Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

We use it for SD-WAN, IPS, VPN, and subscription keys on the cloud or have an MDM on-premises. 

I like the IPS. IPS is the master feature. I depend on the firewall and sandbox.

Management could be better. They can improve the management. I think all our customers can't accept firewalls that have standalone management. So, they prefer Fortinet or Palo Alto. But overall, inspection and other features are working fine.

I have been working with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for four years.

With Forcepoint, we can cluster as a team firewall, and we can do great without downtime. Our sales team can sell Forcepoint because of this feature.

I would give technical support an eight out of ten. We had an issue with them because we had only support level one for each case we opened. We want them to improve their technical support because I still have three cases open from this year. From January until now, technical support didn't solve it. I feel like it's an easy case like the client's VPN and user ID, and it shouldn't take around five months. 

The initial configuration is straightforward, and we can use it with the cloud. But sometimes, there are network issues we can't see when we're using the ethernet cable. I think you need an engineer with some experience before implementing the first implementation by yourself.

The time it takes to deploy this solution depends on the features I have to implement or configure. Normally, it takes five or six working days, but it might take another week if I have issues with the VPN or user IDs.

We are an integrator. 

We have just a subscription for the cloud, and this license is great. The license is so good.

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

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 offer our clients the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

I work as a presales representative and a product manager for Forcepoint. I'm working on product demonstration demos and proofs-of-concept. I give customers sessions and show them firewall demos. Even if it's on-premises, cloud-based, or virtualized.

It's all about the firewalls, how to deploy them, what the main features of the firewall are, what it is best suited for, the advantages, the pros, and the cons.

I would like to see more sizing in the next release, and the roadmap should be clear. More models are needed to compete in terms of firewall sizing.

I have been dealing with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three months.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

The Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a scalable product.

I work with various types of users and organizations. We have maybe, starting with 20,000 users to 100 users.

Technical support is not within my scope because I work as a pre-sales representative for one of Forcepoint's partners.

The installation is straightforward.

It is easy to install. It can take less than 20 minutes to install the firewall.

Depending on the number of firewalls, one engineer will be required to implement one solution.

It requires a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

We use it for a government network, here in Fiji.

Forcepoint is a complete package because it has network and systems applications. Other firewalls are only for the network. 

At the moment we are in a test phase. It's a demo for us. After the trial finishes, we may decide what packages to pay for. We haven't used all the packages.

It's very robust. It's very strong compared to every other firewall I've used.

It can handle a lot.

They should have a local vendor who can provide support. Most of the support is overseas, so the time zones can be a problem.

When we do contact them they are very easy to work with and very helpful.

The initial setup was straightforward because we did it with someone who came to us with the product. It took us a couple of days and then we tested it before we put it in production.

It is expensive.

Forcepoint is easier to use than Fortinet. We are also looking at Cisco ASA. But Fortinet and Cisco don't have all the packages that Forcepoint has. It's not comparing like things.

It's a nice product. I haven't come across anything that needs to be improved. It is very capable, very reliable, and easy to deploy. It covers all your networking needs for a big enterprise network. If you have a small business you should go with FortiGate or Cisco.

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. 

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.

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.

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.