Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We used the solution as an edge or internet firewall where we were running IPS/IDS and doing filtering on it, apart from the other security features. We are still using it for our users' VPN activity and to manage site-to-site VPN tunnels with other clouds, like AWS and Azure, so that there is connectivity back and forth between those cloud providers and our on-prem data center.

The features I like are the debugging and troubleshooting through package capture. It's easy to capture from the CLI and it's also easy to get logs from the CLI.

It's very important that Palo Alto NG Firewalls embed machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. That increases our security posture. It gives us real-time anti-cyber activity and enables us to look at it. The firewall is able to capture it and flag it and it is easy to mitigate as soon as we see something like that happening, to secure the environment more, in real time.

These firewalls have the zero-delay signatures feature, which is really important because you don't want to be lagging behind with any kind of security updates. It doesn't affect our security a lot, but without it, we could be compromised a little bit. If updates are delayed by a couple of hours, there's an opportunity for the bad actors to execute something in that time frame. It gives us a little bit more security, but it's not like it's a high-severity situation.

Overall, they're doing great with the features. They're improving them day by day and year by year, which is really good. They're making new products that are compact inside, which is also really good. Instead of a full rack, they have tiny devices that have the same or even better performance compared to the bigger ones. They are doing well in improving the units, features, and security.

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

They're very reliable and stable. Compared to some of the competitors, they're more reliable.

The scalability is also good. They provide good options for scaling. The only thing that I would think about is that, in the newer firewalls, they have increased the performance but decreased the number of concurrent VPN connections or users. The new, compact devices have better performance, but they have reduced the number of users that can connect. Maybe that's a marketing strategy to sell higher-end models.

In my organization, everybody is using the Palo Alto firewalls because they're connected to the VPN, but the management and operations aspects are limited to the folks in IT.

These firewalls used to bring a lot of value to us, but in my practical experience, in the last three years at least, they have been lagging behind their competitors. The main issue is the support that we can get.

For example, in the past, if something happened, we could just give them a call and open a ticket, and we would have technical support right away to help us. Whether it was a severity-one, critical incident, where we had no connectivity, or just a minor or medium-severity issue, we used to get support right away. But in the last three years, it has been really hard to get hold of an engineer. I have reached out a couple of times to give them a heads-up, "This is a ticket I opened three days ago. I'm trying to get a hold of anybody."

It's okay that they force us to open a ticket on the portal, but after opening a ticket, it's really hard to get support when you need it. You have to wait for them to get back to you and sometimes it's random. And the biggest problem I have is that you have to wait hours on the line when you're calling them to get a hold of the next available engineer.

They should make it easier to get in touch with their TAC. This is what they have called transforming the customer experience, but I believe it's getting worse. That's the only thing they have to improve. When you do get someone, the support from their end stands out, it's a nine out of 10. But getting a hold of an engineer is a two out of 10.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward. You need to connect through the portal manager and to the IP that you want to access remotely. And pushing the configuration from other devices is very easy. They provide tools so that you can get the configuration from competitors' devices and convert that into the Palo Alto version. It's very easy to configure initially and to manage as well.

On the maintenance side, it's really good. We don't have to put a lot of effort into that.

The security and performance of the PA-400 series of Palo Alto NGFWs, versus its price, is really good. It's very inexpensive and has good performance compared to the previous higher-end 3000 models.

Palo Alto provides Panorama where you can manage a bunch of firewalls from a single pane of glass or just one device. It allows you to manage all of the firewalls in one, integrated location. You don't have to make a chain of 50 different firewalls. It will push what you need to be changed to all the other firewalls. We used to use it, but we got rid of it because we replaced all our Palo Altos with competitors' firewalls and we don't use Palo Alto anymore, other than for VPN. We have six firewalls in our organization right now, although we used to have 35 to 40. Because we no longer have a lot of firewalls, we got rid of Panorama. We don't want to pay for it to just manage six firewalls where we are not making any changes frequently. If we had 35 or 40 still, I would definitely recommend having Panorama.

Panorama is for managing the rules. It saves time on configuration, but it doesn't affect your security posture. Whether you're managing each firewall or using Panorama, it's exactly the same thing. But it helps you to execute changes in a very short period of time. It's a way of pushing the config to all your devices.

On-premises, we used Cisco but replaced our core firewall world with Palo Alto because we wanted more visibility. Plus, we were looking for features such as IPS for PCI compliance. We wanted next-generation capability, but we had the ASA traditional firewall with Cisco, which doesn't do much, so we replaced it with Palo Alto. 

In the cloud, we use Palo Alto for the zero trust implementation. Initially, we tried to work with the Azure firewall, but we found a lot of limitations in terms of visibility. It couldn't provide us with the same visibility we wanted for Layer 4 and above.

The solution is deployed both on cloud and on-premises. The cloud provider is Azure.

We have about 6,500 endpoints in my organization and five administrators.

One of our key challenges was for the PCI, the new standard 3.1. There's a requirement that financial applications need to have some sort of zero trust architecture. They need to be completely segregated. We implemented zero trust using Palo Alto so that if we are within the same subnet within the network, we have protection.

The unified platform helps us eliminate security holes. We use another product from Palo Alto, called WildFire, which is basically sandboxing. We have layers of products. Because of WildFire, we're able to identify any weaknesses in the upper layers.

We give a copy of the same packet to WildFire, and this helps us identify things that were bypassed, such as malware or malicious files. It's especially helpful when we're transferring files, like on SMB, because it's integrated.

