Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Reviews

We use Prisma Access to enhance security control on endpoints in a hybrid workplace. Everyone in my company uses Prisma. It's about 500 users.

Prisma covers web-based and non-web apps, reducing data breach risks. In addition to protecting web traffic, it can replace the VPN. Instead of using a separate VPN, we can route all the traffic to our office through Prisma Access. 

The solution improved the consistency of our security controls and the BCP. There has been a 20 percent reduction in TCO. Prisma Access also enabled us to deliver better applications by centralizing security management. Because it is a SaaS solution, the system admins don't need to worry about technical implementation, updates, or anything happening on the backend. 

The most valuable features are the Secure Web Gateway and firewall as a service. Prisma Access protects all internet traffic. It isn't limited to apps. Currently, it covers more than 90 percent of our web traffic.

Autonomous digital experience management is another essential feature that provides a level of end-to-end visibility that most other solutions cannot offer. ADEM's real and synthetic traffic analysis is highly useful.

The benefit ADEM provides to the end-user is pretty indirect. It gives a system admin some evidence to show the user that the problem may not be on the user's side rather than a system issue.

Prisma Access features like traffic analysis, threat protection, URL filtering, and segmentation are critical because our use case is a hybrid workplace. Users are working worldwide, so we expect security to be consistent anywhere, not just in the office.

It updates weekly. Because it's a SaaS solution, they don't tell you what is updated on their side, but if an update is on the user side, then they update it once weekly or biweekly.

If I had to rate Prisma Access for ease of use, I'd give it two out of ten. It's easy for the users, but it's difficult for admins to configure. 

I have been using Prisma Access for less than a year.

Prisma Access is stable. 

Prisma Access is scalable. 

I rate Palo Alto support seven out of ten. They sometimes take a long time to resolve complicated issues. 

We tried Zscaler, but we switched to Prisma because of the price, and Palo Alto was better suited to our business requirements. Palo Alto is one of the best choices for regional deployment, but Zscaler is better for a global use case.

Setting up Prisma Access is complex. You cannot deploy it without help from Palo Alto or a Palo Alto partner. They are the only ones who can do the configuration. It took us about four months to get the solution up and running. We need about two IT staff to provide user support for Prisma, but Palo Alto handles all the updates. 

The licensing model isn't flexible enough. It's an all-or-nothing model. Other providers in the market allow you to buy modules or add-ons separately. With Prisma Access, you have to purchase the same module for all users.

In addition to Zscaler, we looked at Netskope and Cato Networks.

I rate Palo Alto Prisma Access a seven out of ten. It's not suitable for organizations whose users are primarily in mainland China. Prisma Access is excellent if you use most Palo Alto products, but Prisma Access might not be the best solution if you only use one of their products. 

It's crucial to define your business requirements well from the start because a Palo Alto solution can't quickly adapt to the changes that you need. If Palo Alto satisfies your initial conditions, it may be the cheapest solution at the time. However, if you need to make a change in the middle, the price can go up drastically. 

We are using Prisma SaaS for products. We use many content-based platforms and we were using this product to perform policy detection. If someone is sharing something publicly, externally, from our domain, which is risky. This product allows you to write policies, and those policies will detect content, which captures them in the policy category or in the criteria. You then can add remediation action for protection.

We deploy the solution using their infrastructure and we connected that solution with our applications.

Prisma SaaS has helped the way our organization has functioned. Before the used the solution, we needed to write API calls for every platform to receive data out of it. It's a tedious task because we have 20 products and you need to write 20 application API calls. Once you receive the API calls, you need to massage and manipulate the data, search, and filter it. We need to write the full-fledged application. However, this product does it all, it gives you everything.

Instead of writing applications, we only need to go into one place, one URL, and we are able to do whatever we need to. In terms of hours, it saved us a lot of time and hours to do similar tasks previously, which we used to do using API calls to the product.

This is a one-stop solution. They have multiple features for every product, you don't need to purchase different products for each platform. When you purchase one Prisma SaaS you can connect to 10 different things. You can write different policies, attach different policies, search, and export the data out. There are many capabilities of this solution.

