Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We have had use cases for defending our resources against external access or authenticating particular traffic or appropriate traffic for access.

The key factor here is reliability. In my previous company, we had a different vendor's firewall before switching to Palo Alto network devices. 

Unfortunately, during that time, our security team was on vacation and had to be called back urgently due to a severe incident. This experience led us to switch to a more dependable, reliable, and robust system, which turned out to be the Palo Alto network device. 

Fortunately, the transition from our old system to the new one was relatively seamless, and we now have a reliable and robust security infrastructure.

In my opinion, Palo Alto has consistently been one of the best firewalls for enterprise security. 

We have encountered numerous instances where we have observed threats and attacks targeting our systems, and Palo Alto has proven to be highly reliable in blocking any malicious activity.

I would like to see some Machine Learning because I have observed new types of attacks that are able to bypass existing security rules. It is possible that implementing some form of continuous learning or education could be beneficial in addressing this issue.

Some way to learn what is normal it isn't, you know, something like that, I think that would be probably the most beneficial thing to me.

To say it's a set-and-forget system wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is an incredibly stable and reliable system. Once it's set up and configured properly, you really just need to keep an eye on it for any necessary updates or new rules. In my experience, it's one of the most reliable systems available.

The original installation we were considering was for a small organization, and we had to take into account the fact that we were going to expand the endpoints to our entire user base, not just a select few like marketing.

We were assured that the system would have no issues handling the additional workload as we added more devices or upgraded the device.

The firewall solution that I have referred to the most during this conversation is one that I have implemented for small to medium-sized organizations.

I found the initial setup very straightforward.

I recall that the setup process for the device was straightforward and could be completed quickly. However, while the device did come out of the box, it wasn't as secure as it could have been, and I had to go in and tighten up the security settings. Despite that, compared to other firewalls with complex and cryptic interfaces, Palo Alto's firewall interface was relatively easy to use and comprehend.

There were certainly benefits in terms of time-saving and ease of learning for the user. The straightforward setup process and user-friendly interface of the Palo Alto network devices made it easier and quicker to implement, thus saving time. Additionally, the easy-to-use interface also helped in reducing the learning curve for users, enabling them to become proficient in using the device more rapidly.

Using Palo Alto has reduced the amount of downtime considerably.

Determining the impact of blocking threats is not straightforward because it depends on the severity of the threat. For example, if a threat only affected one server, the downtime would be minimal. However, if it caused an outage in the entire environment, the impact would be much greater. It is challenging to quantify the amount of downtime prevented by blocking threats.

Usually, when setting up a new firewall, it's common to get around 80% of the work done within a few days. However, with the Palo Alto network device, I recall that we were able to achieve 95% to 99% completion within just a couple of days. The device's user-friendly interface and straightforward configuration process made it easier to accomplish more in less time.

Technical support was helpful during the deployment process.

During the deployment process, I thought they were great. I had no complaints they were very knowledgeable, and we were able to resolve everything very quickly.

The organization has seen a return on investment with Palo Alto firewalls as we haven't experienced any significant breaches.

When when we first looked at Palo Alto, it came in as the top recommendation from a source that we trusted. We didn't actually look at other vendors at that time. 

At the time, we had the full support of our CEO and team, who recognized the urgency of the situation as our entire system was down. This rare backing from everyone helped us to quickly implement a solution.

We frequently recommend Palo Alto to others as we believe it is a highly effective solution for network security. It is one of those things where if someone does not have a Palo Alto, we advise them to consider it as a worthwhile investment.

For those seeking the cheapest or quickest solution, I would advise that while it may seem like a good idea in the short term, you will likely encounter issues that will require you to replace the solution soon after. Investing in a reliable and reputable solution like Palo Alto Networks may require a larger investment upfront, but will ultimately save you time and money in the long run.

The biggest value that I gain from being here is networking and finding out what other products are out there without having to go to, like, a search engine and wait or rely on the results of the search engine. I can literally wander around. And if something catches my eye, I can be like, well, that's really cool. Let me go get some more information about that.

It's really easy to just look at all the different vendors, looks at the various talks, looks at everything that's here, and get information tailored to what I wanna learn about.

I definitely can make recommendations on various products they get based on my experience, but I don't have a say in it directly.

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

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for cybersecurity and network security for our infrastructure for our districts, worldwide. 

The SIM's ability to analyze traffic and take appropriate action is the most valuable feature of this solution.

