Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

My company uses Palo Alto Networks WildFire to protect itself from unknown or zero-day attacks. We use machine learning to send the file or the URL we've never seen before to the cloud and WildFire. WildFire uses machine learning and an appliance update before providing a signature in less than five minutes. All the customers globally receive the signature from WildFire. WildFire is a good feature in Palo Alto besides IPS allowing us to prepare for unknown attacks.

The most valuable features of the solution are its static and dynamic analysis that analyzes many of your files, allowing you to know if it is a good or the best file.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire should be more real-time in nature. The signature updates should happen in a minute or less than a minute to be a very good feature for the customer.

When an unknown attack occurs, Palo Alto Networks WildFire takes less than five minutes to confirm users about the attack, so it should be possible in a minute or less than that.

In the future, it should support uploading files to WildFire Cloud. The solution already supports many other file formats. We should be able to analyze any file before we send it to the cloud.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks WildFire for over four years. I am a reseller of Palo Alto solutions.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten since we never faced any issues.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Mostly we have enterprise-sized businesses with over 1,000 employees in such businesses.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

Regarding the steps for deployment, we need to go to the security profile of WildFire, which is something you can do before, or create a new custom WildFire profile. After the creation of the profile on WildFire, we use it after we can create a policy to check the unknown file and send it to the cloud. We use the policy to start with the deployment process.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten since it can be pretty expensive.

The pricing of the solution depends on the hardware model. Some can be cheap, while others can be more based on the hardware model. Our company only buys licenses for Palo Alto Networks WildFire, so we don't need any additional licenses.

I think the customer implementing a one-tier or two-tier firewall should have Palo Alto Networks WildFire's subscription. When the unknown types of attacks are coming in, we need to have WildFire for protection.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

The solution is used for threat protection.

The solution can be deployed on-prem and in the cloud.

All the features are valuable.

The technical support response needs improvement.

I have been a reseller of the solution for ten years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

A long-term customer who has been purchasing Palo Alto products from us for the past five or six years experienced major issues. Despite raising the issue with about ten tickets, the customer did not have an account manager at Palo Alto that we could turn to for assistance. Furthermore, the support team was not responding to their messages or the tickets they opened. Consequently, I had to take action to assist the customer. Unfortunately, I did not receive any response either. It took about four or five months for us to receive a reply, which was not even from Palo Alto but from the distributor we purchased the solution from. We cannot buy directly from Palo Alto. Ultimately, it was the distributor who helped us, as Palo Alto did not resolve the case.

Negative

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. The deployment of one firewall requires one day.

We implement the solution for our clients.

The pricing is affordable and fixed. I give the price an eight out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The Palo Alto Networks WildFire solution is effective, however, it is limited in terms of support. Therefore, I recommend using this solution only if adequate support is provided.

We use it for DNS security, URL filtering, and threat prevention.

The global product feature, the VPN, needs improvement, and we need some enhanced features.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks WildFire for three years now.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is definitely stable.

We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable.  We currently have six thousand users for the product.

Technical support is responsive when we have used their services.

Positive

We were using Cisco for the last ten years and we wanted to change the product.

We migrated from a Cisco firewall to Palo Alto, so it took some time to migrate all the services.

Our migration process was completed by a third-party consultant.

When purchasing the product there are subscription fees involved.

We made the conversion between Cisco and Palo Alto Networks WildFire without any other options being considered.

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

We use this solution to identify whether an unknown file is managed or not. We also use it to identify any unknown file that is executable without reputation. We do this before releasing it to the end-user.

We release the email and the network traffic but also analyze the file. We can do it concurrently before we release the actual traffic to the end user when we have already completed the analysis.

The analysis is very fast. The intermittent is a millisecond and has a speedy response time.

There are some formats that the solution cannot support today, but they are mostly very rare formats. So that can be improved.

We have been using this solution for the past three years. We are using the latest version, and it is deployed on Google cloud. In addition, we do an integration with the Cortex XDR together with Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

It is a stable solution. 