The solution has all its capabilities in a single cloud delivery platform which is great and it provides overall good protection.

If you compare Prisma SaaS against other products, such as Cloud Log, it's a little bit tricky to understand, but it offers different functionality that other products don't have. From a user usability point of view, you need some training for this product, as an admin, you need a couple of demos.

The reports and setting the policies could improve, they are important. Their UI is a little bit confusing when you create the policy section. There are times when it looks like you are in one section, but you're technically in another section and you're saving something else. The need to make it more clear in the UI for policy creation and setup.

I have been using Prisma SaaS for approximately one year.

The stability of the solution is a little bit slow when you do searching. However, I have never seen an error on the application for over one year. It is stable.

The scalability of Prisma SaaS is very good.

We plan to increase the usage of this solution. We are working with the compliance team and we are trying to find more policies and more products where we can use Prisma SaaS. We have recently renewed the solution for three more years.

If we open a private ticket, they're pretty fast. They get back to us in a timely manner and we work with them actively.

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

We have two solutions that we use. We also use CloudLock for a specific product. These products are usually application-based, and if you compare BetterCloud and CloudLock, CloudLock is good for Google. Similarly, BetterCloud is good for Dropbox because their EPA's are more integrated. Prisma SaaS is good for receiving data from OneDrive, Office365, and a lot of other products. We have multiple products depending on the use case.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's a SaaS product, we only need to log in and integrate our apps using our administrative rights.

The full deployment takes a couple of weeks. The deployment is easy, but the scanning takes time. If you connect a product and that product is having a terabyte of data, the scanning will take time. However, deployment connecting to the products, it's fairly easy.

We implement the solution in a sandbox environment and a production environment. The sandbox environment is connected to our sandbox applications, and production is connected to production applications. Whenever we are trying to launch a new policy, we used to try a new sandbox first. If it goes well, we send it to a production environment. We upload a sample of corrupted files to see if the policies are acting as they are supposed to.

We used an integrator and we worked with them directly.

We use approximately 40 hours a week for the maintenance of the solution to get everything done.

The pricing can be difficult because it came to us with another agreement, but it can be negotiated. I highly recommend people to compare this product's performance and pricing against BetterCloud, because I feel BetterCloud is better than Prisma SaaS if they're starting from scratch.

The auditing does not protect all application traffic. It's more content-based. For example, if I uploaded a file and that file has sensitive information, Prisma will detect it. It will tell me where that file has been uploaded, how it's shared, whose current external parties were accessed. Anything which is bound to my user base, I will receive the report, but not the audit log. It won't tell me when users log into the platform, or if they log out. However,  it will tell me if they upload anything and take any action on that content.

We can connect the solution to AWS F3, which you can be considered not web-based because it has both products. From the F3 bucket, you can access it through different mechanisms. We are using it for some products which are not purely web-based.

We use SaaS products. That means infrastructure is not in our control and if you upload something into those platforms, such as Dropbox, any content that is put into the data system, we need to make sure that our data is protected and not shared outside. This product and its processes allow us to monitor it. We can create a policy, and limit the action. A person does not need to wait and then take action. For example, if someone uploaded something critical, a Saas policy gets triggered, and it automatically brings that operation down. If someone shares a file publicly, the policy triggers and detects the file and removes the public sharing. This is how we are protecting our data within our platform using this product.

I have learned from using this solution we should have more policies created as per compliance and security to utilize the features of this product better. If you have this product and if you're not writing a policy, then this product is useless. Right now we have basic policies, four and five, which I feel we have the potential to increase to 15 or 20.

I rate Prisma SaaS by Palo Alto Networks a seven out of ten.

Prisma Access GlobalProtect is our always-on VPN. We use it for URL filtering, to make sure people don't go to websites that are not permissible according to our security policy, such as gambling and pornography sites. We also implement Data Loss Prevention and decrypt the packets so that we can analyze the inside and make sure that nobody is trying to exfiltrate data. It's always on and it doesn't matter if you're in an office or at home or in a coffee shop or a hotel. 