It is an extremely powerful solution as it provides visibility into all the network traffic, and offers a range of actions such as blocking websites or graphics, as well as load balancing. It's a great tool.

The solution's user-friendly interface and clear network visibility are highly valuable to us. It makes management easier, especially for those without extensive technical knowledge.

The benefit we derive from this solution is not only its ease of use but also how it enables collaboration among our team for special activities in our network.

Additionally, the reports that we can generate from the software are very valuable.

Using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls has helped us reduce downtime.

Compared to our previous solution, I believe it was Fortinet. It saves a lot of time, you know, especially running your reports and analyzing the traffic. I believe we save thirty to forty percent.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities.

It has seamless integration with all our devices, including Mac and Windows, and also with our secret server. Moreover, it is even integrated with the Microsoft streaming application that we use.

The embedded machine learning functions seamlessly and can be easily accessed through the dashboard's dedicated tools. Its ease of use is impressive.

I believe it would be beneficial if the solution could integrate with Google Chrome, especially for students who use Chromebooks. However, as far as I know, the solution currently does not support Google Chrome.

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

The solution is incredibly stable. 

We have installed patches and updates, and they have all gone smoothly without any issues.

We haven't fully used the capabilities of the firewall, but we purchased a larger scale to prepare for potential future growth.

The firewall is deployed across all six schools and the district office, protecting the entire infrastructure, including switches, access points, and other devices.

This is approximately 3,500 to 4,000 devices.

The technical support team is readily available and very helpful. They provide great assistance whenever we encounter any issues.

There are delays at times, but overall, they are great. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we used Fortinet.

I was involved in the deployment.

We received assistance from the technical support team who helped us implement the project.

We have seen a return on our investment.

As previously mentioned, the firewall is easy to use and has helped us save a significant amount of time, approximately thirty to forty percent.

The cost is quite high.

We evaluated Fortinet as well as Cisco.

The firewall we use is recommended by our county office of education, which also uses the same application. 

This makes it easier for us to collaborate with the county and share reports between different departments.

I'm thoroughly impressed during my inaugural visit here. The array of products and the advanced technology showcased are truly exceptional. It's a great experience.

I plan to revisit it in the future.

Certainly, my attendance would have a significant impact on my cybersecurity-related buying choices as I would gain better insights into various vendors and their products available in the market. It would provide me with increased visibility and enable me to make informed purchasing decisions.

By attending the event and gaining insights into the different vendors and products available in the market, we can make informed decisions about which route to take in the future.

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

For security purposes, we use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for both the edge and data center.

The IT operations side provides us with more freedom as we don't have to worry about it as much due to the automated alerts and detection.

The DNS sync code in your filtering is the most valuable feature of the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

It helps us stay informed about the activities of our end users.

As I learn more about the unified platform, I see that Palo Alto is integrating well with other standards and are innovating, so the solution works effectively.

Maintaining a good security posture is important for our organization, particularly when it comes to threats like ransomware. ITM Security plays a vital role in this, and Palo Alto Networks equipped us well to be proactive in our approach. As a result, we prioritize the importance of ITM Security within our group.

Incorporating machine learning into the firewall's core to provide real-time attack prevention is highly beneficial, particularly with features like WildFire. We have had instances where it effectively stopped zero-day attacks on the first day, and we were one of the first to encounter the issue. Within a couple of hours, they notified us that it was a security issue, allowing us to take action promptly.

I am not aware of anything that could be improved.

I think that they have been doing a good job at this point in time.

Technical support is an area that could be improved.

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

Our downtime has not been reduced by Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. We experienced a DSL firewall incident that resulted in a five-hour downtime while we discovered the bug, and although I cannot entirely blame the firewall, it was still a part of the issue. However, we have learned to deal with this inconvenience.

It's quite stable. We had one issue because of a bug. Aside from that, everything has been fine.

The scalability is excellent. We were able to enlarge the network and install additional firewalls. There haven't been many problems with that.

Technical support has fallen off. It was much better up front. The first four years were spectacular.

In the last couple of years, we're getting a lot of overseas support that seems to have little training. In the beginning, it was high, but now I would rate it a five out of ten.

Neutral

Previously, we used Cisco.

Compared to Cisco, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are much better in terms of being more elegant and thorough, especially when it comes to navigating log files and similar tasks.

By the nature of coming from Cisco Firewall to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, there was complexity involved. But with the help of third-party resources, we were able to get it done pretty quickly.

