. There is a lack of knowledge, and they can give some training for this solution.

I have been using this solution for three months.

It is 100% stable. Our technical team had tested this product before buying it.

We have approximately 500 to 700 users who are using this solution in our company.

I haven't used their support.

It is easy to install. If we have all the required information about static IP, private and personal IPs, and network series, it takes just 10 to 15 minutes to install.

We have seven technical guys for its deployment and maintenance. 

It is not expensive. Other products like Fortinet and Check Point are of the same price.

I would 100% recommend this solution to others. We plan to keep using this solution in the future.

I would rate WatchGuard Intrusion Prevention Service a seven out of ten.

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 are using WatchGuard Firebox for defense of our internal infrastructure.

I wouldn't say that Firebox has improved the way our organization functions, but rather that it protects our organization.

The solution identifies attacks on our services and, as a result, directs our attention precisely to the cause of the problem. As we are not actively watching the traffic ourselves and we completely rely on Firebox to alert us instead, the solution saves us about 30 hours per week.

The most valuable features are WatchGuard’s antivirus, traffic protection, and ease of configuration. I also appreciate their traffic analytics. 

After conducting several tests I found the antivirus is working very well. Additionally, they have a very interesting feature, DNS WatchGuard, which is checking DNS requests for phishing, among other things, and it has caught a lot of unwanted attempts and attacks.

Regarding the management features, the interface is user-friendly, and the instructions are well documented. There is a fast learning curve and everything is intuitive and understandable.

It also provides us with layered security. Firebox protects our traffic, as we have numerous Web Services that are external and which are a priority for us to defend. We don't use the rest as much.

I haven’t dug deeply into the reporting features yet or if they are working well. However, I have generated several reports and there was too much unnecessary information, in comparison with the reporting features in the Sophos firewall. Sophos' reporting is more readable and easier to configure. Having said that, reporting features were not very important for us when selecting a solution. What was important were other types of functionality that WatchGuard Firebox was able to meet.

In addition to the reporting features, I would suggest they work on an SSL VPN gateway.

We have been working with WatchGuard Firebox for about one year. Initially we got an M200 model and then switched to an M470 in a cluster.

In terms of the stability, everything is perfect. We haven’t experienced any issues.

The solution scales intuitively and quickly with any internet, meaning the solution’s protocols support any internet configuration. The connectivity scales in any location.

We could scale it to several companies with up to 100 employees and up to 1 Gb of traffic.

I would rate WatchGuard's tech support at the highest mark of five out of five. I was very pleased with them. We were working with them on the software licensing and opened some tickets related to technical issues. In both cases, they resolved the issues promptly and without unnecessary back-and-forth, unlike when working with the support teams of other vendors.

Before Firebox we used a Sophos firewall. We switched because the WatchGuard firewall offers a broad set of features and parameters that were lacking in the Sophos firewall. Additionally, the WatchGuard solution was cheaper.

WatchGuard has a comprehensive antivirus system included in the firewall and that was important for us. Sophos’ antivirus features were weak, in comparison.

The initial setup was medium in terms of the difficulty of some aspects, such as initially understanding the logic of their security policies. It took several hours to acquaint myself and to fully understand things. The whole deployment took about three days.

We initially had an implementation strategy, but it was adapted according to the recommendations and specifications of WatchGuard.

In terms of the technical aspects, I am the only who works with this solution in our organization.

Initially, we purchased the Firebox just for us but, as of today, we have deployed it to two or three other companies. The client sent us project specs with necessary internet configurations for each device, as well as the physical locations. We replicated their infrastructure in our test environment, configured each device according to their specs, and shipped the device to them. The client then connected the device with a cable to the ports outlined in our instructions and everything worked the first time.

During the deployment we worked closely with WatchGuard’s tech support team and they were very speedy in their responses to us.

The price of the solution corresponds to the quality and the feature set offered. There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

Before selecting WatchGuard Firebox, we evaluated the Cisco FirePOWER firewall and, in comparison, Firebox is much easier to use.

Also, WatchGuard’s solution, in terms of the cost-per-value ratio, is very balanced.

My advice would be to try this product.

As for the throughput, at this point it is hard for us to evaluate it because we don’t have heavy traffic, or at least we do not experience the traffic throughput specified for this model. Our inbound and outbound traffic is 1 Gb and the M470 handles it very well, not even stressing its components.

When it comes to the solution’s Cloud Visibility feature, they need to improve on the reporting. But in terms of the logs, it gives us very good visibility.

Overall, I would rate the solution a strong eight out of 10.