We also use their service connections to access our internal services through them.

Since everybody is on the network all the time, it's allowing us to eliminate the step of having to connect to a VPN. That's the whole premise of an always-on VPN. Nobody has to think, "Oh, I need to get on VPN before I can connect to that server," or, "Oh, my VPN timed out because I've been on for 12 hours." The whole premise is that you're constantly on a VPN and it's constantly securing the system. That has helped from an end-user perspective. It hasn't come without its challenge, but that is one thing that is definitely a benefit.

In terms of security, it's definitely better than what we had because a user could just disconnect from the VPN before. They couldn't shut off the cloud proxy, but the cloud proxy only handled web-based traffic. If they wanted to FTP to a server, when they were connected to the VPN, it would get blocked. But they could just disconnect from VPN and then connect to FTP. Now, it goes through more security controls. So we are definitely more secure because of it. But it's just a completely different technology; it's more because of that than the product itself.

It's also somewhat of an alternative to SD-WAN. We had been looking at SD-WAN solutions and, realistically, the way the users are connecting now with Prisma Access, there's really no need for it.

It's an always-on solution and it supports both Mac and Windows. We have one configuration globally, and the only area where we had to do something differently is China.

Prisma Access protects all app traffic, so that users can gain access to all apps and that's very important because we need to be able to access everything. 

It also allows us to access non-web apps; anything internal that we need access to, we can access. Because we're using it as a VPN solution, our users are always on the internal network, regardless of where they are. They can't do anything because we lock them down so that if GlobalProtect doesn't connect, they can't get out to the internet. It's helped in that there were things that people would work around in other ways with our old model, things that they can't work around with the new model.

Also, having a single cloud-delivered platform, a global solution, was a key requirement for us.

We use the solution's threat prevention, URL filtering, and segmentation and they're all extremely important, based on what we're doing with the product. It's also very important to the business that Prisma Access provides millions of security updates per day.

We've run into some challenges, having hit a lot of bugs over the past year in the deployment of GlobalProtect. We've had our fair share of issues that I haven't been happy with. We're working with the support organization to remediate them and waiting for updated releases. The response on getting the bugs fixed has not been what I would consider adequate for a product like this. We've had some very pointed discussions with the support organization and the development teams on those issues and on doing what we can to help remediate them as well. They have been more responsive now towards our needs but it's a work in progress. 

They're going from being an organization that supported physical hardware, the Palo Alto firewall, into the realm of a SaaS-based solution. As a result, they need to change their operating model, support model, and release model to support that SaaS-based solution. That is related to support, related to operational efficiency, and deployments of code. Those are the areas where they need to improve.

I've been using Prisma Access by Palo Alto for about a year.

I don't see issues yet in terms of its scalability. We have more capacity than we need, so I think it's fine. We have firewalls in every region and in every country that Palo Alto has available. It's fairly scalable.

We previously used Cisco AnyConnect for VPN and a cloud proxy solution for web-based security. We went from two products to one. The main purpose was to find a replacement for the cloud proxy solution. VPN just wound up being a good and positive outcome, in addition to it.

The initial setup was complex. It has taken us almost a year, but we have about 7,000 users. We're just finishing up the main deployment of 5,000-plus users. We had an acquisition earlier this year and that will add another couple of thousand users. There have been a lot of hurdles with the bugs that we hit in the product. The stability of the software has been our biggest challenge.

We did the deployment ourselves. In terms of maintenance, I manage the network engineering team globally, and our team is responsible for it.

We did look at other vendors when we were deciding on our VPN software and we went with Palo Alto for security reasons. 

My advice would be to wait until they fix the bugs. We've been on a pretty stable version for the past several months and haven't had any issues. But other users who are on the same version have hit bugs on a regular basis, and it has been a nightmare to try to support. We're waiting on the final update of version 5.2.9 to get some of these issues fixed, and we're also waiting on 5.2.10 to support Windows 11 and the new version of Mac.