The unified platform helps eliminate multiple network securities, and the effort needed to get them to work with each other. It's a very good product for us because it fits well in our ecosystem. 

Our other vendor is Fortinet. Previously, we struggled with having multiple products. One of them was command-line based and the other one was web-based. The engineers would have some difficulty because not everyone is good with a command line platform. Palo Alto and Fortinet are both managed by the UI and they're very similar products. They work well with each other, so we use certain capabilities here and there.

For example, for some internet browsing, we generally have a separate solution for our proxy, but there are situations where we need to provide direct internet access to a particular server in a certain situation. The problem is when a particular product does not work with the proxy for some reason. This is where we use Palo Alto's web filtering. If we didn't have a solution that could do this, it would be difficult on our side because how can we provide direct access to the server without securities?

When browsing, the logs provide us with the required information. For example, we allow certain URLs to a particular server, and we have that data also. This goes back into our same solution. With Palo Alto, the connectors are built in.

Our Palo Alto Firewall has the zero-delay signatures feature implemented. For the IPS capability, we rely completely on Palo Alto. If we don't have this implemented and there's a new, ongoing attack, we will be exposed. We make sure there are controls on the policies we have on each layer.

Even if a patch is released for that particular issue, it would take us time to implement it. We actually rely on the network layer, which is our Palo Alto box, to prevent that in case someone tries to exploit it. In the meantime, we would patch it in the background.

One of the key features for us is product stability. We are a bank, so we require 24/7 service.

Another feature we like about Palo Alto is that it works as per the document. Most vendors provide a few features, but there are issues like glitches when we deploy the policy. We faced this with Cisco. When we pushed policies and updated signatures, we ran into issues. With Palo Alto, we had a seamless experience.

The maintenance and upgrade features are also key features. Whenever we have to do maintenance and upgrades, we have it in a cluster and upgrade one firewall. Then, we move the traffic to the first one and upgrade the second one. With other vendors, you generally face some downtime. With Palo Alto, our experience was seamless. Our people are very familiar with the CLI and troubleshooting the firewall.

It's very important that the solution embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention. There is one major difference in our architecture, which we have on-premises and on the cloud. Most enterprises will have IPS as a separate box and the firewall as a separate box. They think it's better in terms of throughput because you can't have one device doing firewall and IPS and do SSL offloading, etc. In our new design, we don't have a separate box.

When we looked at Palo Alto about five years ago, we felt that the IPS capability was not as good as having a separate product. But now we feel that the product and the capabilities of IPS are similar to having a separate IPS.

Machine learning is very important. We don't want to have attacks that bypass us because we completely rely on one product. This is why any AI machine learning capability, which is smarter than behavioral monitoring, is a must.

There was a recent attack that was related to Apache, which everyone faced. This was a major concern. There was a vulnerability within Apache that was being exploited. At the time, we used the product to identify how many attempts we got, so it was fairly new. Generally, we don't get vulnerabilities on our web server platform. They're very, very secure in nature.

We use Palo Alto to identify the places we may have missed. For example, if someone is trying something, we use Palo Alto to identify what kind of attempts are being made and what they are trying to exploit. Then we find out if we have the same version for Apache to ensure that it protects. Whenever there are new attacks, the signature gets updated very quickly.

We don't use Palo Alto Next Generation Firewalls DNS security. We have a separate product for that right now. We have Infoblox for DNA security.

Palo Alto Next Generation Firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates with all security capabilities. We send all the logs to Panorama, which is a management console. From there, we send it to our SIM solution. Having a single PAN is also very good when we try to search or if we have issues or any traffic being dropped. 

Panorama provides us with a single place to search for all the logs. It also retains the log for some time, which is very good. This is integrated with all our firewalls. Plus, it's a single pane of glass view for all the products that we have for Palo Alto.

When we have to push configurations, we can push to multiple appliances at one time. 

Previously for SSL offloading, we utilized a different product. Now we use multiple capabilities, IPS, the SSL offload, and in certain cases the web browsing and the firewall capability altogether. Our previous understanding was that whenever you enable SSL offloading, there is a huge impact on the performance because of the load. Even though we have big appliances, they seem to be performing well under load. We haven't had any issues so far.

We have had some challenges. There are some advanced features that we aren't able to use, which include active IP authentication and app ID. We are facing challenges with implementing those two features.

Other products provide you with APIs that allow you to access certain features of the product externally with another solution. In the cloud, we have a lot of products that provide us with these capabilities, such as Microsoft. It has its own ecosystem, which is exposed through Graph API. I would like to have the capability to use the feature set of Palo Alto and provide it to another solution.

For example, if we have a very good system to identify malicious IPs within Palo Alto, we would like the ability to feed the same information into another product using the APIs. These are obviously very advanced capabilities, but it would be great if Palo Alto would allow this in the future.

I have used this solution for more than five years. I'm using version 10.1.

It's extremely stable. We've used it on the parameter and as a core firewall in our data center. In both cases, it's what we rely on today.

The scalability is amazing. When you look at the data sheet, sometimes you'll find that the equipment won't perform well under the same load. However, if something is mentioned on the data sheet and you implement it, you'll find places where you have high CPU and high memory utilization. When you buy something, maybe it should be 50% load, but when you put it into actual implementation, you find out that the CPU and memory remain very high.