We had assistance from a consultant. They were very helpful.

The pricing is competitive.

If someone is looking for the cheapest or the fastest option, I am not quite sure what other vendors are offering in terms of pricing. However, my recommendation would be to go with Palo Alto so that they don't have to worry about the security of their job.

After evaluating Cisco Firepower and Palo Alto, we decided to go with these two options. However, after trying out Firepower, we realized that it was not a good fit for us and we knew we didn't want to proceed with it.

Our current design is efficient as all our sites are routed to the Palo Alto firewall, allowing us to segregate VLANs and maintain communication between users. It's a great setup that simplifies a lot of our work.

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

In my overall assessment, I would give the conference a seven out of ten. It seems like many presentations focus on industry trends, and there is some repetition across different companies covering the same three or four topics. However, I found that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls had some valuable insights into what the industry is doing.

It helps, as we are the ones making decisions.

We started using this solution as a basic firewall, and then, we ended up with URL filtering, IPS, and decryption.

It increased visibility, and we can see things that we couldn't see before and are able to decrypt as well. We can actually see what's going on in our network.

Decryption is one of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' best features because we can decrypt by category. For instance, we can decrypt everything except for bank traffic so that we don't interfere with the passwords and two-factor authentication of those checking their bank accounts at work. We can still monitor for malware and other threats that come through a secure channel. It's seamless for users. The URL filtering and IPS are both great as well.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. WildFire stops a lot of viruses and malware that come in from the outside. In addition, when you decrypt the traffic you'll be able to see a lot that you couldn't before. You can then integrate that into a SIEM and have visibility into all the different things that are going on. Integration with WildFire provides sandboxing and tells you if it's malicious content or not. Then, you can do URL filtering for the endpoints. All of this data goes into the SIEM. Thus, it's a really good, well-integrated software.

This native integration is very important to us because of the cost. When we get an enterprise license and get all these features on one device, we don't have to buy five devices or virtuals or set up a virtual or cloud farm to do the five things that the solution will do automatically, natively out of the box. We have been able to save money because we are able to get rid of our decryption software and are getting close to letting go of our filtering software.

It's important to us that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. This is important because those who exploit us daily use new tactics that are not seen at all times. They employ tactics that use applications that we currently use, such as PowerShell. If a PowerShell script comes in and it's decrypted, launched in WildFire in a sandbox, and blocked, it cuts our threat vector down tremendously.

When we go across all the workspaces, it's simple. The web-facing servers are protected with IPS, and the endpoints are protected with URL filtering in the sandbox and decryption. We log all of the MAC addresses, so we block hackers from getting into different websites when staff use a Wi-Fi connection off-site. In terms of securing data centers consistently across all workspaces, our whole ecosystem depends on having Palo Alto so that we can have one centralized SIEM where all the data is. Our SOC can investigate all the alerts that we get from all of these different areas.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls need better training modules. You have to do a lot of reading prior to watching the training videos, and it's good for people who are really into it. However, often you want to use a video for a TID. You want to see how to do something rather than spend 30 minutes reading and then another 30 minutes watching the class. As a result, I take third-party training classes rather than Palo Alto's training because they are a lot better.

The training should be more accessible because if everybody has to pay for training, it makes it harder for us to get in techs who are qualified to do the work. If there are clear levels and schemes for certification, it would be great.

I've been using this solution for probably five years now.

The firewalls are always on, and we haven't had any stability problems. We haven't even had any hardware failures, and the perishables are great.

The firewall's scalability is nice because you can take a VM and put more memory in it. If you virtualize, then you can scale it out. With an enterprise license, you can load several to get all different points of your internet access. For example, one could do URL filtering just for the desktop, and another one could be an IPS in front of something else.

It's very flexible, and you can use these virtuals to contain all these different situations from an architectural standpoint without having to buy other software.

Palo Alto's technical support is great, and I'd give them a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward in the sense that when you put it in it starts doing what it's supposed to do. Then, you have to turn on all the features that you want.

We mainly worked with Palo Alto Networks. They taught us a lot and have been very helpful in getting us onboarded with all of the different features.

We see a return on our investment every day. We have threat hunters who go through the data and tell other state agencies where the problems are or what we were able to stop.

We haven't had a problem with pricing or licensing because we consolidated other software to make Palo Alto more affordable.

