Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

We had planned on using this product as our multi-tenant firewall. After one year, we stopped using it because there was a problem with supporting some of the protocols.

The most valuable feature is the console management. It is very good and the security was great.

The interface is not user-friendly.

We were told that we would receive training but it came late and we had already started to deal with the product, which ultimately caused problems because we did it incorrectly. If the vendor focused more heavily on training as opposed to implementation then it would be a big improvement.

The UTM features are missing.

Application filtering is supported at a high level, but not at a low level. If I want to allow access to Facebook, yet not allow the user to access videos, then I am not able to do it with this product. Essentially, I'm allowed to block but I'm not allowed to limit. With other vendors, I can impose limits.

They need to add support for the Routing Information Protocol, RIP.

There is no support for the Built.io NIC driver.

I had been working with the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for about one year.

We had Forcepoint NGFW running on a virtual machine and it was very stable.

From the design that we took, it had the ability to scale up to 250 clients. That was good for what we needed but we failed with the first customer and could not complete the implementation for the second one.

In our environment, we had ten users.

We contacted technical support but it was not the typical support situation where we opened a ticket and they responded. We were in contact with them directly. Because it was irregular, I cannot judge how good or bad the support would normally be.

We are currently using three other vendors including Check Point, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. These have always been there but we were hoping to add Forcepoint as another option.

The initial setup is complicated and difficult to do.

By comparison, we have a very large number of products implemented in our environment and we can deploy most of them ourselves.

The deployment took almost seven months and ultimately, we failed. During our work on the deployment, we had two people handling the maintenance.

We received assistance directly from the vendor. There were several people who took part in the implementation including five from our side, one from the vendor, and two from the distributor. The help that we received from them was awesome.

The distributor knows the product more from a theoretical point of view. When it comes to the hands-on experience, they know the basics. When the person from the vendor came, they knew more about the product but had no experience with the multi-tenant aspect. So, for the part that we needed, they were failing. We spent a lot of time and received help from different people, and it was still a failure in the end. We disposed of the product.

We paid for a subscription license, vendor support, and the training.

We are a large service provider and we are always looking for new solutions. We had evaluated solutions by Sophos and SonicWall, although we decided that we were going to try Forcepoint.

We would not say No to another try with Forcepoint if, for example, they come back to us with a new version in another year. It would have to have documentation to show that what we want to do is now supported.

We tried a few implementations and we did not have very much success because the interface is not user-friendly and the product is complicated. If we had the training on time then it may have been easy but that wasn't the case.

The biggest lesson that I learned from using this solution is that you can't trust what people tell you. When they say that they will take care of things and support it, that is not included.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that the training is completed first, ahead of trying to implement it.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

I use the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall in my company for the protection of the Layer-2 networking area, which consists of Wi-Fi connections used in the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of the solution I like stems from the fact that the installation and configuration can be done locally. It is also easy to set up security capabilities. Forcepoint acts as a multi-service provider.

The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have experience with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

There is a need to make payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. The product is not expensive.

The tool's SD-WAN capabilities are supported by the tool.

It is a nice product to use. The product can be used in the data center as a firewall.

The product does provide reporting and visibility features. There are many features provided by the product, especially the area of availability.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Forcepoint is a next-generation firewall, we are using it as a firewall for one of our customers, which includes one data center and 95 branches. Using the SD-WAN feature on Forcepoint NGFW, we provide a secure connection from all the branches to the data center.

We like the scalability of Forcepoint because, with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. The solution has central management, so we can manage all the branches and devices centrally in one controller. This also allows the customer to manage the solution centrally.

Forcepoint comes with the SD-WAN feature, which connects all the branches and devices to the data center with a central connection. We bypass using a VPN or IPsec or anything like that because Forcepoint can do it automatically. Also, one of the controller benefits is that it can monitor the tech, meaning all the devices that are managed by Forcepoint.

I think some of the customers who already use Forcepoint will benefit from using SD-WAN because it has features like auto-scaling, but I think the auto-scaling needs improvement since only Forcepoint NGFW comes with the SD-WAN solution. Plus, auto-scaling is an important tool and it still may not be good enough for some customers, so I think there is room for more improvement in the auto-scaling feature in SD-WAN.

We have also gotten a slow response from technical support when we experienced hiccups, errors, and bugs. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the support capabilities.

My company has been using the solution for about one year.