With Palo Alto, the CPU and memory are both intact. It's performing well under load. We have different timings where we have a large load and it goes down and then goes up again. In both scenarios, the product is very good. The CPU performs well. Especially during upgrades, it was very stable and straightforward.

We have plans to increase usage. We're doing a migration in the cloud right now, and we plan to move a lot of our services to the cloud. This is where we'll either add more virtual firewalls in the cloud or increase the size and capacity of firewalls that we have there.

The technical support is great. We've faced very, very serious problems where our systems were impacted due to some reason, and they were able to provide adequate support at the same time. When we raised a P1, an engineer started to work with us right away. Some vendors don't touch the customer's product.

Palo Alto's support is great; they're willing to get their hands dirty and help us.

I would rate technical support nine out of ten.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the IPS for compliance, but there were other factors as well, such as usability. We didn't have enough engineers who were well trained on Cisco because it's a very traditional kind of product that's completely CLI driven. We only had one or two people who could actually work on it. Even though people understand Cisco, when we asked them to implement something or make a change, they weren't that comfortable. 

With Palo Alto, it was very simple. The people who knew Fortinet also learned Palo Alto and picked it up very quickly. When we had new people, they were able to adjust to the platform very quickly.

It was straightforward for us. For the initial deployment, we had two experiences. In one experience, we replaced one product with Palo Alto. In that particular situation, we used a tool from Palo Alto to convert the rules from Cisco to Palo Alto. It took us around four or five days to do the conversion and verification to make sure that everything was as it was supposed to be. The cloud deployment was straightforward. We were able to get the appliance up and running in a day.

For our deployment strategy, when we replaced our core, one of the key things was if we wanted to go with the same zones and to identify where the product would be placed and the conversion. We tested the rule conversion because we didn't want to make a mistake. We took a certain set of policies for one particular zone, and then we did the conversion and applied it. We did manual verification to ensure that if we went with an automated solution, which would do the conversion for us, it would work correctly and to see the error changes. Once we applied it to a smaller segment, we did all of it together.

For the cloud deployment, we had some challenges with Microsoft with visibility issues. From the marketplace, we took the product and deployed it. We did a small amount of testing to check how it works because it was new to us, but we were able to understand it very quickly. The engineers in UA helped us because the virtual networking for the cloud is a little bit different than when it's physical.

We were able to get it up and running very quickly. Palo Alto provides a manual for the quick start, which we used to do the deployment. It was pretty straightforward after that.

For maintenance and deployment, we have two engineers working in two shifts. We have around 15 or more Palo Alto firewalls, so we can survive with six members. That's more than enough to handle operations.

We offer security services, so it's difficult to calculate ROI. But since we're an organization where we cannot compromise on security, I would say the ROI is very good. We don't have any plans to change the product since we moved from Cisco.

The cost is much better. We've worked with multiple vendors, and Palo Alto is very straightforward. We've done many implementations with Cisco, and they kill you on the licensing. When you enable each capability, it costs a lot. They charge you for the software and for the capabilities. They charge you for the licensing. It's very complicated. 

With Palo Alto, the licensing is very straightforward. For example, if you only have a requirement for a firewall, you can go with that. If you want to go with a subscription, you get all the features with it.

I work for an enterprise, so we have the topmost license for compliance reasons. There is an essential bundle and a comprehensive bundle for enterprises.

Palo Alto also has a security essential bundle, which covers everything that's required for a small organization.

The PA-400 series of Palo Alto is the smaller box for small businesses. The good thing is that it has the same functionality as the big boxes because it runs the PAN-OS operating system in the background. It's a very good product because it provides you with the same capabilities that an enterprise uses. It provides the same operating system and signatures.

It's also good for an enterprise because you get the same level of capabilities of the firewall. There are firewalls that are 20 times more expensive than this. However, on a small box, you have the same capabilities, the same feature set, and the same stability, so I feel it's a very good product.

We chose Palo Alto right away because we couldn't go with the same vendor, which was Fortinet. We needed a different vendor, and the only option left was Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. 

As a recommendation, I would say go for it. It's a very good product. With implementation, we looked at a lot of different processes that said they offered a lot of capabilities. We've used almost all of them, such as GlobalProtect, which is for the VPN capability, and site-to-site VPN. We have done all kinds of implementations and in most of the cases, it's pretty much worked for us.

At some point, you will have requirements where you have third-party vendors, or you have to integrate with a third party. With Palo Alto, you're safe no matter what. With other open-source solutions, they work but you'll face issues, and you'll have to step up your security. 

With Palo Alto, it's straightforward. You'll have adequate security, it works well, and you'll be able to work with other solutions too, create tunnels, and GlobalProtect.

There are people who utilize open source products also, and it works well for them. But if you're an enterprise that provides 24/7 services, it's better to go with a company that has the support and features that work. We don't have any challenges with it. 

This is very important because maybe you can get a cheaper solution, but stability and functionality matter, especially when we talk about zero-day issues every single day. This is where Palo Alto would be best.

Secondly, with new types of technologies, like with Kubernetes or microservices, it's better that you go with a company that's actually able to cope with all the technology changes that are happening in the background. If you have a multi-operating system, you'll notice that the signatures for the attack are different for different types of operating systems. 

For instance, if you have Linux, Windows, and Unix, you need a product that understands all the different types of attacks on different systems. I think it's better to go with something that's well supported, works well, and is stable.

