Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Reviews

We have Cortex XDR on our endpoints, and we have managed threat hunting. We are using it for everything related to security. If we have a device we believe is compromised, we can do a scan of the device to check for malware. We look for indicators of compromise in our network. We also look for behavioral things, such as if people are, for some reason, sending a bunch of information out. We also monitor USB file copies to make sure sensitive data isn't leaving our systems. It is also for any kind of denial of service attack.

We are using its latest version. It is deployed on-prem. We have agent software on all our endpoints, and then we have on-prem devices managed through Panorama.

It has quite a bit of functionality. So, if anything weird happens on our network, Cortex normally lets us know.

Their XDR agent and their behavioral indicators of compromise (BIOC) are pretty nice. Their managed threat hunting is also pretty nice. They also have WildFire, which is a service for actively looking for malware. It's quite useful.

They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating.

I have been using this solution for about a year.

It's incredibly stable. It's Palo Alto; it's top of the line.

It's enterprise-grade. They cover everybody from the federal government to large corporations. We're probably a pretty small network for them. We have about 2,000 endpoints.

I have used their support. I would rate them a four out of five.

Positive

We used to have Check Point. We switched because there were a lot of added features with Palo Alto that Check Point didn't have. It was an upgrade for us.

It is incredibly complex. It has a lot of parts. Its implementation took six months.

We worked with Palo Alto directly to look at our old firewalls and translate their configuration to Palo Alto.

There are three of us for deployment and maintenance.

It's way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff.

You get out what you put in. So, the more you work with it, customize it, monitor it, and manage it, the more you'll get out of it.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. There are some bug updates that they were having issues with. Everything else has been pretty great. There is a lot more visibility than I expected.

This product is part of a package that makes up our security solution.

The interface is easy to use and it is more up to date than our previous solution.

Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want.

We have been using this product for about four months.

We think that this product will help us grow. We think that it meets our needs currently, and we can grow with it over time. There 12 people in the IT department who currently manage it. 

The support is excellent. We had a couple of issues that we had to call for and I would say that they are highly rated.

Our older solution was from Fortinet. It was out of date and more difficult to use. The IT staff say that the Palo Alto product is better.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We worked with a reseller. They came in, we told them what we wanted to do and they set it up to our spec. The person who came in and helped support us was highly skilled and it worked seamlessly.

We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Trend Micro, and we opted for the Palo Alto Cortex XDR.

I don't use this product on a daily basis but we like what we have so far and I would definitely recommend it to other users.

My advice is to make sure that you have a good implementor and that the reseller you're purchasing from gives you a highly-qualified engineer.

Overall, we are happy with this product but that said, nothing does everything that you want.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks Traps (Version 6) to protect our endpoints against NG malware via behavior analysis, artificial intelligence and machine learning. Both the PA Traps endpoint logs, our PA firewall traffic logs and the Wildfire sandbox are used to provide immediate threat response and feed this information to the PA Threat Intelligence cloud.

Palo Alto Networks Traps improves our security posture and lowers risk by providing next-gen methods to combat against modern threats on all the major platforms.

The one feature that our organization finds most valuable is being able to control the USB ports on the endpoints

The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version. I need to control USB ports on MAC laptops and cannot. This is a MUST so I opened a case with Palo Alto and requested this feature for an upcoming update.

I would like to see more automation and self-healing for incidents that can be easily classified as malware.

No issues

Palo Alto Networks Traps features excellent protection, cost and scalability. We are a small group of 4 employees and have 2 people dedicated to deployment and monitoring of 1400+ endpoints.

Palo Alto Network's technical support is excellent. 

Since we were a Fortinet shop, we previously used the FortiClient endpoint agent. We switched to Palo alto FWs and endpoint protection because it is a more mature product with advanced next-gen capabilities not available from the Fortinet solution.

The initial setup was done by a Palo Alto certified service provider.

This product pays for itself with only one ransomware denial!

Our license runs on a monthly basis with a recurring monthly charge. If you want additional options like secure remote access with policies, that requires an additional cost. 

Palo Alto Networks Traps does not apply secure remote access to devices without policies, which we are implementing. If you want to apply more policies, like an anti-virus program, anti-malware, or configurations for using a VPN on remote connections, that would also be an additional cost. We're not doing that.

Cylance, Carbon Black, Crowdstrike, Microsoft Windows Defender ATP, Sophos, SentinelONE

On a scale from 1-10, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Traps with an eight. It is great, but I have some issues with the cost of the product license.

As with any advanced malware protection tool, it's really about the results and getting the security you need. We are end users and I'm a cybersecurity incident response analyst.

I like that the product has behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection. When it comes to zero day attacks and targeted attacks, signature detection is not able to detect problems. Behavior-based detection is able to detect attacks tailored specifically for your environment, or malware that doesn't yet have a known malicious signature. It's the nature of how the data is processed that makes the tool really powerful. 

