Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

I am a customer of Palo Alto Networks. If any issue arises, I raise a ticket with Palo Alto.

We are currently using Palo Alto in our national data center, which is a large Tier Three data center. As all communication is now going through APIs, it would be beneficial to improve Palo Alto by adding an API scanner in the future.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the network protection.

We decided to use Palo Alto because they are the leader in the market.

Palo Alto does provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities.

These days, DDoS attacks are becoming more frequent, especially in external data centers. Therefore, we need to enhance the DDoS attack block list and update patches in our national data center.

The API scanner could be improved.

The support could be improved. 

Palo Alto does not have a support team located in Bangladesh, and their support team operates from another location. Therefore, when we raise a ticket, it takes some time for them to respond, which can be problematic for us.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for seven years.

Since we have definitely used Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, it's not possible to compare them with any other product.

The stability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is good.

The current solution is satisfactory, but we require more scalability from Palo Alto.

Technical support is good.

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we did not use another solution.

The initial setup was straightforward, as we prioritize quality over price for our federal work. Our main concern is protection, as we need to safeguard national assets.

I am the consultant.

We have observed a positive return on investment because if a DDoS attack were to occur, it would result in a loss of business and other adverse effects.

By using Palo Alto to protect our data, we can prevent such attacks and ensure that our business runs smoothly.

We always aim to reduce the pricing, as it is currently a bit high and needs to be lowered.

Before my organization purchases any product, they must obtain my permission and also conduct an evaluation.

From the very beginning, we have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, I cannot make a comparison with other firewall solutions.

Palo Alto is the market leader in firewall technology, and we also use their firewall. However, we have been experiencing DDoS attacks and are using Palo Alto to protect against them. 

In some cases, we may need to increase the DDoS block list and update patches through Palo Alto.

As someone who works in the national data center, we always strive to use the very best, not the cheapest.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

We are working on creating security policies on the firewall. We have just put GlobalProtect VPN in our company. We also have Prisma Access.

We have on-prem and hybrid cloud deployments.

It has strengthened our security policies and made our environment more secure. It has provided us more security features. Due to the rules that we have created on Palo Alto Firewall, all the malicious things have been stopped from coming into our environment.

The App-ID feature is the coolest feature because you don't need to open a new port. Apps are directly linked to the port. It provides one of the best ways to lock down the additional port switch.

Its software updates can be improved. It sometimes becomes very slow with the software updates for different features.

It should have an External Dynamic List of data. The malicious IP is not frequently getting updated in Palo Alto, and this should be done.

I have been using this solution for six years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is also good.

We were using Cisco ASA previously. Palo Alto has strengthened our security policies. It has also made our environment more secure than Cisco ASA.

Its initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall an eight out of ten. It has been working very well.

We use this solution to block malicious or suspicious activity by creating policies that define which action should be blocked or allowed.

The firewall is a security device. We use this solution to create policies like ISPs for a specific purpose. We only allow the policies for a particular application, so this is a way for the firewall to secure an unwanted connection.

The most valuable feature is the ability to deeply analyze the connection or connection type.

Overall it is good. It is reliable and easy to understand. However, the monitoring feature could be improved.

They have many solutions already. I don't think I have seen any missing features. Every device has different functions, but as a firewall, this solution has a lot.

Stability is good.

There are no scalability issues to date.

We have about 2,500 users behind the firewall using this solution. I think we don't have any requirement to increase usage. Currently, we have around 2,500 users, but if this increases, we may need a new requirement.

We hired one or two people to maintain the solution.

Technical support is good. Once you call up with your issue, it takes around one or two hours for them to contact and give you a solution accordingly.

We were using Cisco ASA. We switched because of legal reasons and difficulty to understand. That's why they had decided to change to Firewall.

It is very easy to use. It's straightforward, easy to understand, and easy to configure.

Deployment time depends on your requirements. If you talk about the system requirements, it hardly takes up to 15 or 20 minutes for the configuration.

That said, it totally depends on your requirements: What kind of policy you require that supports what kind of block, etc.

The deployment time would change based on these requirements, but the system configuration: accessing the internet and creating policies hardly takes 20 minutes.

Deployment is configured by administrators, so if we have any kind of issue in policies or any confusion, we get tech support.

Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis or every three years.

If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment or another similar add-on you have to pay accordingly for the additional service.

We also evaluated Check Point and Fortinet solutions.

This solution is easy to understand, reliable, and user-friendly.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We're basically an MSSP service provider. We use this solution as a network firewall for URL filtering, IPS, and IDS proxy services.

The Unified Threat Management (UTM) module, which consists of the basic firewall and IPS services, is what the majority of our customers use in Palo Alto Firewall.

Its scalability for on-prem deployments can be better. For an on-prem deployment, the hardware has to be replaced if the volume goes up to a certain level.

We have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable.

It is much more scalable in a cloud deployment, but for an on-prem deployment, the hardware has to be replaced if the volume goes up to a certain level.

We have very few customers of this solution. We probably have five to ten customers.

Their technical support is very good. It is more often the AMC support that we have to take. 