Some of my customers have Palo Alto firewalls, and the use cases include security policies, VPN connections, remote access, side-to-side VPN, and some user ID functionality. To solve these problems, I usually use the web UI monitor, system logs, end capture, CLI, etc. 

We don't have large-scale implementations in Poland as you'd find in Western Europe, but last year I did a big Palo Alto project with 20 Next-Generation firewalls and it was a success. We deployed eighteen PA 800 CVS firewalls for branch offices and a PA 52 series and NPA 5200 series at the data center. It was a high-availability model. The project was a migration from previously used Palo Alto firewalls, including the PA 500, 3000 series, PA 800 series, and PA 32 series. About 95 percent of our firewalls are on-premises, but some customers in Poland want to move to cloud solutions like Prisma Cloud. 

The most significant benefit is threat protection. Anti-malware uses signatures, so dynamic analyzers like WildFire are the best way to protect the company. It is a firewall based on application control, user ID, and security policy. We can use it based on user and application ID without a stateless firewall or TCPIP ports.

Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewalls have security functionality like a traditional IPS system. You can configure it to download new signatures from the threat intel cloud every five minutes. We also have data filtering, disk protection, SD-1, and machine learning functions. We only have one full working path on a Palo Alto Networks solution, but it is not a classic UTM. In a traditional UTM, checks occur in a series, but everything in Palo Alto Networks is inspected in parallel. 

The security features are the most valuable aspect of Palo Alto's Next-Generation Firewalls. It has all the typical static threat protection based on signatures and WildFire dynamic analyzers. I love this feature. Palo Alto Networks updates the signatures of global threats on the cloud every 60 seconds, so we are protected against the latest threats. 

It also has SD-1, but unfortunately, very few customers in Poland want to enable SSL decryption. From time to time, we have customers who want to test this. Machine learning is crucial to security features like anti-spyware and URL security profiles. Palo Alto was one of the first firewalls to have this capability. It helps us analyze real-time traffic using machine learning instead of signatures. Palo Alto has a better web interface than other firewalls I've used.

The DNS Security checks if your DNS queries are valid because infected computers try to connect to the DNS domain. We have this configuration to block access to the domain. We can use the application to block the DNS tunnel link. 

When we enable security functions like threat prevention, performance generally degrades, but this is normal. Of course, Palo Alto could always improve its security. 

I have been working with Palo Alto's Next Generation Firewalls for four or five years because some of my customers use them. 

Palo Alto firewalls are stable compared to Fortinet, Check Point, or Cisco. From time to time, the firewall is unstable, but that's related to the connection 99 percent of the time. I recommend doing a test with a resource monitor to see if the model is right for you. 

Palo Alto firewalls are scalable because we can find models suitable for any infrastructure in the company's portfolio. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks' support eight out of ten. I periodically have problems, but I typically try to resolve the issue myself. Sometimes I need to send a troubleshooting file to support, but that's rare. Palo Alto Networks provides us with lots of troubleshooting information we can use.

I worked with Fortinet and Cisco firewalls, like PEAK, FirePOWER, and ISA. I also used Check Point firewalls from time to time. I believe Palo Alto has the best technology in the world, and there is a significant demand for these solutions in Poland, so I want to be a person who can implement and configure this technology.  

Many customers think about security in terms of their entire ecosystem, so we have on-premises firewalls and Prisma Cloud, plus endpoint protection solutions like Cortex XDR. I have two customers in Poland who have WildFire in an on-premise sandbox. 

Before implementation, I have to prepare a technical project document containing information about what I will do on this infrastructure, like migration or something like that. I start implementation once the customer approves this document. 

Prior to the physical installation in the server rooms, I need to connect the management interface to the network to update the software and signatures. I have to perform tasks to prepare a device to work. Once I've configured the device, I can switch the firewalls from the current security setup to Palo Alto's firewall. 

It depends on the customer, but sometimes my customers want to enable dynamic protocols first, but they don't enable them. About 95 percent are in working route mode, but we have L3 interfaces from time to time. Generally, migration is simple because I don't use an expedition tool. I made some changes, switching the firewall from the older models to the new ones. After that, I used the optimizer to convert rules, including the TCP UTP power services. 

Then I enabled this project's network and security functions, like the aggregation interface and the trunk. I use aggregation interfaces with virtual interfaces, like the 802.1 queues, sub interfaces with VLAN, and DHCP server relay. I haven't used dynamic working protocols. I only used static working protocols, but maybe my customer will be ready for dynamic working protocols in the future.

The time it takes to deploy depends on the project. Usually, it's about two weeks for the basic installation. However, my current project took between one and two months. Some customers require a lot of other tasks, so the installation might take six to eight weeks.

I'm able to do everything by myself, but I have some problems with functionality every now and then. For example, I recently had a problem with the side-to-side VPN, but the configuration was okay. In the end, I found it was a problem with the internet connection, not the VPN. Initially, our internet provider told us that everything was okay on our networks. 

Unfortunately, Palo Alto Networks products aren't cheap, but you have to pay the price for good security technology. I don't know the exact price, but it's about $10,000 to $15,000 without a subscription. Cisco is priced similarly. FortiGate is inexpensive in Poland, so a lot of customers prefer that.

Though it's pricey, customers ultimately realize Palo Alto is the best security solution because it's stable and the network security functions are practical. Cisco has some problems from time to time, but I feel comfortable with Palo Alto Networks. 

