Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

For remote access and securing our perimeter, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series greatly enhances our network security posture. It serves as a primary firewall for enterprise security and ensures secure remote access to our environment. As for traffic handling in our multi-cloud deployment, Palo Alto Networks' solution effectively manages it, delivering on its promises.

We've integrated all necessary functions into a single box shop currently. This setup is convenient for those who aren't yet in the cloud and prefer to stick with familiar tools. However, there's now a plethora of cloud-based tools that offer similar functionalities, leading to potential duplication and increased costs. 

In terms of security breaches, the product aids in categorizing and monitoring traffic, allowing for the identification of potentially malicisous or incorrectly formatted applications. While there are often false positives, the product has successfully detected unauthorized traffic streams.

I believe that the licensing and overall cost could be more transparent and aligned with how features are utilized, especially considering the duplication of features. 

Sometimes, it's challenging to determine which features to activate or deactivate.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for the past 5 years.

In terms of stability, it's quite reliable once it's up and running. I'd rate it a 9 out of 10. However, it's not a perfect 10 due to the need for manual intervention, especially during firmware upgrades and certificate management. This aspect isn't as seamless as with cloud-native firewalls.

As for scalability, it can be scalable if deployed correctly from the start. Regarding usage, the number of users will likely remain consistent, but the deployment of various firewall types may increase. This could include different instances or flavors beyond the Palo Alto VM series, such as cloud-native versions on Azure or from other vendors. 

The support team is quick, knowledgeable, and responsive. They address issues promptly and escalate them efficiently if needed. Overall, we haven't encountered any significant problems.

We managed the deployment in-house, which presented some challenges.

As for technical staffing, we aim to reduce the team size needed for deployment, ideally managing it with minimal personnel or even through code automation. Currently, we don't have a dedicated firewall team.

Regarding pricing, I initially downloaded the product for feature comparison purposes, not specifically due to pricing concerns. However, the current licensing model can be a sore point as we're paying for features we're not fully utilizing. Simplifying the pricing structure would be beneficial, especially given the duplication of services in some cases, leading to increased costs.

I'd rate it a 9, considering it's an industry-leading firewall with excellent support and features. However, as more customers shift to cloud-native solutions, some unique features of the Palo Alto solution may become less relevant. The company may need to offer a more robust and feature-rich solution to remain competitive. Currently, the monolithic nature of the firewall can be challenging to maintain and secure, which could impact its future viability compared to more agile competitors like Cisco.

When considering the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, organizations need to carefully assess their specific use case and the extent of changes planned for the firewall. It's crucial to determine if all features are necessary and if they are not replicated elsewhere in the infrastructure. For those already operating in a cloud-native environment, leveraging native security features may be more cost-effective, as they are already included in the package. Conversely, organizations accustomed to traditional on-premises setups may prefer a single firewall device for security. Ongoing support and the frequency of changes to be made on the firewall should be factored in, as these can significantly impact the overall cost and effectiveness of the solution.

I use the solution in my company to block threats, detect vulnerabilities, and protect the organization's internal network.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that its UI is good since it offers options. In terms of being compliant with the firewall security standards, the product falls in the first or second place. The product can also be considered as NGFW. In general, the product is user-friendly.

The reporting part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. Compared to Palo Alto Networks VM-Series's reports, FortiGate NGFW provides users with reports that are easy to understand.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for three to four years.

The product's stability is good. Considering the cloud availability, I can say that the product is 99.99 percent stable. The firewall functions properly on the cloud, and there has been no downtime in the last couple of years. Unless the cloud services from Microsoft Azure go down, the firewall works properly.

My company has 1,000 users of the product, but not all of them are connected to the product all the time since my company has three different fire products running in the cloud. I would say there are around 600 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series users.

The technical support for the solution is very good.

The product's deployment phase is not complex. The tool is easy to deploy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

There is a need to make payments toward a yearly subscription-based model in which you need to add modules that you want to use in your company.

I can't elaborate on how the product was deployed in our company's existing infrastructure since the product was not deployed by our company, as the vendor handled it. The product can be deployed on the cloud platform you want to use. If you are using Azure's cloud services, then we select VM-Series, take care of the configurations, and upload the required details to get the product.

