WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We have a web server on the optional network. Then, on the trusted side, we just run all our computers out through the Internet. We don't do anything too elaborate with it.

We do have some technicians and some design center salespeople who call in. This is best usage that we get out of the solution.

We don't host our website internally anymore. We used to host our website and it did help with that, getting everything set up. We have just recently removed that and gone to a third-party. But, that was something which was very useful, setting up our internal website and NATting IPs.

The solution has increased productivity with our outside salespeople being able to connect into their computers and use those remotely.

We are able to limit where users can go, what they can do, and what they can access, so they are not wasting time doing things that they shouldn't be doing. It does help to save time, e.g., limiting Facebook. 

We are able to segment our FTP website off on the optional, setting up the rules specifically. There are certain outside IPS coming into our computers where we have different machines out there setup where technicians can remote in, etc. Being able to set those up to specific IPS, not just allowing full access, is probably our main use for setup.

The usability is good. I like it. I don't have any issues. Most everything that we have tried to set up for what we use it for is pretty straightforward and easy to use.

We have probably had it for the last 10 years. I have been here the entire time.

The stability is very good. We haven't had any issues with ports or anything else. Everything has been very good as far as the stability and issues.

The performance and throughput that the solution provides is good. We haven't had any issues as far as when we have connections and things going on. So, it's very good.

The stability is good as far as our use. I feel like we do have room. We have extra ports on it. We can set them up if we need to, but we don't need to use them. However, I feel we have room to expand and grow, if needed.

We have probably 75 users setup. Mostly, they are authenticating through to get out to the Internet. We do have some protections on it: virus stuff and different websites that users can and can't get to. We have groups setup for that. That is our main use from the inside with most of our users going out. Then, we have five or six users who remote into computers and other things.

There are not necessarily plans on expanding anything at the moment. We are pretty much set where we are. Usage is not too heavy, as it's mostly users getting in and out with us restricting what they can get to.

I have only had to call once or twice for anything in any of the time that we have had the solution. Most of the time, if I do have a question or something, I can hop onto the forum and there is an answer, then away we go. As far as my experience with the forum and just a few calls, it has been very good. We haven't had anything that has hung us up for a long time.

WatchGuard was pretty much our first solution like this. We did not use anything else before it.

The initial setup was straightforward. It walked through everything as far as the configuration. Everything that we needed was right there. So, I didn't have to search for anything. It was easy set up.

We went from a different version to this version. Even from that to this version, it was probably up and running within an hour.

I usually set it up.

We didn't consult anyone. We didn't really have an implementation strategy per se. We just set it up (like the old one), then went through and looked at some of the new features and things we might want to use.

I maintain it and and set up whatever needs to be set up. The other IT guys can come in and do stuff if I'm not here. Generally, it doesn't take too much time to get anything set up that we need.

It saves us a couple hours a week.

We don't have any other costs other than the licensing stuff.

We did look around at a few different things. We just kind of settled on WatchGuard. It seemed to have the features that we needed, so we went in that direction.

I'd give it a 10 (out of 10). I haven't had any issues. The few issues that we have had, such as not knowing where to go, they have been answered quickly. I am going to give it a 10 because of its easy to use. If we have a question, it's easy to get an answer. Also, it's very simple. For most of everything that we do, we have been able to do them pretty easily. We are very happy.

If we were to ever look at something else, I would look for something that has ease of use, simplicity, and ease of setup. That is what I like about this. Everything is pretty straightforward and easy to find. The interface being easy to use and find has been very helpful.

We don't use a lot of the logs. Generally, we don't need to. If we do need to go look at something or pull something up, the information is there in HostWatch or the logs. I have been happy with it.

We're not using the cloud.

We have four locations and at every one of them we use WatchGuard. We use them as firewalls and for UTM. They provide protection in terms of detection and prevention. And we also use them for site-to-site VPN, as well as for direct connect, VPN to AWS, and to AWS using VLAN tagging.

One of the main ways it has helped is that we use site-to-site VPN a lot, as well as remote access ACLs and client-to-VPN. Prior to WatchGuard, for example, we used to use Remote Desktop, which is not very secure, or RD Web, which is also not very secure. We installed the client VPN on everyone's remote computer and they can access our local area network. That is much better than using the other solutions. It's an improvement for the user and it's less risky for us. It gives us peace of mind that we're using the proper channels to access our network.

It's hard to pick one feature over another. But if I had to pick one, the UTM would be the most valuable because of the notification. I get notified via email if there is any type of threat detection or alert, telling me something is wrong.