I rate Palo Alto Networking Next-Gen Firewalls seven out of ten. I have to qualify that by saying that I probably don't know enough about Palo Alto Networks technology because we don't have advanced projects in Poland. I want more opportunities to develop my skills with this technology. I want to know more about Prisma Cloud and Strata products. 

Depending on the client's infrastructure, I would recommend a different Palo Alto firewall. I would use PA 220 or maybe a PA 420 maybe for a small office. These devices are for small and medium-sized businesses. We would use a 52 and a 54 series or a 7000 series for a large enterprise.

A VM deployment might be suitable for some security projects. We've even deployed Palo Alto in Polish government institutions. For example, I implemented a VM 500 security solution two years ago. This device works in high availability mode. I think VM is a good starting point for a customer. It allows them to try the security product, open the Web UI, etc. After that, we should develop a proof of concept test and show the customer how this device works on their infrastructure. 

I would recommend a Palo Alto firewall with next-generation security functions like IPS, and the ability to use user or application IDs. I will tell my customers about dynamic functionality and threat intelligence in the Palo Alto Networks cloud.

We're slowly migrating our on-premises solutions to the cloud. We implemented the next largest size VM for the PA-7050s because we're using 7050s on-premises, due to the bandwidth requirement of 100 GBS.

After changing our firewalls to 7050s last year and this year, both our internal firewalls and our border firewalls are 7050s.

Having embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention is something that will greatly enhance our abilities and some of the things that we're doing. We deal with it daily now, versus a time when an incident only occurred every so often. In fact, we see incidents all the time, which include things like phishing attacks. Having some of the functionality inside the firewall  

I would rate Palo Alto's machine learning capability, which secures our network against rapidly evolving threats, pretty high. We own a product that I want to get rid of by Cisco, called Stealthwatch. It generates alerts and it's really built for East-West traffic. Of the alerts that we get, 99.9% of them are already blocked by the firewall. I'm not really worried about my North-South traffic because Palo Alto is there. For what they have in the box and the different subscription models, I'm not worried because Palo Alto does such an excellent job of catching stuff.

The biggest improvement to our organization since implementing Palo Alto is that there are a lot of things I no longer have to worry about. There are a lot of things that I used to do, that I don't have to do anymore. For example, I don't have to worry about putting up a honeypot. It's superfluous now because I've got default deny and there is no sense in opening up the border to allow people to come onto my network just to go to the honeypot.

The basic IDS/IPS is taken care of, so I don't need to purchase a product like FireEye. I'm not worried about my core, critical systems.

This next-gen firewall platform has definitely helped us to eliminate security holes. Comparing it to Cisco, which is port-based, a port can be spoofed. This is something that we see every day. When going from a port-based paradigm to an application-based paradigm, there is no comparison. It is more granular, which allows me to be more specific about, for example, port 80 traffic. Port 80 has any number of applications that it can be but if I specify applications, I can pick up all of the port 80 traffic. This means that I can make sure that they cannot spoof an SSH connection as a port 80 connection.

As a growing shop, we have been trying to integrate and get something that we can use as a single pane of glass, and we're getting there. Palo Alto has helped a lot. For example, the new feature for us is the data lake, which allows us to send logs anywhere. This is something that we couldn't do before, so this solution has enabled us to do a little bit more and get rid of some tools.

I don't feel that there is much of a trade-off between security and network performance. Our layer-two network is very robust and I build around them. The architecture is based on what our networking can do, capacity-wise. We haven't had to adjust anything, even when we were running the smaller Palo Alto units, to make things function.

Wildfire has been a very good feature. It allowed us to get rid of our honeypot machines, as well as our IDS/IPS solution. When we put it on the border, it was blocking everything that we were getting ahead of time, and we weren't getting any hits. This includes URL filtering, spam prevention, and anti-virus.

We are using a data lake for our log storage. Because our Splunk license is only so large, we couldn't do a lot of logging. Palo Alto does not create small logs, like a Cisco box. In fact, with Palo Alto, you can't capture all of your logs.

From a layer three network perspective, Palo Alto is a workhorse that gives us the best value.

This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is 100% important to us. This is a great feature.

The user interface is beautiful. They've done their homework on UI design. There are small little tweaks but that's really a preference more than functionality.

One of the downsides of logging with Palo Alto is that we do not capture the beginning of a session. It only captures at the end of the session. This means that if we're trying to mitigate something, such as an incident that happened, we can't say definitively that it happened at a particular time. The reason is that Palo Alto keeps track of every session that happens and if it were set up to do that, we would overload the firewall and overload the logging of anything because we do terabytes worth of data every day.

Having a single pane of glass, where we can see all of the stuff that we have to be able to react to, would be very helpful. We're a small shop but we have to cover the entire security spectrum. It makes it hard because we have to wear many hats. A single pane of glass where we can put alerts and other information would make our life a lot easier. As a small EDU, we just don't have the resources that the private companies have, so we have to try to find the best bang for the buck.

From a documentation standpoint, there is room for improvement. Even Palo Alto says that their documentation is terrible. It may be true for any company, where you're going to find documentation that is outdated or has not been kept up to date, but that's my main complaint.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for between 10 and 15 years.

The stability is fire and forget. You don't have to worry about it. I've had to babysit Cisco devices in the past but I've never had to do the same with Palo Alto.

I've always had really good assets over the years and in all, they have changed perhaps two or three of them. Overall, they've been wonderful.

The scalability is wonderful. In the last iteration that I did, I folded 12 different firewalls into one box, across campus, without any problems with network degradation.

