Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

I am currently testing Palo Alto and preparing for an exam.

The Global Protect Feature has allowed our organization to support our remote workforce. 

I have found it to be reliable and very easy to use. I haven't really encountered many problems with it because its documentation is clear and readily available on their website.

They need to provide documentation for CLI, as most of the commands, we get from Community Forums.

I have been doing research on Palo Alto for the past nine months.

It is stable.

Highly scalable as the HA deployment allows you to pair up to eight devices at once. 

I haven't had a chance to contact them.

Palo Alto is my first solution.

Initial setup is easy and subsequent changes have been easy to implement as well. 

In-house expertise. 

Sophos XG.

I would say go for it because it seems to be stable and very reliable. I've spoken to some specialists who vouch for Palo Alto. They say they've been using it in their environment, and it hasn't let them down so far.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like the architecture because it separates the management plan process and the data plan process. When I perform something CPU-intensive on management configurations, it doesn't disturb the data plan.

On the data plan, it uses parallel processing. This makes the security process and network process is more efficient.

I think visibility can be improved. If I use the Panorama monitoring dashboard, it's still the same with or without Panorama. Even with monitoring, we don't get any valuable information. 

If I am a customer, I will take many variables into considerations. If I choose to use Panorama, there should be a difference between when I use it and when I'm not. If I'm a customer who paid for Panorama even when I have many firewalls, I won't get good visibility of the information I need to easily monitor our security environment.

My customers have been attacked by ransomware. It's difficult to understand how the ransomware got through Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto dashboard monitoring from reporting. It makes it difficult to conclude what happened on the traffic which passed through Palo Alto. As such, I have to generate an all block report CSV file and analyze it through Excel.

I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for about two years.

On performance and stability, I've never heard any complaints. The product is running well and easily maintained by an admin.

I think scalability's the same as any other firewall. If we look to scale five years later, it will be scalable to perform the change. This model on Palo Alto makes it easy to add a new network, so Palo Alto offers more scalability.

Technical support is still not good for me.

The initial setup is so simple. We just needed to make a password and make it a point to point connection. I think it's that simple; make a point to point connection, access the web UI, perform initial configuration so the firewall can be managed through the network, and then we can manage everything through the web UI.

The device is very expensive compared to Cisco and Fortinet. But many of my customers use Palo Alto as Palo Alto is the standard of their organization.

I'd tell potential users of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls that their decision depends on their budget. If you have an adequate budget, then I recommend Palo Alto. If you have a limited budget, you need to consider your needs and look at Cisco ASA's price and Fortinet's price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight.

We primarily use this product to protect our network.

The most valuable feature is the application firewall.

The GUI is user-friendly.

The way that the roles are made, specifically with how you specify the path, could be simpler.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for one year.

We used the product on a daily basis and have had no critical issues so far.

We have hundreds of users in the company and have not tried scaling it.

With regards to support, they have a lot of things to improve.

We also use Check Point as a firewall. Both have their advantages but for my part, Palo Alto is better because of the way it handles applications. Check Point is better if you are only using ports and TCP/IP.

The initial setup is of medium difficulty. It is not simple yet not complex.

We implement in-house with some assistance from the vendor. It took a few hours to deploy.

Palo Alto is more affordable than some competing products, such as Check Point.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for WAN routing, NAT, VPN tunnels, granular security policies, URL filtering, antivirus, threat prevention, sandboxing, decryption, high availability, and reporting.

Palo Alto has improved traffic visibility, and the ability to manage it. With Palo Alto, we have more flexibility and our network is more secure. With our High availability pair, we have had no downtime for several years, since it was first put it in production. We have even changed boxes for new models during this time.

Palo Alto is easy to use, feature-rich, and it has good technical support. You can fetch users, so you have visibility by username, IP address, destination, application, and you can even define a custom application.

In the GUI, you can easily find blocked traffic and the reason for it.

The only thing that is a little strange is in Policy-Based Forwarding. When you delete and add a new rule, because of the one hundred rule limit, if the new rule has an ID that is greater than one hundred, even though you have fewer than that, it will not work. The same thing happens when you are renaming a rule. The new rule will have a new ID, so it is possible for it to be greater than one hundred. This can be easily fixed by using one command from CLI, but you have to be aware of it.

The technical support for this solution is good.

Our previous solution was open source, and not so easy to manage. We had a Linux Iptables firewall, Squid + DansGuardian proxy, and an OpenVPN server. We replaced all of these solutions with Palo Alto.

If you have some network experience then you can set it up on your own, with no setup costs. Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.

We evaluated Sophos, SonicWall, and Fortinet.

PA is a product that continuously improves, so, I have nothing to add in terms of features.

My advice is not to look for a cheaper solution, as the price/performance ratio on Palo Alto is great.

I am using the solution for protecting the network organization from threats.

The best features of this solution are URL filtering and traffic visibility.

The areas that need to improve are network protection and user identification.

In the next release of the solution the VPN could improve because it is not as good as competitors.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

This solution is stable and reliable.

We have 10 employees using this solution in my organization. We are in the beginning phases of testing and will increase usage if the test phase results are favorable.

The technical support is responsive.

The initial setup was easy.

We are on an annual license for this solution. I am happy with the price and when comparing it to other solutions it is priced competitively.

I have evaluated Sophos firewalls and I found Palo Alto solutions better because of the protection and web filters.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

Firewall.

We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors.

The firewall has a lot of sub-capabilities underneath it.

I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock.

The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up.

The stability is good.

It is very scalable.

We have had that many problems, so we haven't had to engage with their tech support.

I was not pleased with my previous solutions.

We switched to Palo Alto for better manageability and overall features.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We deployed in-house.

Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

I would certainly encourage someone to look into this solution.

It protects from any unwanted traffic or any kind of attack toward your LAN. It just minimizes the risk. It does not completely eradicate the risk.

We have the latest version of this solution.

Application control, IPS, and sandboxing towards the cloud are the most valuable features. It is a very user-friendly product with a very easy-to-use interface.

Its stability can be better. Their technical response from the support side can also be better.

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

It is stable, but its stability can be better.

If you got the product for 100 users and the company has grown to 500 people, this product will not be scalable. You will need another hardware that has more resources.

Their technical support is very good, but their technical response can be better. You might face some difficulties due to COVID, but they have been very good most of the time. It also depends on the region from where you are calling.

It is very much straightforward. It is a friendly product, but one should have basic knowledge of networking and security.

The deployment duration and the number of people required vary based on the requirements. A security product doesn't work in a way where you just install it, and it starts functioning. You need to keep improvising and updating it. It is an ongoing process for all security products.

You pay based on the kind of license you require, but comparatively, it is not very expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others. If you have internet, you should definitely have a firewall in your network. When you're exposed to the internet, you're exposed to risks. You definitely need a next-generation firewall in corporate networks.

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

We have several use cases for this solution. They include anti-virus, user identification, two-factor authentication for VPN, and application filtering.

The configuration is very simple. 

An additional feature that should be included in the next release is spam filtering. 

I've been using PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall for over a year. 

PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall is a stable solution. 

We only contacted technical support when we were trying to make a sales configuration for the environment here. We had some integration questions for technical support. Of course, we got the answers we needed. The Palo Alto tech support got back to us quickly. 

The price for Palo Alto solutions is very high. It should be a bit lower.