It's a balancing act in terms of security and nothing is perfect. We do have Palo Alto hardware as well as the Prisma Access solution, so we're reliant on Palo Alto's security for a lot of our security needs. I think the security is adequate.

I like the product in principle and I would rate it pretty high, but the bugs that we've hit pull the score down a bit. And then there are the operational support issues that we've had with Palo Alto, in general, that contribute to the score of six out of 10, as well.

We use it to monitor our cloud environments to get a real-time inventory of what's being stood up, what's being torn down, vulnerability management, risk management, and all of our cloud resources across all AWS, Azure, and GCP.

If somebody configures something in a way that's vulnerable, we know instantly. We'll get an alert and address it so that it's remediated and not left open. For example, if somebody stands up a new storage container and inadvertently makes it publicly accessible, that's something we'd want to know right away to prevent a breach. We could automate it to prevent it from being stood up with public access. 

We can prevent specifically forbidden configurations automatically by using this tool to never allow a resource storage container to be stood up and made publicly accessible. Automation is key there, and I'd say that would be an example of how Palo Alto has improved my organization.

Prisma SaaS helps us keep pace with SaaS growth in our organization. Everything's going to the cloud, and containers are being used more and more. As security professionals, we don't live in the development world, so we need to know what's going on in that realm, and the platform will help us identify those things and make sure that they're stood up securely. 

If there's something new, a new vulnerability, or a new standard, we'll be alerted about it. That's important because we don't speak developer language, and we, as security folks, consume the data. We must understand what's being stood up and how, and the platform will help us identify that and explain why it's vulnerable and needs to be fixed.

Prisma's most valuable feature would be its ability to identify bad or risky configurations. People stand up stuff in the cloud all the time, and as security professionals, we're not always aware of it. Prisma is critical for flagging real-time inventory and configuration risks, general vulnerabilities, and also issues in Kubernetes. Prisma is very effective for securing new SaaS applications. The code used to configure new SaaS applications is critical for identifying what we want as our security standards and confirming that they're being practiced.

Prisma would be a stronger solution if it could aggregate resources by project or by application. So say we have an application we've developed in AWS and five applications we've developed in Azure. The platform will group it according to those applications, but it's based on the tags we use in Azure, which means I have to rely on development teams to tag resources properly. If they don't do that, it doesn't group them properly in the platform. 

It would be nice if we could group the application according to the platform itself instead of relying on the development team to tag correctly in the cloud environment. My development team for one project might be different from the development team in another project. If I see a resource that needs to be fixed or changed, I need to know what project that resource is associated with. Ideally, I don't want to have to go into Azure and try to figure that out. So if I could tag it using the platform itself rather than relying on the tags that the development team uses in Azure, that would be extremely helpful. I wouldn't say Prisma is particularly useful for protecting data. It's hard to say. We're not looking at the data of the resources, so to speak, using Prisma. It's more like the resources that hold the data.

I've been working with Prisma SaaS for about five years.

I'd say Prisma is extremely stable. We haven't had any issues there.

Prisma is highly scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it automatically updates when new resources come out. We don't have to do anything. It just sees it and adjusts accordingly. I recently started a new role at a company, and we're planning on implementing it and using it more. Where I came from, we used it extensively and relied on it to monitor and manage our cloud environment.

I rate Palo Alto tech support seven out of 10. The technical support used to be a lot better when they were a smaller company. Back when they were called Evident.io and then RedLock, they were more personable and provided good one-on-one technical support. Their support structure changed about a year and a half ago. Now, they're more like group support, and I don't think it's as thorough, but it's still okay. 

Neutral

I would say the cloud SaaS part was extremely straightforward to set up. We had no problems there. Then there is the container compute area called Compute in Prisma. It's almost like a product within a product. You have to deploy the container section on an agent to your container host. That's a little more complicated because we have to rely on development teams to deploy the agent, but tying the platform to your cloud subscriptions was straightforward and took only 30 minutes to an hour. 