For a simple deployment with simple requirements, like firewall blocking and connecting to the LAN or data center, the stability of the device is quite good. However, when it comes to a complex deployment, the rules, firewall features, SD-WAN core features, and auto-scaling can cause the device to be not quite stable.

We like the scalability of Forcepoint because with the Forcepoint NGFW solution, we can scale anything. However, I think there is room for more improvement in the auto-scaling feature in SD-WAN.

I think their support capabilities have a lot of room for improvement because my company has had several issues. Of course, other products have issues too, but they have good support that helps us deliver a solution to the customer. With Forcepoint, however, the technical support is slow and I think the support team needs to be improved.

The installation is quite simple, but when it comes to configuration we need to know why the customer is implementing the solution. Firewalling or connecting other branches is a simple configuration but with something like auto-scaling or antivirus, Forcepoint needs to be more straightforward.

I think we deployed a data center in a half-day, so you can deploy the controller or the data center in about a day. The time it takes to activate and configure each branch varies, and may range from 15-40 minutes. Once we activate the solution and set it up for the customer, they connect it to the internet with our password and can begin working. Overall, I think one week is more than enough time for a thorough deployment.

There are some options for licensing. I think usually the licenses are valid for three years, but in my country we only have the option of a one-year license. The license is gauged on the requirements and the controller. There is a basic license and an advanced license, which offers more protection for antiviruses, like web category filtering.

I think Forcepoint is a good simple solution for firewalling. Because of the instability we faced within our project, which I think can be common with Forcepoint, I would only recommend this solution for a retail business with minimal, non-complex requirements. If you need more SD-WAN features, like auto-scaling, I don't think I would recommend Forcepoint. 

I would rate this solution as a five out of ten.

Our use cases involve deploying the Forcepoint solution, which includes installing the SMC server, management server, log server, as well as physical appliances and designing the clustering of Forcepoint.

Forcepoint is a good solution because it has a central server that serves as a management console. You can manage 100s of firewalls from this single console. Additionally, a key advantage is that Forcepoint provides VPN services as part of its basic subscriptions. It is not necessary to pay extra to use VPN services.

There is certainly room for improvement. In larger companies with extensive infrastructure, retrieving logs for a longer period of time can sometimes take a bit longer than desired.

In bigger companies with a larger volume of logs; it takes more time to retrieve them due to the increased amount of data.

I have been working with Forcepoint for about two years.

It is a very stable solution. If you set everything well, if your policy is well designed, it's stable.

Overall, I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

It is a very scalable solution. If you don't have enough capacity, you can easily double or even triple it. If you need to add extra Forcepoint devices due to insufficient power, it's just a matter of expanding the cluster. Additionally, the physical boxes can be set up as a hybrid cluster, which means you don't necessarily need the same expensive appliances. You can purchase more affordable ones and integrate them into the Acris cluster. Forcepoint's physical appliances can share and distribute the network traffic between them.

We have enterprise-level as well as small-sized clients. 

The customer service and support are quite good. They are very educated. I never had a case that I wasn't able to solve successfully. So, they are reliable. 

Positive

The initial setup is very easy because all you need to do is create a USB disk, which you can obtain from the management server. You configure it once. After that, you just connect the physical server to Ethernet, insert the USB disk, and turn it on. Everything else will be done. You configure it for the first time on the management server and then install it on the FlashDesk. After that, you simply connect the physical server to Ethernet, insert the USB disk, and turn it on. That's it. And everything else will be taken care of.

If you do a simple installation, just the physical setup, it's a matter of hours. For a single installation, for a small business or company where you have around 150 users on the network edge, one engineer is enough. Therefore, the time to deploy the solution depends on the size of the installation.

Moreover, some maintenance is required for the solution. One person or one administration is enough for maintenance. 

I would recommend the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because there are disadvantages like only some logs for enterprises. It takes a bit longer for it.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is mainly used for obligation redundancy, such as for latency distal and packet loss.

I have found that Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is easy to use, highly secure, and the main VPN tunnel is created automatically which is a benefit. 

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for approximately two years.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is stable.

The salability of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is great.

We have three clients that are using this solution.

The support from Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is not good, their response is not quick, We have had to wait a while.

The initial setup of the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has areas that are difficult.

There is a license required to use this solution and we can purchase it for one, two, three, or five years.