If you're just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, remember that you'll get what you pay for. Check if the company is able to support its product 24/7. You have to be able to get technical support on the phone at any time of the day or night. In addition, the company has to be able to do training on its firewall, and there has to be a job market for it so that there's an employee pool from which you can pick someone who knows the software. If it's an obscure software company, and they only have two or three people in the country who are certified on it, then it would hurt you a lot because you won't be able to call these two or three people in the middle of the night and expect them to always be there. Palo Alto has a very deep bench, so they can go globally and get you tech support at any time. That's very helpful.

The price is dependent upon how many features you use. If you have a Palo Alto ecosystem where you use Prisma, IPS, URL filtering, and decryption, it's going to be affordable because you will be able to eliminate other software. However, if you're looking to use Palo Alto as just a firewall, it may not help you that much because everybody out there competes to provide a firewall experience.

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

The value I get by attending an RSA Conference is being able to see new up-and-coming software. Some products are new to the market, and others are trying to get their product to market. A lot of times, these products have key features that others don't.

Attending RSAC helps to influence cybersecurity purchases throughout the year because we are able to see a product that we didn't know was available. We learn that there is software that does certain functions that we didn't even know we needed. There are some products at RSAC that may be too expensive, but there are others that we would consider because they are cost-effective and have feature sets that we didn't know about.

We mainly use the solution for traditional firewall boundaries.

The solution helped us meet our security requirements.

The fact that the Next-Gen firewalls are integrated with identity is the best. It gives us the ability to track what an individual is doing and helps us provide access to only what they need in order to do their job.

Because we want to free up our operators from the routine tasks of investigations, it's important to us that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention.

Technical support could be improved. Palo Alto's technical support used to be great. Whenever I had a problem, I could pick up the phone and call and get answers. That's not the case any longer.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls don't provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It's missing some features for geofencing and understanding locations.

These firewalls are primarily used for edge defense. In terms of securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, that is, from the smallest office to the largest data centers, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls don't have a strong zero trust model.

NG Firewalls have not helped us reduce downtime in our organization. Because of technical support issues, we've taken some hits.

I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for 20 years.

It's always been a stable product.

This solution is a firewall that's a hardware appliance, and that's not the direction the industry is heading. Everybody is going toward a software-defined perimeter. Palo Alto doesn't have a strong say on it. They took what they had for their hardware and just put it in the cloud without understanding what being cloud-centric is all about.

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

Negative

Our ROI is that the firewalls have been used quite a few times for investigations. We've gathered the evidence we needed to act upon an issue.

These firewalls are not cheap, but they have a reasonable licensing model.

If you are considering attending an RSA Conference, note that you won't gain enough information by attending one conference. However, when you attend year after year, go through the expo, and talk to vendors, you will begin to see trends. You'll see that what's hype one year is no longer a reality another year. Thus, the experience with RSA is a multiple-year experience.

Attending RSAC has made an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases. We've brought products back into our infrastructure based on what we discovered from talking to vendors at the RSAC.

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

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.

We use this solution for perimeter security and security profile purposes.  This covers anti-virus and anti-spyware, as well as cyber security vulnerabilities through URL and file blocking.

We like the fact that this product can provide multiple layers of protection depending on our clients requirements, and can be configured to whatever level of protection and the specific protocols that they want.

We also like the fact that this solution has a wide range of features covering all types of system security, not focusing on just one area. Everything is geared into a single module, which means we no longer need several different devices.

As well as the single module functionality, this solution allows us to easily see the active sessions and how many users we have connected. Complete information, on one screen.

We would like to see the external dynamic list for this solution improved. The current version does not automatically block malicious IP addresses, which would be very useful.

We have been using this solution for the last seven years.

We have experienced 100% stability with this solution.

The scalability of this solution depends on the management CPU that is being utilized. To manage high level traffic, it requires high-specification hardware to be used, or performance can be affected.

This vendor not only provides a lot of very clear documentation, but also has a community center to allow for self-diagnosis and fixes.

However, if this does not resolve the issue, the technical support team are very responsive and quick to fix any problems we take to them.

Positive

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, particularly when migrating from a different product and using their centralized management tool. This provides a configuration file that completes the majority of the setup automatically. All traffic is then automatically diverted through this firewall

The firewall is then registered in the providers portal, which allows for updates to be applied when they are released without the need for manual intervention.

We implemented this using one member of our in-house team, and the deployment took three days to complete.