In terms of the product's ability to improve our company's network security posture, I see that the tool keeps our systems protected since all the network traffic is routed through the tool. The tool provides protection against any malicious traffic that attempts to get into the company network as such networks get blocked and quarantined by the firewall. Been blocked on the firewall network. Malicious components in the network don't enter our company's internal network, so the users are protecting the systems attached to the internal traffic.

My company has not integrated the product with any third-party software.

Speaking about the benefits of dynamic scalability, I would say that my company has not used the product's scalability features. I don't think there is anything wrong with the tool's scalability functionalities.

The tool is good for enterprise-level organizations because it has many options for users in its office. The product also comes with a lot of add-ons. If you can leverage the benefits of everything the product offers, then it can be useful. It is easy if you want to integrate the tool or connect it with other applications or third-party software, and you can do cloud monitoring and SIEM. The tool also works with XDR products. In general, the tool has its pros and is good software.

I have not encountered any issues with policy management in the product.

The product helps find vulnerabilities in the system, especially opened ports and unwanted ports that are open. If there are any issues, you can explore your system further with Nmap and with the help of a given IP address.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the zero-trust security architecture.

The solution's licensing could be improved, and training should be included before installation.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for four years.

There are always glitches in every product, but the solution is reliable overall.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

I haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s scalability. Our clients for the solution are large corporate or global customers.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is easy if you have training and know what to do. The solution's deployment time depends a lot on the customer's requirements. It takes around half an hour to install the solution.

The smaller firewalls, like the PA-400 Series, are very good priced. Some of the challenges come with licensing and support on the larger boxes. Sometimes, it's cheaper to buy a new firewall with licensing instead of renewing the licenses of an old firewall.

Suppose you have a PA-3000 Series firewall. By the time of its renewal, Palo Alto will come up with the PA-1400 Series with better performance than the old PA-3000 Series. If the customer had one of the older ones, it would be cheaper for them to buy a new firewall on a lower tier and then get the licenses.

The solution is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series helps in securing our public cloud infrastructure. It is easy to integrate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series with other solutions. We have integrated the solution with Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager. It is easy to maintain the solution.

It is very important for users to get the solution implemented properly in the customer's network.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for cloud firewalling, SASE, ZTNA, and CASB compared to the hardware-based NGFW or cloud firewalls.

The product is easy to use and deploy, and it enhances the overall security posture while deploying the application in the cloud. The most effective features of the solution for threat prevention are Layer 7 inspection, SSL decryption, IPS, and the web filtering profile. You can use the solution to easily protect your data from cyber criminals, including insider or outside-based attacks.

The solution is easy to deploy, easy to manage, and easy to create policies. An organization's overall security posture can be improved by deploying Palo Alto Networks VM-Series firewall.

The DLP functionality or data classification can be improved in the solution's basic firewalling.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for two to three years.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is a stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Compared to Checkpoint Maestro Firewall, the solution's scalability is not up to the mark. We'll need to upgrade the firewall for any tech refresh, throughput requirement, or hardware-based incremental. We have more than 100 customers for Palo Alto Networks VM-Series.

The solution’s technical support is great.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's deployment time depends on the business application or business requirement. Based on that, the solution is easy to deploy and use.

Based on the customer budget, they can choose from 12-month, 36-month, or 60-month licensing models. The solution is quite expensive compared to Fortinet, Check Point, or Cisco. Customers can go for the solution's premium version, which I wouldn't say is expensive because it secures important data.

We cannot say that we have achieved 100% security by deploying the solution, but we have added one more security layer to protect us from security threats or attackers. For deployment, we have more than 400 engineers handling our SOC, including the MSS part, the security of business center implementation, and manageability.

Deploying the solution does not provide a 100% data safeguard, but it adds another security layer. The solution provides single-pass parallel processing (SP3) architecture, which is more effective than other firewall vendors. From the hardware and architecture perspective, the solution is good compared to Check Point or Fortinet firewalls.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for inter-VPC traffic segmentation and inspection. I also use it for external interfaces.

The product gives us the ability to do malware detection and file inspection.