I would advise others to check compatibility before implementing this solution.

I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a six out of ten.

I offer our clients the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

I work as a presales representative and a product manager for Forcepoint. I'm working on product demonstration demos and proofs-of-concept. I give customers sessions and show them firewall demos. Even if it's on-premises, cloud-based, or virtualized.

It's all about the firewalls, how to deploy them, what the main features of the firewall are, what it is best suited for, the advantages, the pros, and the cons.

I would like to see more sizing in the next release, and the roadmap should be clear. More models are needed to compete in terms of firewall sizing.

I have been dealing with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three months.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

The Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a scalable product.

I work with various types of users and organizations. We have maybe, starting with 20,000 users to 100 users.

Technical support is not within my scope because I work as a pre-sales representative for one of Forcepoint's partners.

The installation is straightforward.

It is easy to install. It can take less than 20 minutes to install the firewall.

Depending on the number of firewalls, one engineer will be required to implement one solution.

It requires a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

We publish books and use Forcepoint Firewall as the first line of defense on VPN access.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall could improve with applying policies. Also, improvement with publishing websites and VPN agent.

The solution needs to add an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile, not just policies and VPN.

Our company has been using Forcepoint Firewall for 5 years.

Forcepoint is a good, stable solution.

This solution is scalable. 

The technical support for Forcepoint is fine. They are polite and available twenty-four hours and usually resolve problems the same day.

The initial setup of this solution is easy. We only set up some of the policies.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is reasonable, it is priced the same as other firewalls. 

We evaluated Palo Alto, their main advantage over Forcepoint is that they have an antivirus profile and anti-spyware profile.

I would rate Forcepoint a 7 out of 10. I would recommend that anyone considering this solution to upgrade their software to have more advantages.

We use it for SD-WAN, IPS, VPN, and subscription keys on the cloud or have an MDM on-premises. 

I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox.

Management could be better. They can improve the management. I think all our customers can't accept firewalls that have standalone management. So, they prefer Fortinet or Palo Alto. But overall, inspection and other features are working fine.

I have been working with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for four years.

With Forcepoint, we can cluster as a team firewall, and we can do great without downtime. Our sales team can sell Forcepoint because of this feature.

I would give technical support an eight out of ten. We had an issue with them because we had only support level one for each case we opened. We want them to improve their technical support because I still have three cases open from this year. From January until now, technical support didn't solve it. I feel like it's an easy case like the client's VPN and user ID, and it shouldn't take around five months. 

The initial configuration is straightforward, and we can use it with the cloud. But sometimes, there are network issues we can't see when we're using the ethernet cable. I think you need an engineer with some experience before implementing the first implementation by yourself.

The time it takes to deploy this solution depends on the features I have to implement or configure. Normally, it takes five or six working days, but it might take another week if I have issues with the VPN or user IDs.

We are an integrator. 

We have just a subscription for the cloud, and this license is great. The license is so good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.

It is very simple, easy to use, and flexible. It is a top solution with a complete feature set. Its most valuable feature involves its environment. 

A pain point worth mentioning is the need of the customer or client to properly know the environment as it relates to the presentation of Forcepoint and to have a better knowledge of the product's implementation. 

We have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for six years. 

It's very stable product. 

We feel Forcepoint's scalability to be pretty easy and good. It works very well. 

We feel the product's technical support could be better, as this relates to the solution itself, to the installation of the product, and to having a proper understanding of the case. 

The initial setup of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is not terribly complex. We are talking about three months at the intermediate level. 

While the deployment of a single firewall depends on the environment, this took us between two to five days. 

We employ more than 16 people on our staff for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall has a good price. 

In addition to Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, we evaluated the concurrency of Palo Alto's features. We feel that Forcepoint affords better centralized management than its competitors.

Our company makes use of every current version of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. 

Our clients who use Forcepoint run the gamut from small, medium to large businesses. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

I like the Firewall and the IPS.

The network interface could be better, and it could be cheaper. It's very difficult for us to compete with Fortinet. I would like to see an Application Control feature in the next release.

I have been working with Forcepoint for more than ten years. But we first worked with them for Web Security, and we worked with the Firewall for about four years.

Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall is a scalable solution.

It could be cheaper like Fortinet. 

I would tell potential users that it's difficult for us to compete with Fortinet's firewall. Fortinet offers good performance, a good price, and is stronger.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.