Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

Our customers use Forcepoint like a cluster, which is standby active and passive. They also use it for the perimeter firewall, so it's on-premises.

The primary use case for this solution is when a customer asks for something that does automatic optimization, as well as security at the same time. It also has high performance capabilities, including enabling the SSL decryption feature. I recommend Forcepoint for these customers. If the customer has another solution for deep packet inspection of SSL encrypted traffic, I recommend Palo Alto, because they already have a solution for deep packet inspection for the kind of traffic in the network. From my point of view, at this point they do not need Forcepoint, so I would recommend Palo Alto.

They are great in every single area except for the optimization feature. The optimization is not really ready. If you want very good optimization, you have to add it to the network. I think if they make some enhancements in that area, they will replace every other product in no time.

We also need more IPS detection rules.

I have a very good impression of this stability. 

After three or five years, if you want to change the model with a bigger model because of the network expansion, I think they support that. Our clients are huge enterprise businesses.

I've never actually contact technical support because I'm not the person who is responsible for that. I heard that they are okay.

The initial setup is straightforward. The installation is very easy. With full functions, it takes about five days to deploy.

We have a technical team that does deployment for Forcepoint, Palo Alto, etc. We do the  implementations of every security product that we provide. We use two people to deploy Forecpoint NGF: a senior engineer and junior engineer.

I believe the licensing fee is for one year, three years, and five years, or something like that. If you want to increase the support level from a simpler level to platinum, I think that there's a cost. There are differences between every kind of support, but I don't know the numbers.

They just need to make sure that their environment is ready for implementing the firewall. They have to prepare for about two hours of downtime because we need some downtime to do the initial configuration. They need to be prepared for the deployment plan. That's all.

The biggest lesson I learned is that you cannot provide everything in one box. You can provide everything in one box, but you cannot provide everything deeply with the same quality all in one box. You need to give up on something to gain another. I'm always telling the customer, what's your biggest issue? Is it security or performance? Is it task optimization? What is your biggest concern? Based on their answer, I recommend one of the vendors that we work with.

If he said that he does not have any problems with anything, he just wants to get everything, then I provide them with Forcepoint and tell them that they will have some issues in a certain area. If he is okay with that, we go with the product. If he isn't okay and cannot accept that risk or that point, then we go with another vendor.

What I learned from them is that you can provide everything in one box, but you cannot provide everything with the same quality in that box.

They have really good capabilities if you want to use it. So I do recommend them in some cases, when the customer needs some optimization, along with performance and security. If they want everything in one package, I recommend Forcepoint because they have everything. That's why I recommend Forcepoint in that situation.

I would rate the solution as eight out of ten. If they solve the problem of optimization and added those IPS rules, I believe that they would deserve nine of ten. Nothing is perfect, though.

I work for a distribution company. We implement around 2,300 firewalls in Egypt for schools. We use the licenses to manage all these firewalls together and push policies for the firewall. We use it for security to restrict some rules for accessing the internet for students. 

The most valuable feature is controlling the traffic and the logging. They have real-time logins for traffic logs. Troubleshooting was very easy for me.

They should have a GUI on the product itself, not a separate management tool to be used on the management server or on a server to be used to manage the file. It should be all in one device. The device should be controlled through its own GUI. They also have to improve the learning center and the documents as the documents don't really help.

In the next release, they should improve the documentation.

The firewall is stable. We haven't had any stability issues.

It is scalable.

Technical support can be better. The support themselves are skilled but when you call for support you have to wait for a long time to get a response. They should improve their call center.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is done on the firewall itself. 

I recommended this solution mostly for large enterprises, a project that needs more than 100 firewalls to be managed. They have a very good management tool as security management centers.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I like the Firewall and the IPS.

The network interface could be better, and it could be cheaper. It's very difficult for us to compete with Fortinet. I would like to see an Application Control feature in the next release.

I have been working with Forcepoint for more than ten years. But we first worked with them for Web Security, and we worked with the Firewall for about four years.

Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall is a scalable solution.

It could be cheaper like Fortinet. 

I would tell potential users that it's difficult for us to compete with Fortinet's firewall. Fortinet offers good performance, a good price, and is stronger.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.

Our customer uses this solution as a standard next-generation firewall and VPN.

The VPN is great.

It lacks something called a change of authority. It also lacks more integration with other VPN clients. Also, the ability to dynamically change policies could be improved. 