It is a little more involved to set up the Kubernetes containers and deploy the agent. That could take up to a day because you have to collaborate with other teams to get that deployed and make sure it's pulling the right data. Then again, it depends on how receptive your development team is to deploying the agents. That part usually takes around three hours. It takes one or two security engineers to deploy and maintain. 

We did it in-house with some help from Palo Alto that we purchased through a support license.

I don't have specific metrics, but I will say that it helps us know what we don't know, and that's ideal from a security perspective—seeing things that we didn't realize were an issue. The return on that investment is significant because you can't secure what you don't know is there. Prisma accomplishes that pretty easily without having to be on the platform constantly responding to alerts.

Prisma integrates pretty nicely even if you aren't using other Palo Alto products. It's very effective for a CSP solution, and the time to value is almost instant. As soon as you stand it up, it shows value by telling you all the vulnerabilities or risks in that environment. I feel like Prisma is one of those things that is essential. If you have resources in the cloud, you're going to need something to monitor it, and it's not ridiculously priced. I'm not too involved in the budget, so it's one of those things that's a necessary evil. I feel like it's a reasonably priced necessary evil.

Prisma is in the middle of the road. It's not the most expensive, but it's not the cheapest. There aren't any additional costs, to my knowledge. I know they have some extra modules, but we didn't use them. 

I'd say the price fits the solution. Prisma is capable of many other things, but Palo Alto doesn't charge you extra for those things, unlike other companies. You can use them or not. Because your environment grows, you may not use it now, you may not need it now, but you may in the future. Those capabilities are there without an additional cost for a different module where other companies will break it out, where you have to pay for those things.

We evaluated a few, including Sysdig, Threat Stack, and Lacework. The deciding factor was the ease of use. It's critical to understand what you're looking at and for the platform to provide value with reports. The data presentation in Prisma was more straightforward.

I rate Prisma SaaS nine out of 10. Ideally, you want a platform that will save you time by giving you the information quickly so you can understand it and act on it. Many platforms have loads of colorful graphs or bells and whistles, but they don't help you get to the bottom of what you're looking at. I feel that Prisma does that. You can get so much information directly from the platform without the need to reach out to other teams or go into the cloud to understand what you're seeing.

We are a small team of ITOps Engineers. With Prisma, we can manage all our Edge Network Infrastructure (Mobile Users, Remote Networks, and Data Centers) in one location.

We also decommissioned our  legacy MPLS connections and moved to VPN. If we need to expand to more offices, different countries, and different regions, it would be much simpler to do it with Prisma Access because the only things required are an internet connection and a pair of firewalls. 

On our IT team, we now have a single interface (using Palo Alto Panorama) where we can monitor our whole infrastructure. The office and Data Center Firewalls, as well as, the Remote User VPN, forward all the traffic to the Prisma Access Infrastructure. There we can apply deep packet inspection and allow or deny traffic, and also apply additional security features like threat prevention, DNS security, malware and anti-virus protection etc.

For remote users, the VPN connection is more secure and much faster than the legacy solutions. Some of our users are located in different European countries. Now they can pick their closest location and connect to a VPN "concentrator" near their region. Whereas before, they needed to connect with one of our data centers in the UK. 

Since everything is connected to Prisma, now we are able to be more proactive, detect end-user or site connectivity issues much faster. Before we were running multiple applications (NMS, Syslog, Netflow) that required a lot of engineering overhead to manage those, but also to extract the information needed. Now a lot of those tasks can be picked by the Service Desk team. 

In addition, similarly to any other Cloud "Platform" the administrative tasks have been dramatically decreased. The upgrade process is very simple compared with any on-premise solution.

I don't think we have actually fully utilised all the functions of Prisma yet. The main concept of Prisma Access is what really help us to transition our infrastructure from a legacy and complex approach to a more simple and easy to manage and maintain one.