The downside to the solution is that there are a large number of false positives. There are a whole lot of different things for business automated actions, and it's hard to sort through all that. Without some assistance and suppression of false positives from Palo Alto or some event triaging that you might have enabled on your SIEM, you'll continue to get the high number of false positives. It's related more to the lack of capability to easily identify and suppress false positives before they're presented to you. There needs to be a function for suppressing false positives for types of machines and not necessarily for the actual groups.

I've used this solution for close to six months while we were evaluating it. 

Since Palo Alto was giving us the proof of concept, we had direct access to them.

It takes quite a few people to set it up. I would say the biggest difference between Palo Alto XDR and something like Cisco AMP outside of the actual detection is going to be the ease of implementation. Cisco AMP only requires one person to go through all the groups and configure policies. With XDR you define groups based on types of machines and commonalities in the machines. It's not like you just send a connector to machines and they're part of that group in that policy. It means there is a whole lot more to configure on XDR.

The same things apply to anyone looking to implement any form of anti-malware agent. You really want to take the time to make sure your environment is organized and configured the way that you want it to be, because once you start getting empty policies and machines in run groups, you run into a pretty big mess. Another thing would be documentation. If you're adding suppressions or custom detections or your AOCs, keep a document which logs all the changes, because people come and go, and handing down an anti-malware tool to somebody that doesn't know how or why it was configured a certain way, could make things difficult.

It would be a tremendous amount of work for us to implement Networks in a company our size. We have a whole bunch of projects going on right now that are pretty important and since we already have that advanced malware protection tool and AMP, which we think is good, we don't necessarily think Networks is as powerful at detection. On other projects, if we were going to go ahead and turn around and move forward with Palo Alto, it would mean taking a step backwards and reimplementing an anti-malware agent that we already have. That said, my impression is that it's a really good tool and you can get a lot out of it. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We used it for malware detection and to detect weird DNS calls. Overall, it was for endpoint protection.

Many people here are surfing the web on Russian sites, Korean sites, Chinese sites, etc., and by definition, they download things that are not very nice. Whenever there was something fishy, most of the anti-virus solutions just wouldn't see it. We needed endpoint protection that would detect as soon as some code started doing funny things. Traps was very good at that.

The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical.

There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, was not user-friendly.

The stability was quite good. We never had any issue with it at all.

We had no issue with scalability. We deployed to 220 machines in one go with no problem. We had 130 users. Some people were using many machines. The users were mostly analysts. Ten to 20 of the users were IT people and the rest were doing analysis work on satellites. It was being used extensively, 100 percent in our case. Even the serves had it running. Everybody had Traps installed.

The technical support from the consultant was very good. I don't remember having to talk to Palo Alto directly. I had an issue, but I talked to the consultant and then he escalated it.

Before Traps we had no endpoint protection.

The setup was not very intuitive to start with, but after you've done it once, it's really straightforward.

The first time I set it up, for one machine, it took about 15 minutes until I understood what was going on, starting from the ESM and using the deployment tool. But as soon as you've done it once, and you understand the ergonomics behind it, it goes fast.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we started with a limited number of machines and the machines of people from IT, who we knew would surf to weird places. Then we deployed a small sample to the people who go to China and Russia and places like that. After a while, while, we decided to go all the way and we used the ESM to deploy it on every machine.

The process from the planning phase until it was fully implemented took about three or four months.

For the first installation we had a consultant, a Palo Alto dealer, consultant, and solution provider here in Madrid - Open3S. They're very good. Our experience with them was very positive. They're really competent. They really know what they're talking about. We were very happy with them.

The deployment required one or two people. Some days two people came, but normally, with one guy, it was okay.

It was more like insurance. You hope you're never going to use it, but you have it. It gave us some confidence in what people were doing because we know people were going to weird places on the web. With Traps, we were quite confident that if something wrong happened it would be detected and intercepted and deleted before it was spread around.

When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward.

We didn't evaluate any other options because we had Palo Alto as firewalls and we were quite satisfied with Palo Alto. So the consultant took the initiative to do a demo and we liked it. Due to the type of business we are in, it's very useful.

Make sure you have a proper inventory of all the applications running. That's something we should have done to start with. We intended to do so but because we're using very strange applications to deal with satellite imagery, and it was giving us some issues. For somebody who's using the standard Microsoft Office, it's really straightforward. But if you have exotic applications, then make sure you test it before you deploy it. You will have issues.

To maintain it, the only thing you have to do is download the latest updates and install them. After that, the only maintenance you need is checking the logs every day to see what has been sent to the cloud for sandboxing and then move to the culprit machine to see what happened. It's difficult to say how many people are required for this. As soon as you get something exotic on the machine, this can take an hour, but that's not related to Traps. Traps is just telling you there's something exotic. After that, it's the time you spend doing all the malware and other analyses. As far as Traps is concerned as such, it doesn't require much maintenance. It's something you set and forget.

I would give Traps a nine out of ten. I think it's a very good application. It detected stuff that other things wouldn't detect. I'm very positive about it and was extremely satisfied with it. We had it for the reason I noted earlier. It has been replaced by something else, but I had a very good experience with it. Had we been in a Microsoft Office business - the normal applications - we never would have moved. But the people in charge of the system went to Microsoft Defender.