For me personally, because I'm Cisco-Certified, it was very easy to take this over. I think it's a lot easier to work with because it's a GUI and not a CLI. I cannot speak for other users or other administrators, but it's pretty simple.

Based on our needs, the throughput is pretty solid. We haven't had any issues as far as the throughput is concerned. This particular box maxes out at 2 GBs and we only have 1 GB so we haven't had any latency.

I manage it using the System Manager, based on the firewall access control that I have. I've been able to manage it and use it without any problems.

Websense is an application that monitors and filters internet traffic. Websense was derived from WatchGuard. But when you go to WatchGuard to actually implement that particular feature, you have to use some type of additional feature and you have to pay for it, unfortunately. I think it should be free or free in the WatchGuard box itself, as an option. It would be nice if they didn't charge us for that.

And if they won't offer it for free, they should offer something better. It definitely needs a big improvement because it's very unfriendly. It's called Dimension Basic and there is a reason they call it basic, because it gives you very basic information. Let's say you want to track someone's internet activity or where they've been going. Websense gives you detailed information as far as the source. But this one only gives you very basic information and, on top of that, it's a free version for only a few months and then you have to pay for it. So not only is the version very basic but you still have to pay for it. That, in my opinion, has room for improvement.

Everything else that we have, the live security services and network discovery and all the spam blocking, threat protection, and the web blocker, is included.

We've been using Firebox for as long as I can remember. I inherited this position close to 13 years ago and they'd been using it before that.

For the most part, everything seems to be working without any issues. That's why we've had it for this long, close to 17 years for the company and, under me, for 13 years. There are more pros than cons.

We haven't had any issues. I always buy an additional box as a Hot Standby. I have never had to use it, and thank God for that. So it's been very stable. We keep them for a maximum of three to four years and then we upgrade to a newer one. For the time that we keep the box active, we don't have any issues.

In terms of scalability, as far other features go, we're stuck with what we have on the physical appliance. For example, we had one that was set to 300 MBs for throughput and when we wanted to upgrade, we couldn't obviously use that same box. It wasn't really scalable. So we had to upgrade to a newer version.

We have four locations and approximately 400 users. We don't have any firm plans to increase usage. The owner of our company just acquired another company and that may make a difference. WatchGuard is the main component that we use. The subscription for all four of the WatchGuards that we currently have ends in 180 days. We're just going to upgrade to the newer version, if it's available. 

There was an incident, back in the day, where I called for support and the guy sort of brushed me off. It was very uncomfortable but it could have been an isolated incident. I don't want to say that all the support engineers are the same. But this particular guy was either drunk or rude.

Other than that, it's been very smooth sailing for us, as far as support goes.

We have always been using Cisco. They decided that WatchGuard would be beneficial to keep because it's GUI and it's a lot easier to work with than other products, especially for junior admins.

I set it up all the time and it's very straightforward. It's very easy to set up and very easy to migrate over to a newer version. It's really simple. I've only done a new deployment once. 

For upgrades, you save the configuration and you upload it to a new file, or you just open a new file and browse to the configuration file that you saved. It usually takes 10 minutes at the most.

But the first deployment, because it was obviously more involved, took a few hours. Setup included the site-to-site VPN, the client VPN, the actual interfaces, the static NATs, a lot of the firewall policy, the internet certificates, and the policy routing; the basic components of any router.

Deploying WatchGuard to distributed locations is mainly the same. Obviously, there are differences in the IP addressing and the network addresses. And you have to take care of the VPN connection between the two, to be able to communicate using the site-to-site VPN. There is also web blocking. We have certain policies for denying access to certain sites or certain applications. We don't allow, for example, weapons or sex or any of those kinds of solicitation sites. We then set the external and internal interfaces and then do the routing. In the some of those locations we use the WatchGuard as a DHCP server, so we set that up as well. The rest is all pre-configured.

We have had two-year deals in the past, but recently we decided to go with annual. The cost was somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000 to $3,000 for each one, depending on if they had a special at that time or if they were doing an in-place upgrade or with the same router.

They figured if they were going to get something different then it would have to be something very user-friendly for the administrators, because I'm the only one who is certified to work on Cisco. We evaluated the Barracuda NextGen Firewall. We also looked into Juniper and the Meraki firewall, because all our switches are Meraki switches. 