Prisma Access has three major components / connections: 

- Remote connections: The links to the Remote Offices 

- Mobile Users 

- Service Connections : The links to the Data Centers. 

You connect everything by establishing VPN tunnels with the Prisma Access Infrastructure. Prisma is now the “brain” of the infrastructure. All edge devices send all traffic to Prisma and Prisma has the knowledge to route the traffic to the correct destination. In addition you can also apply all the additional security features a NGFW can offer. 

Since this is a cloud platform you can easily scale up adding more mobile users or new remote offices. Prisma will simple auto-run (if needed) additional instances in the cloud to support your load 

Also,  because everything's on the cloud, we don't have to worry about patching; we get all the new features as they come in. One of the biggest problems for us used to be to upgrade our VPN application. Now, it can be done with a click of a button. The administrative overhead has been reduced, and we are able to focus on things that actually matter.

The only drawback at the moment is that a “Cloud” solution like Prisma Access requires Palo Alto Panorama, which is normally a VM that sits in your DataCenter. Panorama is used for monitoring and mainly for configuring the different components of Prisma Access.

For the configuration part, Palo Alto has recently introduced an equivalent cloud application, but not all features are available yet. Also at this moment if you enable Prisma Access with Panorama you cannot migrate to the Cloud version.

I've been working with the Palo Alto team since the beginning of the year (2021), when we started the initial setup. It took us around 2 months (multiple weekly sessions) to complete the setup. And the last 2 months we are fully utilising the Prisma components (Remote Networks, Service Connections and Mobile Users)

We have utilised Prisma Access for the late couple of months. Now we are in the process of migrating all our Remote users from the on premise Firewalls to the Prisma Access VPN as a Service solution. 

Over this period we haven't faced any connectivity issues. Prisma Access underlying infrastructure is high available and scalable. 

As any major Cloud Vendors line Google or AWS we may face outages in the future, but we havent experience any problems yet. 

As with any infrastructure where the managent plane is in the cloud, we can know schedule an upgrade and the Prisma will take care the rest. No more complicated upgrade processes that could lead to outages and downtimes. 

A few days ago the Prisma Access dataplane was upgraded. We had zero downtime and the auto-procwss went smoothly (as expected).

As for scalability, you can easily bring more users to the platform; you would just need to buy additional licenses.

There is no need for purchasing new and more powerful hardware. Palo Alto will scale your platform up to support your infrastructure.

Simple integration with LDAP, SAML can help us to provision 100s of users quickly and onboard more users are the company is getting out of the pandemic freeze period.

I think Palo Alto has great technical support in terms of the time of response and the efficiency of response.

Over the past few months we raised multiple tickets (P2-P4). On all of them the responses were quick within the SLA timelines. All the support Engineers had deep knowledge of the product, and always went above and beyond not only by fixing our issues, but also by trying to explain us why was misconfigured or what actually went wrong. Everyone had great communication skills, they were patient and listening our needs and requirements.

We used local Cisco ASA Firewalls that were located in our two UK offices.Normally we had around 10-15 % of our users working remotely. During the pandemic we had to setup around 500 users to connect to the VPN. Unfortunately our ASAs had limited capabilities (250 max users for the 5515-X and 100 for the 5508-X). Our temporary solution was to use the AWS VPN solution for the remaining users. 

At that point we realised that we need a flexible and scalable solution. In addition the company has embraced the cloud first approach a few years back by moving all our servers to the cloud, so utilising a VPN as a Service (offered by Prisma Access) was an expected next  step. 

In my team there are Cisco certified engineers and we have been using Cisco products for many years, but for my opinion when it comes to security and NGFWs, but they haven't reached the level of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. I believe Palo Alto is the key player in the market. 

We had a mixture of different applications and vendors, and we wanted to merge everything under Prisma Access. The terminology is a bit different between Palo Alto and Cisco ASA, and between their local firewalls and the Prisma Access firewalls. It took us about a month to wrap our heads around it and understand how things worked. Once we did that, it was easy to implement. We have gradually migrated all our services. We did our MPLS and the connection to AWS, and now, we're slowly migrating the users. No one has noticed, so it has been seamless.

