Azure Firewall Reviews

The use cases are related to internet-based traffic restriction. Generally, when it comes to gaining access to web applications hosted on Azure from the outside world, and the traffic restriction between the internal supplements.

We're still looking into the features. I can't evaluate much of it right now because we're still exploring. The requirements that we are looking at on the firewalls have been met, and we have begun running the operations. We are also looking forward to the next level of firewall features.

It's auto-scalable, which is a great feature. It also meets industry-level standards and compliance requirements, which have been verified by our security team.

It supports native load balances, and routable can be easily configured, which is another added feature. When we look at any other firewalls, and they were difficult to configure, which came in handy with Azure Firewall.

Layer four security is to be expected. In contrast, with Azure Firewall, you can extend it to the other Wi-Fi layers.

I'm not sure if that is still supported because we haven't yet explored all of the features, but it was on our future roadmap to integrate all restriction traffic and anything with our ITSM tool, most likely ServiceNow. So that an auto ticket can be generated for the ingenious, remediation and fixing can be done. Any type of automation can come into play there as well. Those are on our to-do list. But we're still looking into it. It is yet to be discovered.

It would be much easier if the on-premises, firewall rules, had some kind of export-import possibility in place, which is not the case right now.

As I previously stated, the same integration, most likely ITSM tool integration, is one of those features we'd like to investigate to see if it exists or not, so we can have a more forward-thinking perspective on it.

We implemented Azure Firewall approximately three months ago. 

I have been working with Azure Firewall for two to three months.

I am working with the latest version.

The stability is excellent. As of now, we have not been faced with any issues, and we are keeping our fingers crossed that it remains that way.

It is auto-scalable and highly available.

The number of people using this solution in our organization is quite limited as it is restricted as of now. We currently have three people who are working with this solution.

We may get one or two people on board, but for the time being it is restricted because it is a security device and we don't want to expose much of the admin privileges to the users or administrators, which is why it is restricted.

We get enterprise support as well as Microsoft support with our premium version.

Technical support is also fine. It is sufficient in my opinion. We have a Microsoft solution architect aligned with us as well, and if any new services, or deployment, as well as configuration, are required, he comes into the picture and we can get support from him. Aside from that, we have technical support for case-by-case scenarios such as severity A, B, and C for Microsoft. So far Microsoft support has not been an issue. I have been working with Microsoft for the past 10 years, I don't see much of an issue from Microsoft on support, at least from my point of view.

We have Barracuda, FortiGate, and Check Point as well.

As a comparison, it would be difficult because it is managed by a completely different team from an on-premises perspective. Before deploying Azure, we were looking for what parameters actually made the point, The security team was able to identify that it was good enough for our security parameters to meet our company's requirements. This is why we are using it, and how we deployed the Azure Firewall, subject to security approvals.

The rest of the firewalls on-premises are managed by a different team.

The initial setup was pretty easy. 

In terms of configuration, we haven't faced much of an issue.

The deployment and configuration took two to three hours.

The maintenance parameter is supported by Microsoft. Being a cloud product is very simple in terms of maintenance; we don't need to worry about any kind of patching activity or anything else. On other products, we must check the vendor and follow the OEM recommendation. This is an area that Azure has simplified.

Microsoft assisted us during the deployment. We had a solution engineer from Microsoft.

The deployment was straightforward, on the other hand, from a configuration standpoint we had some help to avoid any issues or misconfiguration. A Firewall is something that is very important from a security point of view. You cannot have any loopholes on that parameter.

We purchased the premium version for our enterprise support and it was quite good.

There isn't much of a pricing licensing model in Azure. Azure Firewalls operate on a pay-as-you-go model, similar to cloud services. So far, the best estimate we've found for our enterprise solution is around 90,000 INR rupees in India. So that's what we discovered. And because we are using three different subscriptions and managing it from a hub network, we divide it and it comes to around 30,000 in INR fee subscription. That is a suite comparison that we have also done with regard to the licenses of other products. And we discovered that it is also comparable in terms of pricing.

When it comes to firewalls or any other type of security device, it is more of an analysis done by your security team to determine whether or not it meets your security requirements. If we are only talking about product and features, I would recommend it because from a cloud perspective, and specifically, if you are using Azure, it is quite easy from a manageability, operations, and configuration standpoint, with respect to the PaaS services.