It is fairly easy. We're not seeing many challenges in these installations. The complete installation can take a lot of time because we have to configure all the policies and other things. After the hardware is installed and the network is connected, you need one or two people for configuring the policies for use cases.

After the hardware and software are procured, it is the AMC support that has to be renewed yearly.

We plan to keep using this solution depending on the customers' needs. We also have a cloud-based platform on Fortinet, and we provide it as a service.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.

We use it as a firewall. We have VPN, IPSec, or site-to-site VPN. We also protect our few internal web services. 

Everything is easy in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall. It is very stable, easy to configure, and easy to upgrade. It is also very easy to create custom policies and applications. Everything can be done with the click of a button. 

It is also good for the protection of web services. Nowadays, they have a rather new DNS security feature, which is pretty good and functional. We did a one-month trial, and it is the best product for the firewall network.

Its price can be improved. It is expensive.

Other vendors have pre-configured policies for the protection of web servers. Palo Alto has an official procedure for protecting the web servers. Many people prefer pre-configured policies, but for me, it is not an issue. 

I have been using this solution for almost six years.

Our version is not scalable. The new version is scalable on the network interface. It comes with slots where you can put your SFP if you want a fiber or copper. 

We have almost 600 users who use it for accessing the internet. We have about 50 to 70 VPN connections.

I didn't contact them because I don't get any technical issues with any feature of the firewall. I didn't have the need to open a case. If I have any issue, I am able to resolve it by using my cell phone and taking help from the internet. 

I was using Check Point before Palo Alto. I am very disappointed with Check Point because I had to reboot power three to five times a week. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall is comparatively very easy to manage and use. It has better logic for configuration than other firewalls.

The initial setup was straightforward. When I migrated from Check Point to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, it took about an hour and a half to reconfigure all policies and services.

I deployed it myself. The logic is very easy when you configure it. I did 90% percent of deployment on my own. For the remaining 10% deployment, I found the information on the internet. 

I am the only user working on this firewall. I am a system administrator.

It is a little bit expensive than other firewalls, but it is worth every penny. There are different licenses for the kinds of services you want to use. When we buy a new product, we go for a three-year subscription.

We have not had any issue with this solution. I really hope that we continue to use this solution. Its price is higher than other solutions, and the company might go for another firewall.

I would recommend this solution to other users. I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

Our solution is now based on clustering and load balancing. We can add more nodes to our environment to accommodate the new load within our company.

We have about 2,000 to 2,300 users on Palo Alto NG firewall support.

Palo Alto has a line of products for different customers. If you do the sizing it from the beginning, considering that you are a growing company, it is fine.

You need to plan for the future, which means that you have to pay in advance through investment. With Palo Alto NG Firewalls, the cost will be higher.

We would like to have the processing power to be enhanced with every new CPU so that we are getting more cores. Palo Alto is incorporating this. 

We are requesting now a new firewall that will come in with higher power, i.e. the 5220.

I found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution.

Palo Alto has a good product and end-user experience. It's great. They can maybe add more processing power to their hardware. That's it. 

Sometimes it's stuck and you need to restart it. They have been adding a lot of things, so we need to upgrade for the new features.

Palo Alto NG is a stable product as long as it's working. It does what it expected to do. But sometimes for some reason the hardware resources spike, so it stops responding. 

The only fix is to restart the firewall,i.e. a  hardware restart. This is one of the issues. It's not related to the software because of the troubleshooting that we did. 

It's about resource consumption. Some hardware and software issues Palo Alto needs to work on. They released their Palo Alto Operating System which enhanced their product suite.

The scalability compared to other products is not good. You need to change the box whenever you want your number of connection sessions to increase. 

You can't just upgrade the parts with a software key or with adding additional hardware. You need to replace the entire box. It's not scalable. 

The solution's technical support is responsive. They are good.

We previously used a different solution that was Fortinet. I'm still using it. There's another area in the network where we use Fortinet.

We shifted from Fortinet to Palo Alto. It's just mapping the network from the available firewall to another firewall. It wasn't complex. 

Between deployment and stabilization, the product was completed in two weeks, i.e. 10 working days.

One of my team did the installation under my supervision.

You have to do proper network design from the beginning. You have to look into future expansion. Otherwise, after a year, you have to replace the entire box.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a seven because the point of scalability within their product is a big issue. 

If you have to put a huge investment in front to accommodate future expansion, it is fine. 

It requires forecasting. If your forecast is not correct and you are not growing to that point, then all your investments will be a waste. 

If you're adding a block so that it can accommodate your user traffic demand, then that would be perfect. 

I buy one block at a time now. I can't buy two blocks at the same time. That's a waste of money with Palo Alto NG firewalls.

It is our main firewall. It has performed well. It meets our expectations.

It has the typical features of a next-generation firewall. It can do application control, antivirus, content filtering, etc. And in terms of performance, the value for money of the model that we bought is sufficient for our size.

I would like to see more in terms of reporting tools and the threat analysis capabilities.

It's very stable.

