Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We use Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls daily to create firewall rules that permit network traffic for specific applications and end users.

We use various models, including the 800, 400, and 3200 series. The specific model required depends on the size of the remote site where it will be deployed.

Embedded machine learning is crucial because hackers increasingly leverage AI to develop innovative methods of infiltrating networks. AI enables them to create more sophisticated malware and threats, intensifying the arms race between defenders and attackers. To counter this evolving threat landscape, next-generation firewalls must incorporate AI and machine learning capabilities to analyze and mitigate threats effectively.

AI and machine learning are valuable aspects.

UTM solutions like those offered by CheckPoint and Fortinet all offer a single pane of glass for managing security. Palo Alto is the same, but as a newcomer to Palo Alto, I've found its management, particularly with Panorama overseeing our hundred firewalls, challenging. Pushing changes, especially to individual firewalls, often results in failures, requiring full system updates. This inconsistency creates significant hurdles. While I suspect similar complexities exist in Cisco Firepower and potentially Fortinet, Palo Alto's implementation seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Palo Alto claims their NG Firewalls are highly customizable, but this isn't always true. We've encountered an issue where changes to a firewall cannot be reverted. Unlike Cisco Firepower or ASA, where changes are only committed after saving, Palo Alto commits changes immediately and places them in a queue. This prevents reverting changes, even accidentally made ones. For instance, today I was testing firewall rules without intending to push them, but the changes were already committed to the locally managed Panorama server. This lack of control is a significant drawback compared to vendors like Cisco or Checkpoint, where uncommitted changes are not saved.

Executives often praise Palo Alto firewalls, but these same executives rarely have hands-on experience managing them. Unlike them, I deal with the daily complexities of firewall operations. While every firewall has its shortcomings, Palo Alto is no exception. Cisco's ASA, for instance, was frustrating to manage through its ASDM interface, but the CLI configuration was reliable. Unfortunately, other vendors like Checkpoint and Fortinet heavily rely on management servers, limiting CLI options. Pushing changes can be a nightmare with any firewall, often involving unnecessary whole pushes due to errors or version mismatches. Palo Alto is no different; it's prone to bugs and challenges like any other product. Contrary to popular belief, executives who lack firsthand experience with firewall management often exaggerate Palo Alto's strengths.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been problematic. Due to failed configuration pushes, I've encountered issues requiring Palo Alto Technical Assistance Center involvement. Based on DNS hostnames, objects are supposed to be automatically resolved by Palo Alto, but this functionality proved unreliable, necessitating a firewall upgrade and patch to correct a bug. Contrary to claims, Palo Alto has not exceeded expectations; managing as other firewall brands has been as frustrating. Each firewall platform has complexities, but I don't believe Palo Alto surpasses Check Point, Fortinet, or Cisco Firepower. While it might have advantages over Cisco Firepower, when compared to Check Point or Fortinet, Palo Alto does not offer greater performance.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for nine months.

When installing a Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, we connect it to the network via a management interface and configure basic settings. Next, we register the firewall with Panorama, its management server, and then plan the network transition.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are overpriced. While Fortinet offers a more affordable option, Palo Alto commands premium prices due to its strong brand reputation among CISOs and security executives. Despite this, I believe Palo Alto firewalls are overhyped and underperform expectations. Many of these executives, who lack hands-on firewall management experience, base their decisions on marketing claims rather than practical knowledge. In contrast, Check Point pioneered next-generation firewalls, offering advanced features before competitors. However, its reliance on a centralized management system limited flexibility. Cisco, while improving, has also moved towards centralized management, restricting CLI access. Ultimately, I prefer the balance of features and flexibility Check Point offers.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls eight out of ten.

The solution is to provide protection for our cloud-based server resources.

We don't have to spend as much time monitoring or configuring the solution. We just feed the alerts into our stock and we don't have to manage it regularly.

The configuration and stability are great. The solution offers many good features. Palo Alto has by far the best firewall in the world.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls embed machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention. Of course, that's just expected these days. Anyone worth considering is doing this. Low-end firewall devices out there do not provide that. However, they're not enterprise-ready.

The machine learning in Palo Alto's Next-Generation Firewalls is excellent for securing our networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly. It's a ten out of ten.

The product provides a unified platform that natively integrates all the security capabilities. That's very important to us.

The product has zero-day signature features implemented.

There are no trade-offs between security and network performance with Palo Alto.

We haven't had any issues so far.

I've used the solution for the last three years, although the company has used it for longer. 

Technical support is proactive in letting us know when there are updates that need to be made to the system. We've not had any issues with any of the maintenance activities.

Positive

We are customers of Palo Alto.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide our clients with an internet gateway. 

The best feature is the packet inspection; compared to solutions like Cisco and FortiGate, Palo Alto's packet inspection is much less CPU intensive, allowing it to detect threats embedded within packages more quickly and efficiently. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities; it's easy to integrate with other platforms, and we never faced any issues doing so.  

Using Palo Alto Networks NGFW's unified platform, our clients have eliminated multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together.

The solution doesn't support routing in virtual firewall creation, and we want that to be enabled. 

We've been involved with Palo Alto Networks since 2008 and are a reseller, so we implement the solutions for our clients.

The solution is very stable; we don't have any problems with the stability. 

The product is very scalable. Most of our customers are enterprise-sized financial institutions with over 3,000 branches. 

