Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

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.

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.

We use the product to identify and analyze unknown threats. This includes handling new files or URLs that are not yet known to be malicious. It operates in a secure environment, ensuring that no infrastructure is at risk while determining if a file is harmful.

The most valuable feature is WildFire's integration with other threat prevention modules on the firewall. This capability allows for the automatic marking of malicious URLs and rapid propagation of this information, which is crucial for defending against widespread phishing campaigns.

One area for improvement is the expansion of the sandbox environment to include a broader range of platforms, such as Linux, macOS, and mobile operating systems.

The solution is stable and effectively handles the analysis and identification of unknown threats without significant issues.

The platform is scalable as it integrates with other threat prevention modules.

The integration with threat prevention modules and the quick propagation of malicious URL data make WildFire a valuable tool for threat detection and response.

I rate it an eight. 

The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow. 

I have been working with the product for four to five years. 

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is stable. 

My company has over 20 users for the product. 

We get support in the free version. 

We switched to the solution since it matches our requirements and helps to analyze threats with a free version. 

I use Palo Alto Networks WildFire's free version. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire an eight 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.

I'm a reseller.

WildFire analyzes the malware in the network such as SSDB and can help analyze the files transmitted over the network, and can detect if the file contains malware.

There are features such as sandboxing in cloud. It submits malware to Palo Alto on the cloud, verifies the reputation file, and analyzes the malware in the files.

The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure.

Palo Alto limits the files submitted per day. There are limitations with the boxes for the Palo Alto module. In the future, I think Palo Alto will reduce the sandboxing in the on-prem version because the box cannot operate.

In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file. Sometimes it takes 10 minutes.

I've been using this solution for three years.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support is very good. In Vietnam, we work directly with Palo Alto engineers.

I also have experience with Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco.

Configuration is easy.

For the last three years, the price of Palo Alto in Vietnam has been very high.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

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.