For our current size and our projected growth, it is sufficient. We are expecting to grow to about 1000 users. This is the type of bandwidth we need, based on our typical usage. The specific model we bought can scale up to that number. We built in that room for growth.

In addition, we can expand the scope not just as a firewall but also by doing some sandboxing and through integration with endpoint security solutions.

I don't believe we have used any support directly from Palo Alto itself because we bought it through a local reseller. We engaged them to help us configure it and to put up some of the firewall rules that we need. So we work with a local vendor.

We had another box before and it wasn't a next-generation firewall. We needed to change to a next-generation firewall so we compared a few of the top players in the market and Palo Alto was the right one, in terms of the features that we need.

We were using an outdated firewall and, because of the growing threats, things were getting through. We were not able to filter some of the traffic the way we wanted. It was high time that we went with a next-generation firewall.

In terms of a vendor, in my case, I was referred to the local vendor, the one that we would be deploying and working with on the implementation. We definitely look for the competency, their knowledge of the subject matter, in this case, firewall technology, networks, etc., and their knowledge of the product. And, of course, the other factor is their commitment and their value-added solutions because sometimes we need them to go beyond to address a certain problem that we may have.

I don't think setup is that complicated. There was just a bit of a learning curve because none of us had any experience with Palo Alto. But we know firewalls and it worked. It wasn't that difficult.

We called in proposals for different products, bigger players, like Check Point, Fortinet, Cisco. We set the criteria we need and had them make proposals. We found, based on the submissions, that Palo Alto seemed to be the one that had the most complete solution. We did a proof of concept to prove that whatever they said they can do, they can do. Once we passed that stage we proceeded with the purchase of the Palo Alto unit.

It came down to the technical evaluation we did. They did well in terms of performance. In addition, we liked the support terms that were proposed by the reseller. We also looked at certifications and reviews, at the NSS Labs reports, and other industry ratings. Palo Alto seemed to be up there. Also, looking toward the future, we can actually subscribe to sandboxing services in the cloud. There are also options for us to integrate with endpoint security solutions.

List your requirements, give them the proper weighting, and look at what future options are available if you stick with the solution. Then do your evaluation. And don't forget the vendor, the local support, their competency and their commitment. You can have the best product in the world but if you don't get the right person to support you, it's a waste. You would probably better off with a second- or a third-tier product if you have an excellent, competent, and committed vendor to support you.

I would rate Palo Alto at eight out of 10 because of the performance, the security features, and policy management, the reporting capabilities, and the optional upgrades or extensions that we can do, like sandboxing. It also offers an option for our integration with our endpoint security.

We are going to revamp our endpoint security architecture. One of the options we're looking at is how we can integrate that with solutions from Palo Alto, because then we can have a more consolidated view, instead of using a third-party solution as the endpoint security. Finally, the local support is important.

We primarily use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as Foundry Network devices, but we also use them to filter internal network traffic.

I don't believe there is a significant difference. It is similar to any Google firewall product in that it works as long as they are reliable.

The most important part of this solution is its reliability, as it just works without any fancy features. Users are mainly concerned about their ability to function consistently and dependably.

I believe that companies could potentially gain an advantage by leveraging their engineers' familiarity with certain interfaces. Typically, the familiarity factor plays a significant role in product selection, and if they have experience using certain interfaces, they are more likely to opt for those products.

In terms of the interface, I don't feel there is any distinction between this vendor and others. I believe that familiarity with the products itself is an important consideration.

With the use cases that I am familiar with, I don't believe that additional features would be of any benefit. 

Adding more features generally causes more issues. I would prefer they focus on improving reliability rather than adding new features.

My preference would be to exclude machine learning since it must be capable of explanation. This is really important to us, and the performance must also be highly predictable. If it is implemented, at the very least, the option to disable it completely must be available.

In my view, machine learning is often a bothersome addition that can potentially compromise security by allowing unauthorized traffic to pass through undetected. 

From my experience, this tends to occur in networks where all the traffic is clearly defined.

Enhancements could potentially be made to the firmware to improve its inspectability.

In my current job, I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for three years.

In my experience, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been a stable solution.

It has been as scalable as you would expect.

I have experience working on both small office networks as well as larger ones spanning multiple locations, typically around three to five locations.

I have worked with a range from small office setups with around fifty devices to larger ones with a scale of maybe a thousand, two thousand, or even five thousand devices.

I have experience with quite a lot of other vendors.

In my opinion, I find the configuration of this product more appealing than that of Cisco, but ultimately, it comes down to the preference of the organization's administrators. In terms of features, I don't see a significant difference between them; they all seem pretty standard to me.

I find their syntax more appealing, especially for the command line.

 I am rarely involved in the deployment.

When assessing firewalls for securing data centers consistently and across all workspaces or places, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are suitable products. 

From my experience, they have demonstrated excellent performance.

While it may not necessarily decrease downtime, it also doesn't cause any increase in downtime.

Attending events like RSA has proven to be quite beneficial for me in terms of meeting new people and discovering interesting products. These events generated new contacts and partnerships for my organization.

I believe that we will likely evaluate and purchase at least one of the products in the near future.

It's a decent product, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.