Regarding scalability, 1000 to 5000 is not a problem, but anything more than that, I am unsure. However, it is scalable, and most of the people in our company that use the solution are from our group's information.

We have used the technical support for analysis purposes. They are sound, and the testing system and updates are good. They proactively give us updates, and they are doing a good job. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used different solutions in the past but switched to Palo Alto Networks WildFire due to the fast analysis.

The installation was straightforward. It is a cloud and FaaS-based platform and took about one to two hours to deploy. We completed the deployment in-house, and very minimal maintenance is required.

We have about ten people on our team. We needed only one person to install and deploy and about three to maintain.

I am unsure about the specific ROI, but we have managed to quarantine and block multiple manages on the enterprise price, which is good. We have benefited from Wildfire.

Our licensing costs are annual, and I believe it is not that expensive. I rate the pricing a six out of ten, so it is on the cheaper side.

We evaluated getting proof of concept for another solution and end-user analyzer, but there were limitations to the integration, so we didn't proceed with it.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would recommend doing a proof of concept first before deciding on the solution.

It gives a more accurate assessment of a virus in terms of whether it's truly a virus, malware, or a false positive. We have some legacy software that could pop up as being something that is malware. WildFire goes through and inspects it, and then it comes back and lets us know if it's a false positive. Usually, when it finds out that it's not a virus, it lets us know that it's benign, and it can exclude it from that scan, which means I don't even have to worry about that one popping up anymore.

I haven't seen anything that needs improvement on it. It's a very stable platform. They can keep on doing more updates. As new malware and viruses are coming out, they can make sure that WildFire is up to date.

It has been very stable. It doesn't cause any slowdown on our computers. It filters out what is good and what's bad.

We haven't had a need to scale it. We have a hybrid environment. We have some cloud, but we still have a lot of on-prem.

It's comparable to what the competition is. It is probably a little lesser than what the competition is because, as a state government, we go for whatever the lowest cost is.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10 because it has been a really good tool.

I love the idea of Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It's more geared toward preventing malware. If someone's laptop or phone is malware-infected, the tool prevents it from uploading valuable corporate data outside the corporate network. That's what I love about Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It stops malware in its tracks.

I didn't experience any pain points in Palo Alto Networks WildFire. It's good "as is".

In terms of what I'd like to see in the next release of Palo Alto Networks WildFire, each release is based on malware that has been identified. The key problem is an average of six months from the time malware is written to the time it's discovered and a signature is created for it. The only advice that I can give is for them to shorten that timeframe. I don't know how they would do it, but if they shorten that, for example, cut it in half, they'll make themselves more famous.

Stability in Palo Alto Networks WildFire is significantly better, compared to other solutions.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire, in terms of scalability, is significantly good, though you have to right-size or plan for the future for group capacity. A lot of the Palo Alto solutions, especially the chassis-based or the "non-fixed" solutions give you the ability to scale on port density, and I like that.

Technical support for Palo Alto Networks WildFire is good.

Setting up Palo Alto Networks WildFire is much more straightforward, especially when compared to Cisco.

I use Palo Alto Networks WildFire. I like it.

The number of people you need for maintaining Palo Alto Networks WildFire will depend on the number of devices you have. If you had one firewall, what do you need to maintain? You'll just need one guy, and he's going to be bored most of the time. One guy could maintain ten to twenty firewalls. If you have one hundred firewalls on your network, or you manage one hundred firewalls for your customers, then you're going to need five times as many engineers for maintaining Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

I have no advice for others looking into using the solution because it's so simple. You can turn it on with a button, then there's a radio box, then you click it, and away you go. If you need information, you can enter a support email, and it'll fire off an email saying, "I caught something. I shut it down, but you should know about this."

Nobody gets a ten, so I'll give Palo Alto Networks WildFire a rating of nine out of ten.

The solution is deployed on-premise.

The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN.

Palo Alto is the top leader in the Magic Quadrant of Gartner. So, I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The stability is very good. It's at the top of the market.

The scalability is good.

I have never needed to contact technical support.

Initial setup is straightforward. It's user-friendly. It's not too difficult to use it, and the learning curve is pretty good.