The tool provides ease of use for GUI management and deployment. The product provides more visibility into our traffic. It also helps with troubleshooting a bit of high-level next-generation platforms. The auto-update feature of App-ID is valuable. Traffic monitoring, threat monitoring, and dashboards are the most impactful for our network security.

Having visibility and alerts and being able to react to them is valuable. The integration of VM-Series with cloud services has helped us a lot to streamline our security operations. The solution has ease of use. The web interface and the traffic monitoring are more centralized.

The cost must be improved. The tool is very costly.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine or ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The technical support is really good. I rate the technical support a nine or ten out of ten.

We deploy AWS VPC as a virtual appliance, as a security VPC. The initial deployment was moderately easy. It is not complex, though.

I have used Juniper. Palo Alto’s next-generation features are better than Juniper’s.

The cloud service providers are also coming up with similar features. It can get really competitive for Palo Alto. People who want to use the solution must engage the system engineer for the deployment, vetting process, and initial implementation. Overall, I rate the product a nine to ten out of ten.

We use the solution for network protection. Previously, I worked for a physical organization, but last year we moved to a Proof of Concept. Following the POC, we had to deploy the solution in three different geographical locations. We deployed all of the Palo Alto solutions in the hub environment and connected them to another node.

VM-Series allows us to maintain consistent next-generation firewall protection across virtual, private, and public cloud infrastructures using a unified policy model. We can use the provided templates to generate policies based on both global and local rules.

Panorama plays a vital role in allowing us to maintain a consistent security policy model across on-premises and various public cloud environments. Presently, we utilize Panorama exclusively in the cloud, spanning three different geographical locations: East Asia, Eastern U.S., and Western Europe.

Once we were able to configure Panorama's centralized management system we were able to have uninterrupted connections with no security issues.

Using Panorama helped us streamline our security policies in a cloud-based environment, saving us time. With Panorama, we no longer need to log in and manually adjust the template before transferring data, which increased our comfort level.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series' security features are all good.

Centralized management is valuable because it allows us to configure settings in one location and apply them across all three locations.

The migration of workloads to the cloud is difficult because the cloud provider and Palo Alto Networks are different platforms. We had to research many articles online and after our research and development were completed we were able to deploy. The migration of data to the cloud can be more user-friendly and has room for improvement.

The utilization monitoring and GUI have room for improvement.

Sometimes we encounter licensing issues where our licenses are not activated, and as a result, we are required to redeploy. This problem could be related to VM-Series or the template image and how they are integrated with Azure Marketplace.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

Previously, we utilized Azure Firewall, but we found it to be less mature compared to Palo Alto, prompting us to switch to the latter.

The initial setup is straightforward but the deployment portion is complex. We require 15 minutes for one VM deployment.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using it on Azure Cloud for our internal systems, where we have set up our internal workloads. We are using it as a perimeter firewall.

We are using it because our internal workflows are on the cloud. Almost everything in our production and development uses these instances. We are using it extensively for conducting reports of the development environment. It is working fine.

It improved all compliance activities. We can close open cases. Compared to other firewalls in these cases, it improved our score on the compliance side.

We are using the complete box. We are mostly using the security services and firewall rules in Panorama.

We need to look at different variables and granular policies of various tools. This makes it easy to understand.

We use Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system. We have an on-prem firewall where Panorama is very good for pulling logs in from the cloud so we can see what is going on. It gives us visibility into that as well as showing us what attacks are coming in.

Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view.

We have been using it for the last two years.

Stability has so far been good. We monitor the resources on the firewall to determine if there will be any spikes on the CPU, RAM utilization, or the load of the firewall. Though, we are yet not putting much load on it. 

I don't think that scaling will be a problem since we can adjust the VM-Series model that we want.

I have around 100 instances protected behind this device.

The customer support is good. They are able to give fast, readily-available solutions upon the creation of a help ticket. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We did a fresh setup for this, but it was pretty easy. We could easily integrate with the VM-Series, then just create our business servers. We were able to do this with the help of the tech team.

It took around seven to eight hours to deploy this solution and configure it to our environment.

We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple. Once we had a checklist of what to do, it was pretty easy to deploy.