Without our two boxes, we have 16 firewalls set up. There are two of us responsible for maintaining the system, and our job titles are cybersecurity network engineers. 

The way the interfaces are set up makes it really easy to use. Also, the different routing protocols that you can use within the box make life easy when it comes to setting them up. 

The product covers the entire university. We use it at the edge for one of the departments, and it acts as their edge firewall. They pay for their solution and we maintain it for them.

We have deployments in other campuses, as well.

As we segment the network, depending on the zoning, we will be adding new interfaces to do certain things, such as setting up DMZs.

The support has been wonderful. I have not had any bad support that I can think of over the years. They've always been there.

Prior to Palo Alto, we used a combination of solutions. This included honeypot machines, and products for IPS/IDS.

We used to be a Cisco shop and I'm glad that we are no longer one. I've been trying to get rid of Cisco for years. The problem with them is that it's unwieldy. It's an old-school way of doing things. For example, everything is port-based. They tried to get into the next-gen firewall space, but the way they grow is that they buy other companies and try to combine technologies to make them work. That doesn't work.

One thing that I've never liked about Cisco, and still don't like, is that if I did an OS upgrade, I was guaranteed that I would be there for at least three to five hours. This was for a simple OS upgrade. Palo Alto has made my life a lot easier from that perspective, which is something that I really appreciate.

Outside of the problem with the OS upgrade, security was becoming more prevalent at the time because of hackers. Cisco was just port-based, and we wanted to move to something that was mobile and more granular. We wanted something that would give us better security and Cisco just didn't have it. 

We don't use the DNS security capability with Palo Alto because we use Cisco Umbrella for that, and it works great.

The initial setup is very easy. I can do it in my sleep. The process will take between 15 and 20 minutes for a new deployment. If it's an existing system that you're moving stuff over from, it depends on whether it's Palo to Palo or from something else to Palo. It can take between two and three hours, depending on how many rules there are, and the other things that you have to set up. Once you're up and running, it takes no time to debug it.

Comparing the initial setup to a Cisco device, Palo Alto is much easier. With Cisco, you can't do a simple reset to factory default settings without breaking it. The time I did this, it took me two weeks to finally get it up and running, and I had to call the Cisco SEs to come in and fix it. That's how bad it was. Setting up Cisco is a nightmare.

In comparison, setting up a Palo Alto is child's play. It's like ABCs versus a university course when it comes to getting something set up in Cisco. We have run into problems with Palo Alto in the past but for the most part, it's an easy process.

When we first implemented Palo Alto, we hired a consultant, ProSys, to assist us. They know our network. They've been with us for years and they've got some Palo Alto experts. The reason we asked for their help is that we didn't know anything about Palo Alto until after we took the courses.

One of the problems at the university, in general, is that we don't do a lot of these processes every day. This makes it hard for most universities to be able to do a lot of these more complex setups on their own without getting outside help. The people who are in big businesses that deploy these things on a daily basis get to see this stuff all the time. Universities don't, so we normally have to rely on outside help.

Overall, our experience with ProSys was good. We like working with them.

Palo Alto is not a cheap solution but it is competitive when it comes to subscriptions.

The hardware is something that you can buy all day long, regardless of the vendor. It's when you start adding in all of the subscriptions that it is either going to make or break the budget. All things considered, Palo Alto is comparable.

There are several extra features available and what you use depends on what you want to do with the firewall, and how it's going to be deployed. AV is an option, the Threat Prevention app is extra, along with URL filtering, and WildFire. You won't have all of the options on all of the servers. For example, the internal servers won't be doing any web surfing, so the requirements are a little bit different.

I'm more worried about my building to building, East-West traffic because I can't afford to put a Palo Alto in every building. Instead, I put a Palo Alto in front of me to deal with the North-South traffic.

We knew about Palo Alto and that's what we wanted, so we did not evaluate other vendors or products.

I've worked with my SE on this with at least four or five other schools that did not use Palo's, but since turned to use them. I speak with my SE often, and I also speak with my colleagues at other schools about my experiences. I generally explain what my experience with Palo Alto is compared to what I've had with other firewalls.

I don't want to become a Palo Alto-centric shop. We can use certain cloud features that they have, such as SaaS products. However, I choose not to, so that we can have a little bit more flexibility in what we do.

When we were a pure Cisco shop, we saw the problems with doing that. Palo Alto does a really good job at everything they do but, I just want to make sure that from my university's perspective, we don't get stuck. If all of a sudden, somebody else comes out with another product, we don't want to be stuck with a specific vendor, unless they are definitely the best solution.

We use other products in addition to Palo Alto to help along the way. For example, we use Corelight from Bro Zeek, Terracotta, and other things that I can stream together and send to our SOC to look at. We also have XDR, although it's not a fully functional one because we don't have the endpoint component. That is what is killing a lot of EDUs because we just don't have the budget or the money to be able to go out and buy all of the products that help us to function the way we need to.

In the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW, 100% of the evasions were blocked. For a C-level person, that's great news. They read those types of things. As a technical person, it's important to me because it makes my life easy.

Palo Alto sells a next-generation firewall called the PA-400 series, and depending on what a company's bandwidth needs are, it would be a good choice. For example, if they're not doing anywhere close to a gig worth of traffic, such as in a small office, home office, or small business, then it would be a good solution. It also depends on what the business does. If there isn't much traffic then a PA-400 would be fine.

