Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Reviews

We use it to upload, delete, and list what to publish on the net to block websites and even posts.

Recently, I blocked Adobe Acrobat Reader. When you install it on your PC, sometimes it contacts the internet and opens some posts. Thus, it can be easily hacked by a user on the internet. When you browse for this kind of list, you can easily upload it on Palo Alto without any difficulty.

It's very easy to use and configure.

What is nice about Palo Alto is that even if you don't understand how to use it, you can just click on upload and upload everything that needs to be blocked.

It also has signature-based prevention.

The interface is really user friendly. You can easily see what sites you have been blocking and their criticality. 

You can also capture packets from this tool, which is really nice.

The cost involves the price of the hardware, which is expensive. However, most of the Palo Alto solutions are expensive.

These devices cost a lot here in Mauritius, for example, one device can cost approximately $4,000. The cost for the license would be in addition to this.

I would rate this solution at ten on a scale from one to ten because I've never had any issues with it and have never been hacked.

We use the firewall in the network.

It protects us from cyber attacks.

One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection.

Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems.

I think the stability is better than Fortinet or Check Point

The scalability is there, for an enterprise network or a big company. It's good. It can support many endpoints and servers. We have over 2,000 users, most of them are end-users.

Technical support is good. There are no problems with it.

Before, we used Fortinet and Check Point.

The setup is neither complex nor easy. We worked with the vendor and they have more experience than us. For the PoC they did the configuration for us and we were able to learn from them.

Our deployment took about two months.

It's not too expensive. It's a more powerful tool for IT companies that need a next-generation tool.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall.

It's not so easy to set up a test environment because it's not so easy to get the test license.

The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

So far, scalability is okay, but you don't really need too much scalability in a firewall solution.

Technical support is good. We do get some support from the reseller.

We do have other solutions that we run in parallel, but it isn't like we had one solution and then we switched to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks.

The pricing is a bit higher than the competition, but it's okay. The cost seems cheaper than Cisco's Firepower.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is very good, especially compared to other solutions. I would rate it nine out of ten. It also offers re-instruction detection and prevention software, which we also use in conjunction with the Threat Prevention solution.

Our primary use cases for this solution is content fileting and threat prevention. 

The most valuable features are that it's:

• User-friendly 
• Has interesting features 
• URL filtering 
• Threat prevention. 

We use four Palo Alto solutions in stand-alone mode and but it's hard to use when I use it in Panorama. Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved. 

I have been using this solution for a year and a half. 

Palo Alto is quite stable. It's better than Cisco. We've had many issues with Cisco and experienced many bugs. 

We've contacted customer support. I would rate them a six out of ten. 

The deployment was straightforward. It wasn't difficult for us. 

We used a consultant for the deployment. They helped us to deploy the device. We were satisfied with their service. It's not as good as Cisco support. 

I would recommend this solution. It's stable and doesn't have many bugs. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

In order to make it a ten, they should improve their technical support. 

The resource consumption should be addressed. The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement. 

The pricing could be better. 

We are currently using Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention.

Our network and the stability are good. Authentication of the location is stable. Nothing is changed.

The solution is scalable. 

The pricing could be lower. 

I like the solution's interface.

The features are very easy to manage. The firewall is responsible for a host of tasks, as we use it for the monitoring of high power systems. The configuring of agents is easy. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention as a ten out of ten. 

I find the malware protection very handy. The solution has many features that save me time. 

I think they can use some improvement on FID. There are lots of false positives and those can be eradicated. Sometimes you can't identify a 10-year-old doc, but they can probably update those signatures and false positives, so it would be helpful and save us a lot of time. 

I think the stability can improve.

We haven't used the technical support yet because we have our own team of experts.

We used an expert to help us with the initial setup and installation.

It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine. In the next version, I would like to see a drop in price and more stability.

We are in financial environment so we put it on premises and in the cloud.

Everything has been okay with the solution. We are using all of the features. 

In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention for eight years. 

Palo Alto is very stable. 

It is scalable. We haven't confronted any issues.

The deployment is easy.

Licensing is yearly-based.

The pricing is higher compared to their competitors. I think Palo Alto is has the highest price.

I would recommend Palo Alto to anybody looking for threat prevention. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for Palo Alto Threat Prevention is related to the placement of files in a laboratory test environment. We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention for network testing.

I can't give an example of how Palo Alto has improved our organization because we are using this product in test networks.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall.

The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available.

Palo Alto Threat Prevention is naturally stable in operations.

I don't see a problem with Palo Alto Threat Prevention in scalability. Because it's a testing product for use it only for test alignment.

We have maybe 10 or 12 engineers dedicated to the solution. Only engineers are using this product. For deployment and maintenance, only one staff.

We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention just for testing.

Palo Alto's technical support is very good.

The setup of Palo Alto Threat Prevention is very easy and straightforward. From initial configuration to deployment, it took maybe one day.

We did not use an integrator, re-seller, or consultant for the deployment.

I would rate Palo Alto Threat Prevention a nine out of ten overall. I would prefer better mail security features.