We used a system integrator.

The solution is a bit expensive. You pay for security.

For the cost, I would rate the pricing a 5 out of 5.

Palo Alto is a good product, but in the future I will deploy FortiGate because I prefer it.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

There are things to improve, and nobody is a perfect 10 in security.

You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs.

The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side.

I'm going into my second year here now.

Its stability is good.

It is good in terms of scalability. We have around 25 users currently, and we don't have any plans to increase the usage. The current solution supports up to 1,500 users. It is a little bit overkill for what we actually need. It would probably be good for quite a while in the future.

Their support is fantastic. You can call them and have a technician sitting with you at three o'clock in the morning to help you through things.

Previously, we were running Cisco's solution, but then we got told from headquarters in the US that we needed to change.

If you know what you're doing, it goes quickly. If you don't know what you're doing, it's going to take a while. That is why I requested an easier setup.

In terms of maintenance, our IT unit is responsible for all VPN traffic. We have now automated things a bit, but in the beginning, it was manual. 

We did it ourselves.

The physical appliance is around €3,000 or €4,000, and then, you have the licensing for a year for around €3,000.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it at an eight out of 10.

The backup is the best feature. It is better than with other firewalls. 

The cost of the solution is excessively high. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks WildFire for more than four years. I would say five or six years. 

The solution is overpriced. 

We use the solution in our company.

The product is the best. It is superb.

I rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire as a nine out of ten. 

We had two 800-Series Palo Alto Firewalls, but as they reached end-of-life, we began researching alternatives. Ultimately, we chose to switch to Cisco Firepower, so we no longer use WildFire.

The most valuable feature for us is the VPN. We used GlobalProtect for the VPN, as well as site-to-site.

It is very simple to use.

The support needs to be improved because it takes too long to resolve severity-one issues.

Better integration with third-party products and services is needed.

The need to implement their own multifactor authentication, rather than relying on third-party add-ons for it.

They have malware protection and web-filtering in place, although they are not as effective as Titan or Cisco Umbrella.

I began working with Palo Alto WildFire a year ago when I joined the company.

It is a solid, stable network solution.

In terms of scalability, Palo Alto is at the top of the market.

Managing this solution we had six network administrators, who are network analysts. In terms of end-users, the entire company was using the Palo Alto network.

When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing. Sometimes you are left on the phone for three or four hours before you can speak with an engineer, which is very, very poor. If you have an emergency situation or a network outage of severity-one, then you cannot wait for hours to support your clients.

Palo Alto was the first solution of this type that we used. However, we have recently purchased Cisco Firepower and no longer work with Palo Alto products.

Prior to Firepower being released, Palo Alto was very simple and better than Cisco ASA. Now, however, Firepower is simpler and the support is outstanding. With Cisco, if you have a severity-one outage then it will be less than ten minutes before you get an engineer on the phone to help you.

I have also worked with Check Point and Juniper solutions, and I feel that scalability-wise, Palo Alto is better than the rest, except for perhaps Cisco, where it is neck and neck.

The setup is not complex. When you come from a CLI background of Cisco ASA or any other platform, Palo Alto is much easier. As long as you are familiar with the general steps in the procedure, it is not difficult.

This solution is very pricey and it depends on the package that you implement. There are sometimes promotions on, which can save on costs.

The Palo Alto models that we were using are the PA800-500 and PA830. 

I have seen people in different organizations and different industries set their firewall solutions up in different ways. It depends on the level of support, in terms of who will be maintaining the network. It also includes the level of knowledge they have, as well as their management preference. Some people choose Palo Alto because they don't care about the costs, and it is an easy solution to use, especially if they are already familiar with it. I would say that if they have the budget then this is a good choice and I recommend it.

However, if they are looking to consolidate all of their services, then the option to choose is definitely Cisco. It's a cloud-based solution with malware protection, filtering, and everything you need all in one box. It makes a lot of difference.

Finally, some people prefer FortiGate because the pricing is good and it is simple to use, whereas some people prefer Check Point for other reasons. It's an individual choice, but it should be well researched before the final choice is made.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.