However, there was some pre-implementation work to be done registering firewall serial numbers, connecting console cables etc, but this is all straightforward.

This solution is quite expensive because along with the license there is premium partner support that has to be purchased as a default addition. 

There is also a specific Threat Prevention License that has to be requested and purchased separately. However, licenses can be purchased for specific periods as opposed to just an annual offering.

We actually tested multiple solutions, and choose this one because it gave us the most benefits in one product.

We would advise organizations who are migrating from a different provider to inquire about the centralized management console, and to understand the full costs involved up front.

Also, despite the fact that this solution provides a lot of features, there will still be areas that aren't covered as this only works on perimeter level security.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

I design networks for our customers; I always use a high-speed packet filter upfront because I work for a Juniper partner company. This is usually a Juniper SRX series firewall and it does most of the easy work. Behind that, I add a more intelligent firewall, Palo Alto NGFW. We are partnered with Palo Alto, but that's not the main reason we use their solution. I worked with Check Point products for four years, and the Palo Alto alternative seriously impressed me. Here in Hungary, Palo Alto is considered the de facto intelligent firewall, for good reason.

I work for an integrator and support company, and I support our customer's security platforms; we have many customers with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The firewalls improved our organization. Creating firewall rules is much simpler. The solution is so straightforward that customers can configure it themselves, and they rarely call us for that, which is great for us as a support company. It makes our job much easier as Palo Alto NGFWs don't require a security specialist to configure; it can be done by systems engineers or IT support staff. 

All the features are valuable, but my main one is the straightforward and well-designed GUI. I'm over 50 and have been in this business since the internet started. I'm not a GUI guy; I prefer using the command line. The product's GUI is excellent, and so is the threat intelligence. It's also straightforward to configure and flexible. The solution even has good networking, such as VLAN and subinterfaces, which is great because, in my experience, if the firewall is good, then the router usually isn't and vice-versa, but Palo Alto has both.

We use the on-premises solution, and it's very impressive; both flexible and intelligent. The machine learning functionality is excellent, and I love the product as a support guy because it makes my job much easier. I have very little troubleshooting, and our customers haven't had a single security incident since implementing Palo Alto. I'm deeply impressed with this solution.

The machine learning against evolving threats works well. The best thing I can say is that none of our customers have had any security issues; I can't find any problems with the solution.

The support is outstanding; we are always alerted about potential issues such as bugs in advance, so we have time to adapt and prepare. Palo Alto has grown more effective; most importantly, there haven't been any security issues. I would give the product a 10 out of 10 for flexibility and at least a seven for security. I can't say precisely what security threats our customers face, but nothing has gotten through.

The solution provides a unified platform, which is essential because there is a significant shortage of experienced IT specialists in Hungary and elsewhere. Their effectiveness is amplified by the quality and straightforward nature of the solution, and the result is more robust security.

I don't have a direct view of our customer's security threats as it is privileged information, but I can say that there have been no security breaches. I would say the solution does eliminate security holes. 

Our Palo Alto firewalls have the zero-delay signature feature implemented, and it works fine. There haven't been any issues with us or any of our customers. This feature makes the whole security system more efficient. 

The network performance is top-notch; I would give it a 10 out of 10. Intelligent firewalls tend to be slower, but this solution is fast. Previously, I used a simple packet filter or zone-based packet filter in conjunction with an intelligent firewall, but Palo Alto is fast and secure enough for standalone use. I've been familiar with the solution's architecture from the beginning, and it's a very nice platform.

I recommend this solution to any engineer; technically speaking, it's the best product on the market. I know it isn't the cheapest, and decisions are often made on a financial level, but Palo Alto in Hungary always gives us a good deal. 

The solution's VPN, called GlobalProtect, could be improved as I've had a few issues with that. 

It can be challenging to migrate configurations between Palo Alto firewalls or restart with a backup configuration using the CLI. That could be improved. I think I'm one of the only people still using the CLI over the GUI, so that's just a personal issue.

I have been working with the solution for four years.

The solution is incredibly stable.

We work with hardware platforms, and they are usually slightly over designed to be on the safe side. The virtual firewall is highly customizable, but I have experience with the hardware platforms, and there is an upper limit on those, but I haven't had any scaling issues thus far.

In Hungary, where I live, the population is 10 million, similar to London. When I say we have 1000 end-users, it may seem like a small number, but that's relatively high for Hungary. Other vendors also supply the solution here, so 1000 is just our customers.