But we decided to stay with the WatchGuard. The prices were a little bit better than Meraki and, since everything was pre-configured, to upgrade to a newer WatchGuard all we had to do was just save the config file and upload it to the new one, and that was the end of that.

Educate yourself. Read documentation and watch videos online. Since the administrators are going to use it, they should educate themselves on WatchGuard. Keep a cheap, old box for training. I train my administrators on an older box and I give them a network to train on.

We have been attacked with ransomware in the past, and it was kind of disappointing because, when I talked to Cisco support they said that they recommended purchasing end-point protection with a ransomware interceptor, so we ended up getting Sophos. So alongside the WatchGuard, we have Sophos' ransomware interceptor and end-point protection. We use them, on top of the WatchGuard, as a secondary line of defense.

It has been smooth sailing as far as the product itself is concerned. That's why we keep renewing it. We either renew it or we upgrade to the newest version if they have a special. We also use it for Hot Standby. It's been good.

It's our primary edge firewall at the home office. We have two M470s running Active-Passive. We have about 100 users in total here. Everything runs through the firewall, so the users run the gamut from analysts to accountants to executives.

It protects us from viruses and intrusions.

It has also saved me time, about an hour per month.

The most valuable feature is the ease of use of the interface. The usability is good. It's a firewall, it does its job and it does it well.

The throughput also seems to be good. I don't have any issues with throughput.

The management features are good.

The reporting is a little on the weak side. I would like to see a better reporting set and easier drill-down options.

I've been with the company for a year and they were already on WatchGuard when I got here.

The stability is good. It runs well.

I haven't had reason to scale it. It's the edge firewall and it's used extensively. We're a pretty small environment with a couple of hundred devices.

We pay yearly.

It's just me who is responsible for deployment and maintenance of the solution.

We use it both for VPN tunnels and as a firewall.

Our company runs group homes. There are 140 or so sites and employees are traveling to those sites on a daily basis. They use the VPN tunnels going back to the main office to access the file servers. We also have about 12 remote locations connected by WatchGuards on both ends to create a VPN tunnel, with SD-WAN to allow traffic to go between those two sites, both for the file servers and for the phone system.

It gives us a higher sense of security. There is an easier workflow as well.

I estimate that 50 percent more users use the WatchGuard VPN than use the SonicWall VPN tunnels. Those users are able to work on documents out of the site or increase their workflow and do work while they're onsite instead of doing it later. It saves us a couple of hours per person per week.

Once it's set up, we don't have to touch it that much.

We enjoy its usability very much. It's very easy to use, especially compared to similar products. A lot more users use the WatchGuard appliance now than use the SonicWall appliance because of the ease of usability.

As long as you're using the correct model, since different models have different numbers of allowed tunnels, the throughput is enough.

In terms of management features, we have a Dimension Server set up. It's nice to be able to see where people have gone to and when they have gone there. Overall, the solution makes it easier to manage on my side. Setting up new policies, new devices, and setting up tunnels to the current devices, is easier.

The firewall secures the external perimeter.

There is a slight learning curve.

Beyond that, the only issue we've had in the past two or three years had to do with the number of current tunnel connections, and that was just an issue with our size of Firebox. We got a bigger Firebox. The old one was able to handle the load. It was just that we ran into a licensing issue. We had hit our number of concurrent tunnels. We have a lot of tunnels with the phone system. We have tunnels to and from each site for the phones to be able to talk. It was a little bit of a surprise when we came across this situation, but it's present in the documentation.

It didn't take us long to figure out that that was the reason we were having an issue. It was just our not having the forethought to make sure that what we had was able to expand to meet our needs.

We've been using WatchGuard Firebox for about eight years.

Stability is excellent. We've had no issues with the firewall going down because of the Firebox.

We haven't run into a scalability issue yet. There are over 1,000 employees including several hundred office staff. There are 20-some sites that we have connected. We had to step up to a 470 for the current VPN connections, but as long as we're on the right size Firebox, everything goes pretty well.

Whenever there's a new office site coming up, we typically add a new Firebox. We're looking at putting more Fireboxes in all of the group homes, so that's probably going to be 115 more deployments in the coming years. We plan on continuing to use it, but I don't see any issues with expanding.

We don't work directly with Cisco tech support. We work with a third-party company to handle support that we can't figure out.

We used SonicWall Next or Dell. 

The setup is pretty straightforward. It takes 15 to 20 minutes per box. We have to set up current tunnels and get a static IP address at the sites where we're putting the boxes. It requires one person for deployment and there is very little maintenance needed.