If a colleague of mine at another company were to say that they are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, based on my experience with Palo Alto, I would tell them that they get what they pay for. Palo Alto is not cheap but at the same time, their product is not really comparable with others. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

If you consider Fortinet, for example, they call themselves a next-generation firewall but they really aren't. They are what you call a GPO, which is related to policies. It is important that you look at what other people do and how they do it, but for the most part, there's not anybody out there doing what Palo Alto is. 

Another one is Cisco. They do the same thing that Palo Alto does, although it takes three Cisco boxes to do what a single Palo Alto box does.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It is a data center firewall solution and a centralized management for remote office firewall solutions. We have 30-odd remote offices where we are putting firewalls in to replace the standard routers that we used to have. This solution will give us a little bit of routing and firewall capabilities.

We are deploying the PA-440 Series in our remote offices.

Historically, DNS would have been from local providers. Now, having a centralized DNS allows us to make sure there are no issues of DNS cache poisoning and DNS exfiltration. 

The solution has definitely helped us with the security holes around visibility and uniform policy deployments across the estate. Unified, centralized configuration management definitely helps us reduce the risk by having a central place where we can create a policy, and it is deployed everywhere, without the risk of human mistakes creeping in, e.g., typo mistakes creeping into configurations.

The firewall feature is great because we didn't have specific firewall capabilities beforehand. The anti-malware features and the ability to plug into our mail scanning are valuable as well, so we can share data between our email antivirus scanning solutions. That integration has been quite useful.

Palo Alto NGFW embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, which is another string to the bow of our layered security approach. So, it is important. It is not the big reason we bought it, but it is a useful component to our layered security approach. Security best practices push for a layered approach because there are so many different factors that you need to cover: 

• Email threats
• Malware
• Viruses
• Accidental human mistakes made internally to your network.
• Malicious humans in your network and outside your network. 

Therefore, a multi-layered approach really is a security best practice way of attacking security. You can't just worry about the parameter; you need to worry about what's inside your network and how things come in.

The key thing is that we don't have to try and play Whac-A-Mole. The machine learning-powered firewalls do that for us. As a recruitment company, we can never have the necessary technologies available to us to try and do this ourselves, so leveraging the machine learning power from Palo Alto reduces the risk for us.

Palo Alto NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is very useful. This prevents us from having to go to a lot of different systems, and in some cases, many different systems in many different regions, because we are a global company with 60 remote offices around the world in 30 different countries. Its centralized platform is really what we look for in all services, whether it be security or otherwise.

When we looked at it originally, we needed to host the Panorama environment ourselves. I would prefer it if we could take this as a service. It might be that it is available, but for some reason we didn't choose it. The downsides of hosting are that we need to feed and water the machines. We are trying to move to a more SaaS environment where we have less things in our data centers, whether they be in our cloud data centers or physical data centers, which can reduce our physical data center footprint.

We started with a couple of firewalls about 18 months ago. We started them in our data centers and are just about to deploy them in our remote offices.

It has been very stable.

On the maintenance side, we haven't increased our team at all. One of the great things that we have been able to improve is the capability of our team without increasing the number of heads who are using Palo Alto.

It is scalable with what we need. I am not looking at thousands and thousands of devices, so it is well within what we need for our few hundred devices.

We often didn't deploy tools because it was too hard to try and manage them with our small team. This solution has enabled our small team to be way more effective than they were before. It gives us the visibility and control that we need.

We have a senior network administrator and about five operational guys. There are also some service desk-level guys and about 12 of them have visibility into activities, but they don't actually change things. Change control is quite closely guarded.

We have deployed the solution in a couple of data centers. We are deploying it across 30 offices this year and plan to do the next 30 to 30-ish offices in the next 12 to 18 months, as some of their hardware retires or has expired. We are not pushing it out too fast. We are going with the cadence of the business.

The technical support is very good. We had some nasty questions, but they were sorted out quite quickly. The problem that we had, because it was live, was it took us a little bit of time to deploy stuff. We also have a good relationship with their pre-sales engineers who offered advice and guidance, specifically as part of the deployment.

We previously had Cisco ASA Firewalls in some locations and Cisco Security PAK Routers in other locations that gave us a base level of firewall. So, we didn't previously have any next-generation firewalls. These are our first real next-gen firewalls.

We switched solutions because we didn't have enough of the network security covered. Also, we wanted centralized visibility and control, which was key for us.

When we did some red team testing, we found that there was a way to get some data out through our existing DNS environment. We knew we had to fix the centralized DNS management, visibility, knowledge of the DNS queries, and the visibility of the DNS queries as a result of some testing that we did. Whereas, before they were all geographically disparate, having a centralized place to look at to be able to do some analysis and visibility really are the key things for us.

The initial setup was not simple, but it is simplified. What was really good was the free training beforehand. As an architect, I don't get my hands that dirty, but I was able to go through a number of the free courses beforehand, or workshops, that were done online. Their training platform was very useful in helping me get an understanding of the product and how we would deploy it in our own environment. The actual deployment, as with anything network-related, is fairly complex because we have a very connected network with a lot of different entry points. While it takes time, it was very useful to get the training beforehand.

The deployment took about three months, but it was in the midst of a data center migration. It probably only took us a month to deploy it properly, but then we had to migrate services over, which took another six months. Again, this was part of our data center migration project. To actually get the solution installed was very quick, it took only a couple of days to get it up and running. However, to move services onto it, you need to be a bit careful when you start to move the live services onto it.

