Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

In our company, Palo Alto Networks WildFire is seamlessly integrated with our firewall, working automatically to detect and prevent zero-day attacks. It is like having an extra layer of defense that kicks in whenever there is a potential security threat. My role mainly involves managing firewall policies and configurations, while WildFire handles the more intricate aspects of threat detection and analysis.

WildFire has significantly enhanced our organization's ability to detect and respond to new threats, especially phishing attacks. It serves as a comprehensive repository of security incidents, providing us with a vast database of threat intelligence. With WildFire in place, we feel more confident and relaxed, knowing that even if our firewall lacks immediate knowledge about a threat, WildFire will provide the necessary information to take action effectively.

The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall. While I primarily view WildFire as a repository for security incidents, its integration with antivirus and antispam profiles enhances our overall threat detection capabilities.

There is not much room for improvement for WildFire itself. It serves well as a repository for threat intelligence. Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks WildFire for almost a year.

Palo Alto Networks' technical support is excellent. They have consistently provided prompt assistance whenever needed, and we are satisfied with their service. I would rate their support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Deploying Palo Alto Networks' products was easy, and integrating WildFire with our existing infrastructure was straightforward.

In Palo Alto Networks' suite, you only pay for what you use or need, rather than a bundled package.

Palo Alto Networks' BPA flagged certain URLs that needed blocking to tighten our firewall's security. WildFire serves as a repository for security incident data, enhancing our threat intelligence across the organization. While we don't manage it directly, WildFire provides crucial information about security occurrences globally.

The sandbox technology of WildFire has benefited us as it provides a layer of protection and immutability against threats.

Whether it is better to integrate WildFire with Palo Alto firewall into one product depends on your infrastructure setup. If you have a reliable internet connection, utilizing WildFire in the cloud is efficient for receiving timely updates. However, if internet connectivity is a concern, having WildFire as an appliance locally might be preferable.

My advice for those considering WildFire is to prioritize its inclusion with your firewall setup. Cybersecurity is interconnected globally, and WildFire provides crucial threat intelligence to keep your firewall updated and effective. It is essential for a smarter, more secure network defense.

Overall, I would rate WildFire as a nine out of ten.

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. 

We primarily use the solution both in our company and with our clients. It is mostly used for security.

The solution offers near real-time updates for signatures, which is very useful for intelligent threat stamping. They update and improve frequently.

The sandboxing is very helpful. They have a cloud-based sandbox.

They've introduced machine learning and supervised machine learning, which is helpful.

They offer DNS security. 

The solution continues to grow quite extensively.

The UI, the marketing, and everything recently has changed and rebranded, and gotten better.

From a security perspective, they are always the best.

Stability is never a concern.

The solution can scale. 

The UI could continuously be improved. They've been working on this aspect and are getting better and better.

There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for eight years. 

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability has been very good. 

Technical support is very good. However, it does depend on what service tier you are at - whether premium or standard. 

The pricing is competitive. It was not too expensive. The pricing depends on the environment and the number of devices. The pricing varies. 

I'm a consultant. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

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.

My primary use case of this solution is on-frame and in-cloud security of the infrastructure.

We use this with different clients in the financial sphere, the health sector, and the insurance sector. Across all of these different verticals, we use this product.

Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides.

As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity. And, the industry is currently moving towards automation and orchestration. I would like to see more of this in the product. They are part of the future roadmap to AI (Artificial Intelligence).

It is stable, and we are also trying to integrate this with the Palo Alto MIME shell. We did that, and also I have inquired recently about Evident, which is a recent acquisition. So I have requested for demos, and still I did not see any response from Palo Alto yet. This is something that we would like to explore.

It's pretty much scalable. We were able to manage both the cloud, and also the on-frame devices or appliances from centralized management station. So, we just implemented in the  migration onto the cloud.

We used tech support to help us implement the product initially. 

I have prior experience with Cisco Firepower. But, they are very expensive in comparison to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was complex because we were switching from traditional firewalls to application-based firewalls. We needed Palo Alto's help insetting up initially. From there, we tried to understand, and followed suit with implementation.

It is a reasonable price compared to other solutions on the market.

Some of our clients used to have the traditional firewalls so where we do have enabled the application control but being it's a pretty small firewall. At the end of the day, even in spite of them demanding the application controls, it's on top of the firewall functionality (especially in terms of controlling the applications). So, after implementing the Palo Alto firewalls, they have achieved more than what is expected, and we are able to control the number of applications; who gets to have access, and what is flowing inside the network. Anything that is traversing the firewall, is available right now.

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.

Sandboxing is the primary use case. WildFire is used for that. There are two options: one is on the cloud, and one is on-premise. The cloud version is perfect. It is working very well. But on the on-premise version, we have faced a lot of problems previously.  

The threat intelligence from WildFire supports our proactive defense strategies. Palo Alto has a unit 42 team, which is one of the best in the market for threat intelligence. Their threat intelligence is comprehensive.

Also, Palo Alto is a pioneer in AI and ML integration, so I think there are some AI processes running in clusters.

It can detect new threats, particularly. It's a sandboxing prototype. 

We send mostly emails or connections with context or files. The most important thing is how many kinds of files the sandbox can handle. Also, Palo Alto is good at this. There are more than 20 different file types, this product can understand.

 The important thing for sandboxing is how many different types of files the sandbox product is analyzing. And so, also, Palo Alto is good at it, compared to other sandboxes.

Palo Alto doesn't do much to support the on-premise version. It wants too much self-support for the on-premise version of WildFire. 

But for regulation purposes, some of our customers don't want to use the cloud environment, so they have to use the on-premise version. 

Integration is okay, not too hard, with Palo Alto. But we are facing a lot of issues, and most of the issues go unresolved. So, the on-premise version is not very stable.

With my experience, the cloud version is stable. So I need the on-premises version to be more stable.

I have been working with Palo Alto for four years, but I have been familiar with WildFire for one and a half years.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

The cloud version is very stable. It is working very fine. Integration is very easy. There are not too many issues. I like it. Compared to the on-premise version, it is very easy and very effective for customers.

Some of my colleagues work on SD-WAN.

The initial setup is a little bit complex on-premise, but not too complex because it can only connect to a Palo Alto firewall. On the cloud, it is very easy; you only need to enable it with a click, and it is done. After that, you can set up the configuration on the firewall. 

But on-premise, it is not a configuration issue; it's a little bit of a stability issue.

Integration with existing infrastructure: 

WildFire can only integrate with the Palo Alto firewall. Right now, maybe XDR can integrate on the cloud version, but you cannot integrate it with other vendors or put it standalone without any Palo Alto product.

We are an integrator. We also work with some other vendors.

WildFire has improved our customer's security posture and reduced costs overall.

It's not hard to configure as it connects to the firewall. After integration, you don't need much configuration and don't waste too much time, so the return on investment is very rapid.

In general, all Palo Alto products are a little bit higher in price compared to competitors.

I recommend it, but mostly the cloud version.

I recommend it to any company who needs sandboxing or this kind of file analysis. But they must be careful if they have to use on-premise, because of the stability issues.

Overall, I would rate the solution 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.