Deploying it to distributed locations is a matter of setting the Firebox up. If it's a replacement Firebox, we set it up with the same policies and ship it to the location. They can take it, unplug the old wires from the old box, put the new wires in, turn it on, and it's up and going.

There were other options. We took a look at Dell but this was the best one at the time. The usability and setup of the WatchGuard were better. Also, the maintenance was very minimal. It's almost nothing.

The other solutions had their features that were nice, but there wasn't anything that really drew us or made it stand out from WatchGuard. We're pretty happy with WatchGuard right now.

There are updates pretty regularly. There haven't been any big changes over the past few years. They've kept working, rather than taking steps backward or making things harder.

We use this solution as an edge firewall and layer-3 routing internally.

This solution has provided ease and speed of rules. It has unparalleled troubleshooting with excellent reporting.

The most valuable features of this solution are live logging, rule setup and maintenance, and VPN creation.

We would like to see granular notification settings and more advanced filtering in traffic monitoring.

There is not a product that compares to this one.

Our primary use case for this solution is traffic management.

When the system recognizes that we are using something like VoIP, Skype, or Cisco Video Conference, then one can adjust the bandwidth. For example, we have it set so that VoIP has a limit of 120Kbps (Kilobits per second).

The most valuable feature of this solution is traffic management.

We like the diversity of categories for blocking and allowing traffic.

This solution is very easy to manage.

There is no message displayed for the user on the desktop informing them that access to a web page has been blocked by Application Control. Because of this, the administrator has to check the logs to find out. It would be better if the user could call the administrator and explain that the page has been blocked by Application Control, and give the details, like the category and the reason, at that time. In the Web Blocker module, you can define a message that is sent to the user on their browser.

This solution is very, very stable. We have never had a hardware failure, but the solution does require maintenance. You have to tune it because as more applications are developed and enhanced, there are new categories or applications that you have to allow or to block.

We use this solution on a daily basis.

This solution is scalable but within the limits already set by WatchGuard. You can edit categories but you cannot add a new category by yourself. Rather, it is a feature request. I would say that the main categories that are available at the moment are enough, but if something is missing then you cannot add it.

Every department is using this application, and each of them has a different configuration. For example, the sales department configuration is different from the management department, which is different from the service department. The Marketing department has to have access to social media, but the service department may not need to, and it might not be allowed because it can lead to wasted time.

We have approximately fifty users.

The technical support for this solution is prompt and very, very friendly.

The only issue that we have had is when a strange error happens that requires third-level support, we have to contact Seattle in the US from here in Germany. With the time difference, it means that it takes twenty-four hours to get a solution. That is just when we call. When we email, there is no problem with time difference because they have twenty-four-hour support that is not dependent on Seattle. It comes from India or Asia or somewhere else.

Prior to this solution, we used SonicWall, which was owned by Dell at the time. We switched to this solution because the configuration is more intuitive for the users. You can choose the GUI, or instead, as we prefer, you can use the WatchGuard client. With the client, you can do things like making an evaluation.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex because you can only choose certain options or categories. You have to mark the whole category, for example, business communication like Skype, Cisco Tandberg, or Microsoft Teams, or have it choose on its own. After the category has been chosen you mark the options that are allowed. You specify what is blocked and the traffic management options such as reserved or guaranteed bandwidth. At this point, it is only checkboxes and a start button.

It is very easy, but you have to tune it because sometimes things are blocked and they should not be.

Our deployment took approximately one hour and three people were involved.

Own our team handled the deployment and configuration.

You need to have one technical specialist to enter the configuration, but you also have to involve the departments. Each department manager can specify which categories are allowed, which are blocked, and perhaps the level of bandwidth that is required for each category in their department.

One person is required to maintain this solution, although there should also be a spare.

I would suggest that for mid-size companies of say one hundred users, you should choose different configurations. For example, Application Control group one, group two, group three. It could be a management group with more bandwidth and has fewer restrictions. Then ordinary users have more restrictions so you can give them a different configuration. You can specify the levels of restrictions, and in what categories. I feel this is something that is very important.

The only dynamic is increasing categories. If a department calls and says that they cannot access a particular webiste then the admin will check the logs to see why not. It will show the category, and the admin will have the choice to allow the whole category or just a single website. Social media might be a category where we do not allow sites like Facebook, but we do allow LinkedIn. In this case, the Social Media category is blocked but there is an exception checkbox for LinkedIn.