We installed this solution for one of our customers one year ago.

This solution is very reliable. 

Adding users is very straightforward. 

I would give their technical support a rating of seven or eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It only takes a matter of minutes. 

The licensing is perpetual. The cost is fair, but it could be improved.

If you have Cisco integration, then I wouldn't recommend this solution — it won't integrate. It depends upon the endpoint security. If you have Cisco endpoints, you'll lack certain protections, especially in this multi-vendor environment.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a rating of eight. 

The solution has the ability to stop the latest malware threats and any exploits to computer systems.

It does well in security, for data security, and it ranks on the top of NSS Lab.

Forcepoint is a little difficult to configure compared to its competitors. 

The product could be more user friendly. Firewalls are getting better in graphical user interfaces. If there is an issue with the appliances then the engineering team can work on the command line controls. A cheaper way is a graphical user interface for any users to be able to quickly configuration and implement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a scalable product. I know a customer who has deployed more than 4,000 firewalls in a single deployment.

The technical support is good.

The installation can take a little while depending on the number of sites that someone has. Usually, for single deployment, it takes one or two days.

In our deployment team, we have over 2000 users.

The pricing of the solution is normally competitive with other products.

I would probably not recommend the product to customers because it is not top of the line. It depends on the customer though, their usage, budget, etc. If they have the budget I would probably recommend Palo Alto Networks, not Forcepoint.

I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a six out of ten.

The simplicity of the solution is its most valuable asset. It's very user-friendly.

The solution's support could use improvement. 

I'm in the MENA region so most of the time we were getting support from Europe.

They should include a license watch solution on their back-end.

The solution is stable. We haven't been worried about a lack of stability affecting us in the latest version or in the patches.

The solution isn't scalable. We have about 5,000 users, but they are never on it at the same time. Traffic just passes through.

I'd rate technical support at eight out of ten, but they're response times are suddenly a bit longer because most of them are in Europe and some are in India. It there was someone in MENA it would be much quicker because the time differences affect reaction times.

If you are not familiar with the setup, the initial implementation can be complex. For me, because I'm comfortable with firewalls, it was straightforward.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend the solution, but it depends on the requirements of the user.

I'd rate it eight out of ten.

Forcepoint makes up part of our security solution.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the support.

Making this solution easier to use would be an improvement.

The implementation could be made easier.

I have been using the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for one year.

Scaling this solution is difficult. We have approximately 100 users.

We are satisfied with technical support.

I also have experience with FortiGate.

The installation and initial setup are difficult.

We had a consultant assist us with the deployment.

I like this product and it is one that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I provide Forcepoint services to my clients.

The blocking, based on the signal provided, is the solution's most valuable aspect.

From my perspective, the user interface is decent.

Decryption needs improvement. It could be better in terms of the bandwidth and in terms of the speed of the tasks.

The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter.

Communication with the cloud will be integral to the future of this solution. It needs to be easily deployed with the cloud going forward. 

The solution would also benefit from working within a multi-cloud environment. It should work with everything from Google to Azure to Salesforce. They need to have a more complex API to be able to successfully connect with other clouds and stations.

I've been using the solution for about one year now.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. We have no issues there. We don't see any bugs or glitches. The solution doesn't crash.

A company would have absolutely no problem scaling this solution. If a team needs to build it out, they can do so quite easily.

We've contacted technical support in the past. They are decent. They provide enough support services to cover our needs. We are satisfied with the level of service they've provided us so far.

The initial setup is easy to get started and the deployment itself is pretty simple.

The customer's infrastructure can really be diverse, however, and that will affect deployment. There are different complexities involved in the setup from the client's side. That's where complexity can really come in. The infrastructure, routines, and network traffic all vary and bring in their own unique challenges.

Typically, deployment takes about a week to complete.

We're a developing company that works with a lot of legacy suppliers that offer clients security solutions. From my perspective, such legacy supplier companies such as McAfee, Checkpoint, and Forcepoint. We help our clients implement certain solutions.

I would absolutely recommend the solution. When it comes to the ease of deployment of the functionality, I would strongly recommend it. Forcepoint has great security functionality. 

However, one downside that is I see is that they need to improve some network functionality. This is very important due to the fact that network functionality is very crucial when it comes to deploying the solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten overall.