Whereas if you deploy other vendors on Azure, managing the PaaS services would be difficult because Azure uses service tags, which you can simply configure in Azure Firewall for your PaaS services and other, even VMs. However, if you use other product vendors, there will be some kind of IP address restriction.

If you're in an Azure environment, I'd recommend Azure Firewalls. If it is any other type of environment, we will most likely have to reassess it.

As of now, it is pretty easy to rate it as nine. I won't rate it as 10 because we haven't searched much of the features. I would rate Azure Firewall a nine out of ten.

We are currently working with Microsoft, trying to develop a new solution which is based on VeloCloud. It's an SD-WAN solution. This product has not been launched in China yet and we still have some work to do. I'm the company owner and five of my team use Azure Firewall. It's a startup team and I work with Microsoft directly.  

The most valuable features of the product are its great security and connectivity. 

The interface could be improved, it's not very user friendly. They are now trying to compete with a new Chinese domestic public cloud provider which has more features. It's difficult to find the ports on the current interface, but it's easier with this new provider. 

We're looking to provide a better routing, or something like an SD-WAN solution that can improve the user experience. I think that's something Azure can do as an additional feature. There are five Azure clouds: Two belong to the US government and one is worldwide. Then there is Germany Azure and China Azure. China Azure is barely able to communicate with the rest of the world, and that connectivity issue needs to be looked at in detail and a solution found.

I've been using this product for three years. It's an online platform so you're always getting the latest version. 

It's a stable product. I've recently spent a lot of time on Palo Alto Firewalls and compared to that I would say that Azure Firewall is still a better firewall. They provide more and more features like SD-WAN or the cloud standard box feature.

I'm satisfied with the technical support overall. I generally chat with the Microsoft team on the phone. 

I'm still using Palo Alto, Cisco ASA, Fortinet, Check Point and Juniper. Basically I use all of them. For small businesses with one standard, though, I would recommend Azure Firewalls. It's quite simple and easy to implement the whole security policy. For medium and large enterprise companies, however, they already have their on-premise firewall devices implemented. Users are trying to centralize their firewall security management and they prefer it to using virtualized firewalls like Checkpoint Virtual Firewall or Fortinet Virtual Firewall. That way, they can leverage their user technology capability, and try using a single interface to manage those devices. 

From the virtual machine perspective, it's quite easy to set up. You can choose the image file from the public market, and then you can setup. However, the account, the Microsoft Azure identity, the whole creation process was very complex and it is not that user friendly. Users usually use their Azure ID, as well as sometimes providing the live ID. That's a second ID, and it confuses people.

The network firewall is a complex project, you have to review all the requirements. It's possible that sometimes the Azure Firewall won't be able to support some things because they customize their applications and they may not meet with the Azure Firewall's features. Each user has unique requirements on shaping or manipulating network traffic. I wouldn't recommend any product without doing the research.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.

We used Azure Firewall to secure our cloud layer and integrate our on-prem servers. We also used it to build the QDM level for integration. Azure Firewall offers multiple SKUs, including Standard and Premium. I have experience with the Standard SKU, but not the Premium one.

Overall, I had a good experience with Azure Firewall, but there are some downsides. 

FQDN integration, especially the ability to integrate with Azure Active Directory domain services.

Azure Firewall can integrate with Azure services to access application data. I've also integrated it with Azure Monitor.  

From an integration perspective, it's very helpful. We can monitor both network and cloud traffic, which is a definite plus.

There are some downsides. One is the lack of built-in VPN capability. You need a separate Azure VPN Gateway for that functionality. Many customers compare Azure Firewall to their existing on-premises firewalls, which often have VPN capabilities. 

Additionally, Azure Firewall has some limitations in terms of threat signature coverage. There is a separate service for threat signature tuning, but it's worth noting this potential downside.

I would appreciate it if Azure Firewall included built-in VPN capabilities. It would be beneficial if Azure Firewall could replicate features that are available in other firewalls.

I used it for one and a half years.  

I do have some experience with other Azure services, though I wouldn't consider myself an expert.

I haven't experienced any stability issues or downtimes.

I work with both SMBs and enterprises.

I haven't needed to contact Microsoft so far.

I work with clients from multiple sectors, including private and government. We gather their requirements and provide solutions tailored to their needs.

Sometimes, we have to choose between Azure Firewall and third-party firewall options on Azure.

I haven't worked with other cloud firewalls extensively, but Azure Firewall compares favorably in terms of features. People can compare it to platforms like AWS or GCP to see the feature differences.