I mostly do deployments and maintenance alone. There are three systems engineers at our company.

The customer service and support are good. I have full support when I have a problem, and they can even do remote assistance. We had a big power failure, and the firewall didn't restart; they provided a hardware expert over the phone to solve the problem. They are very impressive. I would say Juniper offers the best support, but Palo Alto is almost as good, if not just as good for me.

Positive

I have been in this business from the beginning, so I used most firewall solutions. I focused on Cisco for 15 years, but that changed due to license-based selling in a very price-sensitive market. Cisco is not as viable an option as it used to be as customers consider it too expensive. I also used a Check Point solution, which was regarded as the go-to intelligent firewall five years ago, but now Palo Alto has taken that top spot. 

We are partners with several providers, including Juniper, Palo Alto, and a few others, but I always go with Palo Alto because it's a straightforward solution with easy installation.

The setup is easy; it's straightforward for anyone with basic networking and security knowledge. It's comparable to setting up a firewall at home, which is very impressive. It's still easy with very complex network setups, only the VPN concentrator, GlobalProtect, is more challenging, as it requires two-factor authentication, but it's still straightforward.

Initial setup time depends on the specific implementation, but we can do a new deployment in one or two days. It is more complicated when migrating from other platforms because the customer expects the same logic and features in the new platform. Palo Alto has an excellent marketing strategy, so their customers know their product uses a unique logic. This helps keep the implementation straightforward and shorter compared to other solutions. 

My implementation strategy begins with a plan for the customer's network based on their needs. Then I set up all the networking parameters and configure the solution in my lab device, so I can export it and import it on-site. Every setup begins in our lab, as it's more impressive to go to the customer and import the configuration right away. 

I don't know about the price of the platform or the license fees, as the finance department deals with that. I only bill for the materials involved in the design.

I don't know about the price. When there's a new project, I go to the meeting, but after a point, all the engineers leave when it comes to money because it's not our business. I know Palo Alto offers good discounts for the partners, and the solutions are good. They offer free trials and win many customers because it allows them to test products and see how well they perform.

The only thing I can say is it's a top technology. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cloud-based solutions are very unpopular in Eastern Europe, only private clouds are used, but on-premises is the favored deployment method. We use cloud solutions at home and for small companies or companies with particular use cases. I implemented the solution for a customer, and my first task was to disable all cloud-related features. It's exceedingly difficult to find a financial or government institution using a cloud-based platform; this market segment tends to have a more conservative mentality.

I don't use the solution personally, but I'm the first-level troubleshooter. If I can't solve a problem, I open a ticket to Palo Alto's customer support.

I have clients who used separate firewalls and VPN concentrators, but after switching to this solution, they now use the Palo Alto firewall and its VPN, GlobalProtect. I don't think it's the best VPN concentrator, it's an excellent firewall, but the weak point is the VPN.

I advise reading the documentation before configuring, which goes for any platform.

We use it to see and detect malware. It is also used for antivirus, anti-spyware, anti-malware, vulnerability, and Wildfire analysis. We support different kinds of authentication as well: Kerberos, LDAP, TACACS, and SAML. All in all, it is a security device that you can have anywhere on your network, as per the design considerations.

It is deployed in two different ways, either on-premises or on the cloud, which may require a different hypervisor. 

Nowadays, because of the pandemic, everyone is working from home or users are not sitting in the office to work. So, security has become a challenge. For that, we provide GlobalProtect, which is a VPN solution. This will connect to your organization's network, and then you can access anything that is required. This is the most widely used tool that we provide, and it is used worldwide. During the pandemic, it was a massive success for us.

Palo Alto NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities which is really important from the end customer point of view. If I have to set up an organization, I will go ahead and buy different devices or platforms. However, if I go ahead and buy Next-Generation Firewalls and put them on the edge of the network where I connect with ISPs, my Next-Generation Firewalls will take care of the security parameters. I don't need to worry about it that much anymore.

Its security profiles are a valuable feature. 

All the logs can be stored in a single place.

Panorama lets all the devices be managed centrally in a single place. This provides the best view for admins into any particular firewall, which decreases those admins' tasks because they can view everything in a single place. 

The machine learning tracks how many packets per second are coming into the firewall.

Any request coming in will go into the DNS sinkhole first, not to the user. We protect our users that way.