My advice for anybody researching this type of solution is to compare this with other products. The manageability in WatchGuard is very easy. I know other solutions and they are more complex and there is no traffic management capability included.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that things are dynamic. The internet is constantly growing, along with the categories. Startups like Zoom have a VoIP, so you would have to manage this application. The configuration is not static. It is dynamic, like everywhere in IT. You cannot just install it and leave it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is protection for my network from external access. We also use it for some VPN, but mostly it's for protection. It's mixed usage on about a dozen different connections, a dozen different workstations, and access points.

I don't really worry about individual workstation security as much, anymore. I can depend upon the firewall to control incoming viruses, incoming attacks, bad port usage.

It simplifies my job because I don't have to worry about it on a day-to-day basis, the way I otherwise would. I'm not checking and monitoring each workstation on a minute-by-minute basis. I can check what's going on with the firewall and see how it's being used and where, and if there are any things coming through the logs.

I've built my process around the WatchGuard. I can't say it has saved me time because it's become the defacto process. I don't have anything against which to compare it.

• Intrusion Prevention is my primary focus so that's what I find most useful. The why is straightforward: It's to prevent intrusion.
• The usability is pretty good. 
• The throughput of the solution is also pretty good. I think there is some throttling that occurs.
• It provides me the layered security I need.

There are some features I'd like to see, although they are not standard in any of the products in this class; for example, better monitoring.

I'd like to have better access to workstation monitoring, connection monitoring, and the amount of time an address is being used, to better gauge proper network utilization. If I knew that something was connected to a particular external location for an extended period that seems abnormal, I'd be able to act upon it. It comes down to overall monitoring and reporting for the class of services that I have.

The solution's reporting and management features, based on what I have, are fair. I'd like to see an easier way of managing, controlling, and viewing usage at an IP-address-based level.

It's very stable.

WatchGuard's product line is very scalable, but this particular product is not.

Technical support is pretty good. The online knowledge base is usually the best way to go. But I have had some telephone support as well.

I had been using SonicWall for about ten years. I got a little frustrated with them at around the time that Dell purchased them. The WatchGuard UI is easier to manage and easier to work through. I ultimately became dissatisfied with the service and ongoing costs of the SonicWall devices.

The initial setup was straightforward. They walked me through it. I have enough knowledge to be able to walk through the setup and then tweak it the way I need it. I was able to find anything that was unusual, pretty easily, on the web.

The initial deployment took under an hour. I've spent dozens of hours tweaking it over the years, but nothing out of the ordinary.

The implementation strategy was to set up something that allowed for VPN access, to grow VPN access, and that would protect my workstations against viruses and attacks, as well as my servers. The goal was to simplify everything with one box.

For deployment and maintenance, it's just one person who handles the network, and that is me.

I did it myself.

I'm not sure I could establish a numerical return on investment. It's mostly peace of mind. I could probably do well with a lesser product, but I'm afraid a lesser product would provide significantly less protection.

It costs me about $800 a year. There any no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I looked at some Cisco products. I only upgraded to this latest T35 last year, from the previous WatchGuard item. I also looked at SonicWall and a couple of others.

It's used extensively. Do I plan to increase usage? If I can get better reporting, perhaps. But it's fully deployed and static at this point.

I would rate WatchGuard a seven out of ten. A perfect ten would come from lower costs for small installations for the service licensing, and improved reporting. And maybe some better awareness of what it's capable of doing. It's hard to figure out what I could do. That's a big thing. It's hard to figure out what is possible. What am I not taking advantage of? I've tried to work with people on that, and that's the biggest thing.

We primarily use the solution for protection.

All of the features in the current version of the solution are quite good.

The solution needs to improve the interface. I'm not able to easily find things using it. In the future, it would be nice if they could offer deadlock with an addition of desk geolocation. 

The solution is very stable. We've never had any problems with stability. Once a year we do a reboot just as a precaution. The solution never stops running otherwise.

Technical support has been very good from the start. We've been very satisfied with them over the years. 

A few years ago, when opening a case, there was a really long wait time. That has been reduced now. It may have been because we were in Belgium and the support was coming from America, so we would have to wait at least eight hours until we got a reply, due to the time difference. This isn't the case any longer.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I handled the implementation myself.

We're quite satisfied with the pricing model.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

It's a great product. 

I have the capability to have control over multiple devices and play with it before putting it into live mode. For others, I would suggest they just make sure they have at least played with the solution for a few days so they know all the ins and outs of the product before putting it live themselves.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.