We don't have a big infrastructure and did the migration piece by piece, and it was really easy and seamless.

To set up the infrastructure with the team, it took us less than a week. The gradual migration took us three weeks, but the basic setup takes less than a week.

We used the Palo Alto professional services, which mainly help us though multiple Zoom sessions to understand all the Prisma components and also to configure the core Prisma setup. The fine tuning was done by the in-house team. 

We had a great experience. All the Palo Alto consultants had a great knowledge of the product and they were very helpful, making it very simple for us to understand this new Platform. They were never leaving any questions unanswered and they were always providing accurate documentation and references for my team to get the required knowledge and to understand / follow up during the Setup.

I think the ROI has been good. We no longer need people to maintain the whole infrastructure, and we do not need to spend money on different services that we no longer use like MPLS or other kinds of support.

Also, the fact that we can quickly scale up without worrying about buying additional licensing is great for us.

The price has been good for the ROI during these difficult times for the cruise industry. With Prisma, you need three types of licenses

- Palo Alto support

- Number of Remote Users that are connected to VPN (concurrent connections)

- Total Bandwidth between Remote Sites offices and Prisma. If you have three or fewer DCs then you don't have to purchase additional connections or bandwidth.

There are no hidden costs; what the product offers is what you get.

We didn't run any PoC with other vendors. Before we were introduced to Prisma Access we were thinking of moving also our Firewalls to Meraki (as we will do with our switches). I believe no other vendor can offer what Palo Alto with Prisma provides, at least at this moment.

In my experience, Prisma Access is a great platform. However, since SASE is a new fairly new concept, it was a bit confusing to understand all the  different components and how all of them work together. On top of that if you are not very familiar with Palo Alto firewalls and especially Palo Alto Panorama, additional training would be recommended. Of course the same concepts of a NGFW from any other vendor are applied. 

 Once you grasp how Prisma Access works, then it's really a piece of cake to set everything up.

For example, we are a small team of three people, and I'm the senior network engineer. My VPN knowledge was not good because we've mainly had MPLS. Still, it was very easy to set everything up.

You setup everything through the web GUI (Palo Alto Panorama). You don't need to know a lot about CLI. With Cisco devices, you have to be an expert in CLI to set up a few things.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks at ten because it's an innovative product. They “invented” the whole concept (SASE), and they're way ahead of other competitors.

The tool's consolidation is pretty quick.

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks should consolidate the portals into a single portal. It is slow and takes more than ten seconds to load a page.

I have been working with the product for two years.

I rate Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks' stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has around 10-15 users.

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks' technical team responds fast.

Neutral

The tool's deployment difficulty is in the middle.

Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks has flexible licensing models with different categories. It comes with different features which can be removed if not needed. However, its pricing is high.

I rate Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

My clients used Prisma Access essentially for security in the cloud. We integrated their SD-WAN into Prisma Access.

Palo Alto Firewall is one of the best firewalls in the world. It's very clear about the policies and all the security features they have. Also, the user integration works very well in Palo Alto. The WiFi, anti-threat, web filtering features and IT/OT separation are also good.

Though the monitoring is fine, the solution should improve its application graphs and interface monitoring. Additionally, the pricing could be improved.

I worked as a consultant on Prisma Access for one year for one integration project.

The product is very stable.

The product is scalable. Our clients are medium-sized businesses. There are 1,500 users worldwide.

The support is good. I rate the support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The solution is not easy to implement. The first setup is a bit more difficult, but it gets better. The solution is easy to maintain.

A global partner did the setup.

I'm still comparing, but the solution is quite expensive.

I recommend people try the product out because it's really good. I rate Prisma Access an eight out of ten.

It made VPN easy with the ability to build distributed VPN gateways. The cost of IT deployment is a bit less because you just need a VPN-capable device at the branch, as against the full stack, before leveraging the firewall service feature. There is also better latency for the clients in terms of talking to resources back at the data center.