It's mainly for protection against malware. We work very closely with a major partner of Palo Alto in the Czech Republic, and we have experience with the whole XDR solution. It's very useful for us and a very capable solution.

Clients have a big problem with phishing campaigns and phishing attacks. Cortex XDR provides some level of protection against malware spreading in the network with a wrong click of users.

Cortex XDR is a very capable solution for protecting large networks and a lot of endpoints. It's very useful because the automation is very high, and if you combine it with the features on Palo Alto firewalls, it provides very strong protection.

Its price is too high. That's a big problem for customers.

It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system.

In terms of additional features, there is very strong development. I have seen the roadmap, and we will see what happens. The roadmap looks nice, but it's still more of a network security solution than a content-security solution. The development in network security is quite strong. I'm very happy with that, but if a customer would like to implement a zero-trust security concept, it's necessary to combine this solution with other vendors. There is some part of the integration that is not so easy because you have to integrate rules and some features. It's not so automatic in network communication. You have to make some appropriate automation there, or you have to do it manually. It's time-consuming and it's also expensive.

I have been using it from the beginning. It has been more than six years.

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

It's a very scalable solution. If you compare it with a SIEM solution from Palo Alto, it's very powerful. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. It's definitely for enterprises.

Their technical support is not bad, but sometimes, when we have some issues, the support teams from Europe or Central Europe are not able to help us. We have to escalate the issue somewhere else, such as to the US. They have a very strong support team there, but it's time-consuming. Sometimes, it takes them days or weeks to solve some tricky problems, but their support for standard issues is okay. There is a very good response, but for a technical issue, it's sometimes more difficult. I would rate their support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I also worked a little bit with SentinelOne. Cortex XDR is very similar to the SentinelOne solution from the features point of view. It's a little bit different technology, but both solutions are very capable.

It's somewhere in the middle. It's not for beginners, but if you know what to do, it's quite easy.

It's a cloud-based solution, which sometimes is an issue for customers. In the past, it was on-prem, but Palo Alto decided to change the policy and everything is cloud-based or located in the cloud. It's not a security problem from my point of view, but a few customers feel uncomfortable with sending data to the cloud and back.

Very often, it's an in-house implementation.

It's the most expensive solution, but features-wise, it's quite strong. It's very good for protection, so the results are very good in the case of protection. I would rate it a two out of ten in terms of pricing.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I am an integrator. I deploy and implement solutions for our customers.

It is a simple platform to use.

The dashboard is good, it's very clean and very simple to read. The information the dashboard provides is very clear.

This solution is not complete enough to help us. We use a different platform that provides us with more information.

In my opinion, it is not a very complete program. I prefer to work with Carbon Black. It's a better solution as well as Cynet. For example, I use Cynet when I check installations, which provides me with more information. It is not easy to use for beginners, but it provides me with more information, which is lacking in Cortex. When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information. Cynet is a complete platform in my opinion.

We are ready to use a new solution called Deep Instinct. It's a new concept of the security platform. It's a very new company from the USA.

I would like to see a feature that allows you to check the endpoints included. I am currently having trouble checking the endpoints when using Cortex. Including this feature would benefit the platform's endpoints.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is absolutely stable.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a scalable platform.

I am currently using QRadar in more than one enterprise, as well as Cynet, and Darktrace. We also use all of the Microsoft platforms with QRadar.

I have a team working on this solution. So I assisted a customer in deploying and implementing this solution. My colleague and I have formed a team. I am a SOC manager, my new role is that of a SOC manager. I don't use it directly, but I try to assist my colleague in working with more enterprises or customers. We have, I believe, five or six different IBM QRadar platforms.

We use several solutions and they are all good, but each one is different.

Cynet is a good platform, but helpful for my team because it is not simple to understand.

I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a seven out of ten.

I primarily use Cortex XDR for endpoint security.

PALO ALTO CORTEX XDR brings visibility of all activity going in end point system and server. This helps us to investigate and take corrective action by blocking and allowing necessary services in the system. 

Alerts regarding the incidence happening in system and easy to block and allow the services and external device control.

An area for improvement is the remote connection for administrators - this is available in the current version but is limited as it's a command-based model rather than GUI-based.

I have been using Cortex XDR for around four months.

Cortex XDR is stable.

The product is really easy to scale.

Good support and services

Positive

Previously, I used McAfee Antivirus, Memory utilization very high which doesn't yet have virtualization or a dashboard. I found that product to be a little difficult, and it was not linked to a real solution, so I decided to go with Cortex XDR as it's one of the best XDR solutions for security.

The initial setup is a little complex because it requires a lot of preparation in terms of understanding each system and going through the documentation and dashboards.

I implemented with the help of one partner who did the basic configuration of our firewall. Deployment took approximately ten days.

Security of systems

This is a very costly product.

We have evaluated Cynet, Crowed Strike and Sentinel.

Cortex is the best solution for avoiding security breaches, malware attacks, and other kinds of security issues. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.