Deploying Panorama has saved us a lot of time. When any incidents happen, our people are comfortable going to the Panorama logs and view the incident report to see what happened.

Initially, pricing was high. Later on, we were able to negotiate the pricing and get something that fits our budget.

The solution provides protection and there wasn't an additional cost involved, in terms of security.

We evaluated FortiGate, Cisco, and the stuff that we are using. Compared to other products, we found it a very useful part of our compliance requirements and liked its format on the graphical interface. It is also a more secure firewall compared to other existing ones in the market. Based on our evaluation, it matched our compliance requirements.

Cisco is pretty complex in nature to deploy. It is helpful to have a skilled person with at least two years of experience. 

We are happy with their features for how we are using it and what we have deployed.

I would recommend giving the solution a try and see the difference between it and your existing firewalls. Give it a shot and see the difference.

In the firewall market, it is the number one product right now. I would rate it as 10 out of 10.

We use this product to secure our entire network, for ZTNA structure, and for VPN purposes, allowing access to our servers behind the firewall.

Using this product has increased our security and has given us much better results in terms of security scans.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide online real-time attack prevention, and I would rate that capability an 8 out of 10. It's definitely effective in terms of securing our network against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly.

This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all of the security capabilities, although we are not using parts of it. For example, we don't use the configuration tools like Panorama.

The most valuable feature is the CLI.

We have the firewall configured for zero-day signatures, which is very important to us. We must be HIPAA and PCI compliant, which means that we need those signatures immediately.

There is no noticeable trade-off between security and network performance. In fact, so far, we've not seen any negative network performance with it. We're very impressed in that regard.

The web interface, especially when committing changes, remains a bit slower than I would like, but it has improved over the years. Reboots for the VM series do take longer than I would have expected. 

I have been working with the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for almost 5 years.

This product is very stable. We have had zero problems with stability.

The scalability is fantastic. We're using the lowest-end product right now, and I don't foresee when we'll have to upgrade. We have a long way where we can continue to scale up.

We currently have multiple people that use it for VPN purposes, to access our servers behind the firewall. It is not used nearly as extensively as it should be. However, in the future we will start flowing all of our internet traffic through it.

We're all working remotely, and we're going to be connecting through the firewall. This means that our traffic is going to greatly increase, meaning that our usage will also increase. We'll also be using many more of the features.

The technical support from Palo Alto is good, overall. However, their response times could be a little quicker.

We have not really had any big complaints with the technical support and I would rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to using Palo Alto, we were using an on-premises solution by Juniper. When we switched from onsite to the cloud, we changed products.

We made the switch because Juniper became unbearable regarding complexity and performance. It was getting very bad; we couldn't manage it well, and the performance was quite poor. 

The initial setup can be quite complex. There is a steep learning curve and we failed at it a few times before we were able to put a production machine into place.

Our final deployment took between three and four hours.

Our in-house team was responsible for the deployment.

We have absolutely seen a return on our investment. We are definitely more secure. With the features that are in Palo Alto, we do not have to worry about people busting into our network. Even just out of the box, with the base features, it's very solid. The default configurations are quite secure.

Our return on investment comes from the fact that no longer need to spend hours monitoring our network the way we did before. We've saved man hours and we've saved stress. I am unable put a monetary value to that, but that would be the return.

This is not the cheapest firewall but it's not the most expensive of the options on the market.

The new licensing structure is a little difficult to understand at first, but with the right thought put into it, would like save some money. 

Beyond Palo Alto, we evaluated two or three other products. Two of them that I can recall are Fortinet and the Microsoft Azure Firewall.

We did some extensive reviews and some extensive testing and what we found is that for the price, Palo Alto gave us the best options. It had the best set of security features. It wasn't the cheapest product but it was the best solution that fit our requirements.

We have not yet implemented the DNS security features but we will in the future. 

If one of my colleagues at another company were to say that they were just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would suggest that they be careful. Palo Alto has a great balance. It's not super expensive compared to other options on the market, and it's quite quick when it comes to throughput and performance.

In summary, this is a good product but I do suggest that people shop around a little bit.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.