It's Panorama-managed. Using Panorama makes it easy for me in terms of pulling policies and doing things on the fly.

It's pretty similar to the native physical firewalls. The only difference is that with SaaS security, we're able to get a little more detail about shadow IT SaaS applications and properly categorize them, which is helpful to decide what we need to do with those applications. It affects which applications we would want to see running over the network and which applications we need to restrict from users.

Similarly, in terms of protecting data and preventing zero-day threats, it's the same thing that I get with my physical firewalls. The data is sent to Wildfire. All the features are all pulled from the same intelligence sensors. The only difference is that this is in the cloud.

Prisma SaaS helps to keep pace with SaaS growth in our organization, but it's not a big deal for us. Mostly, we're looking through or sifting through identified SaaS applications, and it's a good thing to have that visibility. That's what we're enjoying right now, and then probably with time, we might be relying on it to make decisions in terms of setting restrictions to some SaaS applications, especially those that are not sanctioned by IT.

It's hard for me to pinpoint a certain feature against the other. The product makes more sense as a whole. Overall, the cost savings, ease of deployment, and better VPN user experience and performance are valuable.

It helps to identify and control shadow IT apps. In terms of its impact on our organization's security, it has been like a sword with two edges. Sometimes, it has proved to be helpful in securing workloads, and sometimes, especially when there are modifications to App-IDs pushed through the content database, we find some things messed up. We've come to a point where we have our ways of managing these things, but all in all, App-ID has been very helpful, especially in detecting tunneled applications.

At the end of the day, it's simply an operational thing. Sometimes, you have these notifications sent out about changes in App-IDs, modifications in App-IDs, or even the introduction of entirely new App-IDs to replace. Sometimes, the recommendations are followed, but even then, when the package is installed on the firewall, it gets messed up. I remember a particular one was with Tableau, and suddenly, people weren't able to use Tableau, which is an analytics tool for business. So, it can get messed up, but it doesn't happen often.

I have been using it for about two years.

So far, it has been stable. We get all those notifications around changes. I haven't seen a lot of IT changes that need some kind of manual effort. 

Being on the global license package and being able to spin up a VPN gateway just like that has been a huge benefit. If I have new users in Berlin, I can make life better and just spin up something close to Berlin for them to connect to. If there's an office coming up somewhere in Poland and there are some supply chain issues. If I have a router somewhere there, I can just leverage on that easily without worrying about, "Oh, when am I going to get my stack deployed? How soon can I complete a project so that users are able to start working from that office?" Those are the things that I don't need to bother about anymore because I can easily spin up a complete node close to their location, and I can tunnel between them, do my routing, and they're good. They can talk to whatever resources we need them to talk to remotely and connect to the cloud from there for internally protected cloud workloads. Scalability is obviously a huge factor.

The Cloud App-ID technology is something I am still observing. It takes us back to SaaS security. App-ID is a critical and fundamental part of being able to identify SaaS applications. So far, the applications identified have been true positives. It seems to work so far, but with time, we'll see how it's able to help with identifying SaaS applications better. 

It helped to identify cloud applications that we were unaware that our employees were using. I don't have the metrics, but we do generate reports from time to time just to see what's going on and how we compare with the industry in terms of application usage. Similarly, for risk identification, I don't have metrics. We are just reviewing and sifting through these applications. We don't, or we haven't, put a risk score on them yet. Until that's done, it's almost impossible for me to say if these are bad actors or not. We have visibility now. The SaaS applications that have been used at the moment are not of concern based on the last review we did. As time goes on, we might start considering some as risky or start categorizing the risks in some of these SaaS applications. Currently, it's all open. We mostly have mobile users, and we have another solution for endpoint security and Internet-based applications that go through their home Internet. There are few who do visit the office. Probably less than 10% of the organization goes into the office, so there's no huge concern at the moment because of those very low numbers.

For the parts and the features that I use, which are mostly remote branch and mobile gateway, I would rate it an eight out of ten.