It's straightforward. If you have experience with Azure, it's not complex at all.

The deployment time depends on the requirements. We can deploy the firewall itself in about half an hour to 20 minutes. The configuration time will vary based on the customer's specific needs. The provisioning process is quick because it integrates with multiple roles.

The configuration process is straightforward. There is nothing complex. 

It is affordable.

I would rate it an eight out of ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best.

I used it for two of my clients. One of the clients used it for Azure Virtual Desktop implementation and for blocking the internet for the other applications in the IaaS. The use case for the other clients was also similar. It was put in there for holding up traffic and filtering traffic.

It provided ease of maintenance. If a new firewall was needed, we only had to run the pipelines for this. So, the maintenance was very easy.

It reduced work by 30%. It saved maintenance and operational costs by 15%.

The HTTPS Inspection feature was useful where HTTPS traffic is scanned before it goes over the line.

Its interface is okay, and it is very adjustable. I like IP groups and other things that you can do with it.

Rules management could be better. You have all kinds of rules, and they can put something better in place there.

There should be better monitoring and logging. Currently, it is put in Sentinel. It should be more seamless and from the interface.

It has been about two years.

Its stability is very good.

It is scalable. It was used across multiple regions. One of them had about 3,000 users, and the other one had about 5,000 users.

Their technical support is good. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used a different solution. We had on-prem Palo Alto. 

I was involved in its setup. I deployed it with Bicep pipelines. The maintenance was also via pipelines. Its setup was straightforward, especially with Terraform and Bicep. It was done in 10 minutes to 15 minutes.

It is a one-man job, but that is not our advice. It is better to have three or four people who have knowledge of the firewall system. If you have only one person and that person is sick, then you have a problem. You block the internet, and sometimes, you have to open it. So, it is better to do it with a small team. If there are a lot of changes, two to three people should be fine.

In terms of maintenance, there is only the maintenance of new ports or IP addresses, but that's operational management. That's not firewall management as such.

Our clients have seen about 25% return on investment.

It is expensive, especially with the premium functions.

For one of the clients, it was very expensive. You have to use it more at an enterprise level, and there, it was not at an enterprise level. So, it was very costly, but security-wise, it was a very wise decision to use it that way. 

The solution of Palo Alto and the other one, whose name I don't remember, were IaaS-based, but we wanted a platform as a service, and Azure Firewall is that.

If you have an ecosystem based on, for instance, Palo Alto, it would be better to use a Palo Alto firewall because they have one way of working and one interface, but if you have a greenfield deployment or your on-prem is old or legacy, then I would advise going for Azure Firewall.

Its basic features were enough for us. The single sign-on experience was also okay. We had no problem with that. If required, we can use Privileged Identity Management or MFA. All these features are there within Azure.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's very simple. 

It is an easy product to maintain.

The solution is stable. 

An Azure firewall is not a real firewall. It has a lot of things to improve on. It should go and make a list of other firewalls and apply what they offer to its services. It requires features such as IDS, IPS, anti-virus, et cetera. The security protections on offer need to be better.

I've used the solution for quite some time. I would say it's been four to five years.

The solution is stable. In terms of stability and reliability, I don't see an issue. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product isn't scalable per se. They're used in very minimal and milder situations which do not challenge their bandwidth and processing capabilities.

I won't say I'm a hundred percent satisfied, however, since the product is in an evaluation state, there are these teething issues that will be there.

I have used solutions such as Fortinet. 

The implementation process is easy. It is not overly complex or difficult in terms of the setup process.

We are a customer and an end-user.

We look at the solution and assign it according to our client's needs. it's situational. 

Based on the actual firewall capabilities, I would say it's a five out of ten in terms of a rating.

I have deployed Azure Firewall for a couple of my clients. They primarily use it for protecting their workloads and limiting incoming connections.

I also have a subscription but I use it primarily for testing.

The most valuable feature is threat intelligence. It is based on filtering and can identify multiple threats. It can easily detect threats and I have customers that have experienced this.

The malware signatures are updated automatically, which is helpful for new customers.

Compared to FortiGate and Palo Alto, Azure Firewall is not very flexible. There are multiple options for VPNs and the other features, and most of my clients are implementing third-party products that they are getting from the marketplace and other vendors.

The reporting, logging, and monitoring features, as well as the flexibility of the policies, need to be improved.

The visibility is much less with Azure Firewall than it is with other products.

I have been working with Azure Firewall for two years.