Within this one platform, you are getting everything that you want. This single device can provide you with antivirus, anti-spyware, volumetric protection, URL filtering where decryption is required, and file blocking with Wildfire analysis.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have a Single Pass Parallel Processing (SP3) Architecture, which has a different kind of code doing the work. It increases the packet processing rate. Whereas, without the SP3 Architecture, you are waiting for each job to complete, even if you have 100 jobs assigned.

There is always scope for improvement on any particular device in any particular organization. For example, when there was change from IPv4 to IPv6, some of the firewalls still didn't support IPv6. In North America, we have seen most customers are using IPv6, as they are getting the IPv6 IPs from their ISPs. Sometimes, when they go through the firewall, it denies the traffic.

It has been almost three years.

From a stability point of view, the firewall is very stable because the PAN-OS version doesn't change very often. If a new PAN-OS version is out in the market, our engineering team checks it multiple times.

The network performance is never compromised.

It is scalable. We have small and big clients.

For small clients, there is the PA-220 device, which is very small but still very productive and secure. 

I have worked with one of the TACs, where there are almost 500 TAC engineers present. They have different rules for case priority when a customer opens something. If a customer is paying more to get support, then we have a dedicated engineer assigned to that particular customer. This is much easier for the customer, as they are getting one of the best engineers out there to troubleshoot their network. They never compromise on that.

Sometimes, due to some issues, tickets don't get assigned. Or, they assign the tickets manually if something goes wrong, which is a very odd case. Customers don't understand that. So, we always apologize to customers, and say, "How can we help you out?"

Support is 10 out of 10. 

Positive

We ask the end customer, whosoever has the legacy network in their organization, if they don't need all their extra devices in order to cut down on costs. We then do an IPSec tunnel on the cloud as a gateway. From there, they can route the traffic to the Internet or wherever they would like.

Palo Alto is a unified device with a very streamlined voice. I have worked on Cisco routers and ASA as well, where you have to do a lot of stuff through the CLI and Linux shell scripting. With Palo Alto, those things are streamlined and engineering takes care of everything.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It is very user-friendly. Everyone in an organization can learn the platform quickly. When we give training to our new candidates, they learn it very quickly. So, it is a streamlined device.

There is an interface type called V-Wire. You just connect it to your network. It will not disturb anything. You don't need to provide IPs. It doesn't need a separate Mac address. It just connects to a particular interface as a bump in the wire. It inspects your traffic, giving you an overall idea of what applications your organization is using and what user is doing what. If needed, you can deploy it in your network later on. This makes it very easy for our customer to deploy the product in their network before they buy it.

When it comes to installing a new PAN-OS version, it doesn't require you to go to Linux and write tons of commands in order to download and activate the latest PAN-OS version. You just have to download it, click the download tab, click the install tab, and then you are done. Therefore, it is hassle-free and super easy like Windows.

We have a very large team for deployment.

If you buy Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewalls, everything is in a single platform. You don't need to go and buy the Wildfire analysis to track zero-day attacks and lots of other things. Therefore, cost is cut down by 50% to 60% if you go for Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewalls.

If someone doesn't have a security platform in their network, then the following licenses will be required: antivirus, anti-spyware, vulnerability, and Wildfire analysis. There are also licenses for GlobalProtect and support.

Overall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a market leader.

With other devices, you need a controller and console to manage them. That is not the case with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, where most of the work is done through the GUI. If you want to deep dive, then you go to the CLI. 

Cisco ASAs give some information on the Nexus Firewall, but they are not streamlined. Whereas, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a streamlined device and easy to use.

If someone is in a routing and switching domain and wants to come up to a security domain, they should choose Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls.

We are happy to assist customers whenever support is missing. Over a period of time, we see customers raise tickets because they are looking for a particular feature that is not available on the platform. We don't say to our customers, "We don't support this." Instead, we take it as an opportunity, giving that information to our engineering team.

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10. I am leaving room for improvement.

I use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to handle my perimeter security, which is the most critical point of my network.

Layer 3 and Layer 4 are part of the core functionality of any firewall, but this firewall brings more information into the inspection via Layer 7. Thus, the entire threat landscape has changed for us as a company.

We can integrate all the Palo Alto firewalls to have a single insight experience across all firewalls.

On a major scale, Palo Alto NGFW can be helpful in eliminating some security tools. It doesn't eliminate all of our other security tools, but it does bring down the dependency on some tools.

Security and network performance are of equal importance to us. This solution doesn't compromise your network's performance for security, which is a good trade-off.