Our implementation strategy was really focused around our data center migrations and moving stuff out of one data center into another. As we moved services from one data center to the other, we brought them onto Palo Alto's in the new data center rather than onto the existing old routers and firewalls. So, it was really governed by the business, applications, and what we could move when.

We used Palo Alto directly for the deployment. Our experience with them was great.

To deploy it, we didn't employ any more staff. We did send a few people out remotely. With COVID, travel is a little bit tricky. So, we have some remote agreements with some suppliers who will go out for a day, plug a device in, and help us with the initial out-of-the-box config. That is normally two to three hours per site that we have to do, which is what I would expect from this kind of device.

Look at Palo Alto because it is a bit modular, so you can take the components that you need when you need them. You need something that will do the job. It doesn't matter if it's cheap and fast, if it quickly lets through vulnerabilities. You need something that will be reliable.

We were very happy when they released the PA-440s. Previously, we had been looking at the PA-820s, which were a bit of overkill for us. Price-wise and capability-wise, the PA-820s hit the nail on the head for us.

Go for a three-year deal, then Palo Alto will bring in some discounts. We also deployed them as HA Pairs to make sure we had resiliency.

We looked at Cisco and Fortinet. The reason that we went with Palo Alto was they were fairly cost-effective. They were also a bit easier to manage. The central management and control of Palo Alto was a little bit nicer than the Cisco side of things. I think everyone achieves the same things in slightly different ways. The way Palo Alto achieves their centralized management and control resonated a bit better with us and our requirements.

We haven't actually deployed Palo Alto NGFW’s DNS Security yet, but we will be doing that.

It is great that 100% of the tested attacks were blocked in the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW. It is a great story, but I never trust 100% because that's why we have layered security. However, it definitely provides a great level of comfort in our security structure.

I never give anyone a 10, so I will give the solution a nine (out of 10).

The solution is to provide protection for our cloud-based server resources.

We don't have to spend as much time monitoring or configuring the solution. We just feed the alerts into our stock and we don't have to manage it regularly.

The configuration and stability are great. The solution offers many good features. Palo Alto has by far the best firewall in the world.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls embed machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention. Of course, that's just expected these days. Anyone worth considering is doing this. Low-end firewall devices out there do not provide that. However, they're not enterprise-ready.

The machine learning in Palo Alto's Next-Generation Firewalls is excellent for securing our networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly. It's a ten out of ten.

The product provides a unified platform that natively integrates all the security capabilities. That's very important to us.

The product has zero-day signature features implemented.

There are no trade-offs between security and network performance with Palo Alto.

We haven't had any issues so far.

I've used the solution for the last three years, although the company has used it for longer. 

Technical support is proactive in letting us know when there are updates that need to be made to the system. We've not had any issues with any of the maintenance activities.

Positive

We are customers of Palo Alto.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We protect certain applications in the data center with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

Application layer security and integration with other components that we have in our networks are valuable features.

Compared to other firewalls from Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco, for example, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls use the most advanced techniques. They have sandbox integration and others in the orchestrator. Palo Alto's security features are at a higher level than those of the competitors at the moment.

It's very important that we be able to integrate all security capabilities within the firewall. This is one of the key reasons why we chose to go with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We are heavily investing in technology that uses machine learning. Thus, it is important for us that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention.

Palo Alto needs to provide more support during the design phase and with proposals. They need to be more proactive, try to anticipate issues, and then help us to implement the transformation quickly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for five years now.

We have not had any issues with stability. I have not heard from our SOC about issues with devices either.

The scalability has been good. We are the biggest bank in Italy with 100,000 employees.

Palo Alto's technical support is extremely good and responsive. The ticketing system, however, is a little bureaucratic especially when you are in a hurry or are dealing with an emergency. On a scale from one to ten, overall, I would rate technical support a nine.

Positive

The deployment was quite easy.

We have seen a return on investment in general. Our company is moving to the cloud and toward digital transformation in the financial sector. Palo Alto plays a key role in this return on investment.

My advice to you, if you're looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, is that the cheapest firewall is not the best for security.

We use firewall solutions from multiple vendors, and from a security point of view, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are one of the best in comparison. Also, you get the best value from Palo Alto with application layer security, machine learning, and integration.

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

I find it valuable to attend an RSA Conference because I get the opportunity to participate in several seminars, share, and learn from other people as well.

Attending RSAC also impacts our purchasing decisions because what I see at the conference will end up in the budget the following year or the year after that.

We use the solution to protect our internal network from external threats.

Up until recently we were not using multilayer firewalls and were using several solutions that are combined in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We are required to provide our network test results to our central bank, and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls offer a robust report for this purpose that would otherwise be a cumbersome human task.

The performance of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the most valuable feature.

The analytics could be improved. I would like to have a unified analysis tool within Palo Alto, as we currently use Perimeter 81 and Fortinet FortiGate, which makes the analysis process take a long time.

I have been using the solution for almost four years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We have three people that monitor the solution and maintain it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We had to secure our parameter network. We required two engineers from a reseller and two from our organization.

The implementation was completed with the help of a partner.

The solution is worth the price, as it can be utilized without the need for high-processing CPUs and resources, thus saving us overall.

I evaluated Check Point and decided to use Palo Alto because of its performance. Palo Alto can be used with fewer CPUs. 

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Before using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls you must first know what our requirements are.