This is a firewall that I implement for my SMB customers. For example, one of my recent deployments was to a user base of between 300 and 500 people. In fact, it was their DR site, so there was no regular user traffic. The real-time users enter that site typically for maintenance.

 My enterprise clients normally choose to implement SonicWall NSV.

I have not had the opportunity to fully test the scalability but I can't see any limitations to it at this time.

I have opened a couple of cases with Azure and the technical support was fine. There were no issues with it.

I have experience with several other firewalls including FortiGate and Palo Alto.

Another product that I have sold to my enterprise customers is SonicWall NSV.

Compared to other firewall products, the setup is complex. I have faced problems setting up the DNAT, and there are some issues with setting up the certificates. I have also had trouble with service tag issues.

The basic deployment takes one day or two days at the maximum. The fine-tuning, where we have to monitor and identify the proper traffic, takes place over two or three weeks. Fine-tuning is an extensive part of it. It is important that the configuration is set up correctly.

We deploy this solution for our customers but they are responsible for the fine-tuning to their environment. I deploy it for our clients but I have another colleague who does it, as well.

Overall, this is a good product and we will continue working with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Basically, our organization is using the solution to inspect the traffic. I'm using the solution as the main defense system prior to de-traffication on the NGX layer (layer seven). Then, of course, we're forwarding to the Kubernetes cluster.

The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses. 

The solution doesn't offer the same capabilities of Fortinet. It should offer intrusion prevention and advance filtering. These are two very useful features offered on Fortinet that Azure lacks.

There's already a web application firewall for detection, however, it isn't as useful as it could be. They should work to improve it.

In terms of prevention, I don't think it's any better than just a regular firewall. They need to add more security features to make it more powerful and more secure.

I've been using the solution for six months so far. It hasn't been too long.

The stability of the solution is excellent. It hasn't failed. There are no bugs, glitches, or crashes. It's reliable.

Azure uses an on-premises environment. I wouldn't use it for scalability purposes. In terms of scalability, our organization is much more inclined towards Fortinet's Fortigate virtual appliance rather than the Azure Firewall.

We provide services to our clients and help them maintain the product.

However, we have contacted technical support several times. We've submitted tickets and dealt with technical support directly. Occasionally, it takes a long period of time for them to get back to us. It does depend on the severity of the issues. In terms of feedback and output they've provided us, we have been very satisfied. They can just be a little slow.

We use both Azure Firewall and Fortinet solutions, including Fortigate. I personally find that Azure doesn't offer the same capabilities. Fortinet is better.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing, however, I do believe it is less expensive than Fortigate.

For Fortinet, we pay around $5,000 per year. It offers more, however. It, for example, also improves the intrusion detection system. We bought a Fortinet appliance two years ago and Azure Firewall didn't exist at the time.

We're Azure partners and have an enterprise agreement with the company, however, we may be switching. We also have a dedicated Account Manager with the company.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's missing a few capabilities our organization would really like to see.

We are a technical services company and we are in the data center space. We provide different solutions, including firewalls such as Azure Firewall, to our clients depending on their needs.

We have a large customer base that is global in scope and we provide hosting services as well as managed services. We have solutions deployed in both public cloud and private cloud environments. 

We typically use this solution in the perimeter layer, although we do have some use cases where we handle East-west traffic.

The Layer four features are okay and meet my business needs.

Security is playing a vital role these days, and the layer seven features such as IPS and malware protection are helpful in that regard.

The interface is fair and has not given us any challenges.

This solution is not mature when it comes to handling perimeter traffic like internet browsing. It is lacking in some of the security features. Palo Alto and Fortinet are better for this.

In the next release, I would like to see the inclusion of more next-generation firewall features.

So far, we have not seen any problems with stability.

We are currently exploring the scalability and availability. It has a number of extensions available to increase the bandwidth, throughput, scale-up, and scale-out points.

We have not been in contact with technical support.

We have experience with Palo Alto, Check Point, FortiGate, and Cisco firewalls. Azure Firewall is more scalable than these other solutions.

There are no big challenges when it comes to implementing this solution.

It takes approximately two hours to deploy.

We have a lot of resources in this space, so we take care of the implementation and deployment on our own.

This is a solution that I recommend for internet-facing network traffic.

When it comes to rating this solution, there are two components here. For layer four traffic, I would rate it an eight out of ten. For layer seven traffic, however, I would rate it less.

Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.