The most valuable features are application inspection and sandboxing. Application inspection decides where traffic is transmitted. If I have a perimeter report for a particular service, then other services or malicious services cannot use an open port. In this way, application inspection is doing a fantastic job. We also have a very good sandbox with almost no rate limit. It will inspect any file that comes in and goes out in a dedicated patch to identify malware. Therefore, these two things help me to protect our organization from any bad actors.

It is extremely important for me that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. The way that they handle the traffic is very useful for us. The firewall creates a benchmark of known traffic patterns that every endpoint would have using machine learning. Machine learning creates a baseline of how the traffic goes in and out. When there is a deviation in the normal behavior, it gives me a threat indication via a reporting feature that shows us how the current traffic has deviated from the usual traffic. This is a very good feature, which is important for my organization to have on a daily basis.

It gives me a better experience when handling security holes. 

Our upgrades brought some rule reviewing features by default, without having to depend on third-party tools to perform the rule reviewing. That has been a good feature.

I would like them to bring in some features that would encourage traffic shaping or bandwidth routing, like other UTM firewalls, because the solution should be capable of limiting the bandwidth for rules.

If Palo Alto Networks could bring in session tracking, like FortiGate, then we can remove another cybersecurity tool. If they could say "This is user-based, not IP-based," using user attribute-based rules, then that would be helpful for a small- or medium-scale company because they could use a single device instead of two or three devices.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is very good. After the upgrade, every other process was smoother. We haven't often seen bugs or operational hazards in terms of the device. 

Scalability is always available. If you are ready to invest the money, then you can add another box. Every device has its limitations though. NGFW has its own limitations, where it cannot scale beyond a certain point. Those limitations have already been published and users need to be aware of them when they are planning to buy a firewall.

The size of my environment is 3,000 to 4,000 users. We are a larger organization with 60 to 80 VLANs. There are approximately 3,600 endpoints accessing them. Day in, day out, we have a lot of network access change requests coming in that need to be performed. 

In terms of maintaining the firewalls for our space and cost, there are about 15 team members. It is a huge environment with 10 different clusters of Palo Altos. From our operational perspective, we need 15 team members.

On a practical scale, it depends on the size of your organization. If it is a small organization, I think two to three members should be sufficient enough to handle the solution. When you have a smaller organization with a maximum of 20 different VLANs, where there is a size limit of 50 to 100 users/employees, then two or three members would be sufficient enough to handle it. However, it all depends upon the number of endpoints that are the nodes and how many nodes the firewall is protecting.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as 10 out of 10. 

They are able to support me and the issues that have arisen, which have been very minimal. For cases where we break something in the configuration or any bug that is out of control, they are good in understanding and analyzing our issues as well as providing a solution for them. That is why I rated them as 10.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward, not complex. We migrated from a different vendor to this platform. We had our goals and objectives in front of us. So, we had a good project plan before migrating everything.

I have multiple clusters. For the largest cluster, the migration took three to four weeks.

We used an integrator for the deployment.

We are monitoring the metrics. We have certain metrics to find ROI, e.g., it could be zero-days, the number of inclusions that this solution has blocked successfully, or the amount of malware that it has stopped. We identify this information via the sandboxing feature, which determines what other normal firewalls would have let in. We consider the amount of data that we process and the regulatory fines that would have arisen, if not for this solution. That is how our return of investment is calculated.

If the cost is your main priority, Palo Alto would be a bit high. However, if you are ready to hear about return of investment, then I would convince you to go for Palo Alto.

I am using three or four firewalls from different vendors. I know their capabilities as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each vendor. 

We have evaluated different firewalls and found Palo Alto best suited for boundary networks. Fortinet handles our user-facing firewalls. Between FortiGate and Palo Alto, there is Cisco.

We did a SWOT analysis on all the firewalls. We determined the best firewalls based on their throughput and protection suites. For example, a user-facing firewall doesn't need to be jam-packed with security features. However, a perimeter firewall is between the trusted and untrusted networks, so more security features are needed.

We are using a different DNS Security solution, so we haven't used Palo Alto NGFW’s DNS Security.

Explore the features that the solution offers. There are a lot. If you can use the features to their fullest potential, that would be best. 

If you are just doing an L3 and L4 inspection, then Palo Alto Networks might not be best suited for that environment. If you are going to use the features of an NGFW, then I would tell you about the solution's features and return of investment based on what you are protecting.