Palo Alto Networks doesn't directly support Pakistan but rather through distributors. Out tickets go to the distributors, which are then forwarded to Palo Alto.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward; we can complete it three to four hours after activating the licenses.

The product is expensive. With one being the cheapest and ten being the most expensive, I give it an eight.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW is an excellent solution; 90% of the financial institutions in Pakistan use it as their ultimate gateway. 

People are just starting to get into machine learning in Pakistan, so we're not 100% sure of its capabilities and potential. I believe machine learning becomes more efficient in a cloud environment than a hybrid one, though I have yet to research this thoroughly.

To a colleague at another company who says they want the cheapest and fastest firewall, Palo Alto Networks provides an expensive solution, but you can't compromise on security. You can buy the most inexpensive firewall, but you'll have to purchase add-ons and subscriptions to enable a complete security infrastructure in your organization. One solution for every situation that doesn't require any additional services is a better choice. 

I advise those considering the solution to understand where they want to deploy it in the organization, as a broad installation is best for internet gateways. Next, the sensitivity of the data is important; for a financial institution like a bank, I recommend Palo Alto NGFWs because of the quality of the security and machine learning.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for our gateway security.

Embedded machine learning is important.

The user experience is good and the configuration is very easy.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates security capabilities.

IDM is the most valuable feature.

The process of applying updates to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls has room for improvement.

The price also has room for improvement and the technical support could respond faster.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for one year.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable. We have 60 people that use the solution in our organization.

The technical support is good but can sometimes be slow.

Positive

I previously used WatchGuard XTM firewalls, but I switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because of their superior performance and features.

We have seen a good return on investment.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are expensive compared to WatchGuard XTM firewalls.

I give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten out of ten.

We have to perform regular updates for the solution.

We use it for our edge firewalls and our east-west and north-south traffic for our firewalls. We have also deployed each firewall to every site for our Layer 3 connections back to our data center.

Since we've integrated it into our east-west traffic and north-south traffic, I feel that it has reduced the number of viruses or other things in our endpoints. I wish to expand it more all the way to our endpoint computers so that we have end-to-end firewall security through Palo Alto.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. This is very important to me because I'm in IT infrastructure. I take care of the entire operations network and everything that flows north and south, east and west, and inside and out of our data center. It's very important that we have Palo Alto to protect us.

It embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. When any packet comes through the network, everything is like a first pass. It goes through every single part of our network, and we don't have a delay in alerts or network security. It stops any attack on the line.

I like all the threat alerts and WildFire. I also like scanning because everything that comes into our network via customers is scanned. We're an electric company, so every one of the bills is scanned and emailed in and out of our network. 

I like the reports, but I wish the reporting was a little better. When I set up the automatic reports to come in, they're pretty basic. I would like them to be a little more advanced at the ACC monitoring and things like that. I still enjoy all the daily alerts that I get and all the daily PDFs and reports, but I just feel that it could expand upon the visualization of the reports.

I've been using this solution for seven years.

The stability is great. They're not going anywhere. They're the industry leader.

It doesn't matter whether you are small or large, Palo Alto will fit your needs.

I'm in Pacific Standard Time. During the day, I have great support, and after 5:30, I don't have great support. During my business hours, I would rate their support as a ten out of ten. I love Palo Alto's support. However, at night, when the sun changes and I go to a different area, it's not always the best at level 1. If the incident was like having a system down, the support would be better, but after hours or 5:30, I have a harder time.

We were using Cisco ASA. We switched because of its ease to use and the GUI. There is also Single Pass Architecture, which is related to the way a packet flows through our network. It doesn't have to go through one area into another area. It's all at one, and it just separates. It gives me the best visibility of our network and firewalls.

It has decreased the time of technicians in researching the vulnerabilities. We also do web filtering, so that helps. Web filtering has changed things because we used to use Websense, and it's night and day.

It's very expensive. However, we usually use all of the subscriptions and threat alerts on any firewall that uses the internet. For each edge security endpoint, we use all subscriptions. Otherwise, we just utilize the threat alert, the antivirus, WildFire, etc.

Palo Alto is the best firewall company. Whether you're a small company or a large company, it will fit your needs.

By attending this RSA Conference, I was hoping to find new security solutions. However, I seem to like my existing Palo Alto security solutions. In terms of the impact of the RSA Conference on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases, it depends on what we're looking for at the time of attending an RSA Conference. Right now, we're looking for something that I didn't really see here. We're looking for security, but this means we need a security operations center (SOC), whereas we're small. We just don't have that type of network. This is almost too much. However, that's why we have Palo Alto Networks.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Palo Alto is the best firewall security network that I could possibly purchase.

Our use cases include combining multiple next-gen firewalls and bringing them into the Panorama centralized platform.

In general, it's one of the better firewall brands out there. It definitely has the investment and the dedication of the Palo Alto team to constantly improve their product and move forward. They're not a static company, like some of the other companies out there, and that's why I like them.

From a firewall perspective, there is a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is good because there is a single pane of glass. I don't have to go to every single firewall to look at certain things. I don't have to go to every single firewall to deploy rules. I can use Panorama to deploy the rules, so it's a one-stop job type of thing.

For securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, all next-gen firewalls pipe into the same Panorama centralized management solution. We can manage everything from a single pane of glass, deploy all that out, and make sure it goes through each firewall and updates correctly. That's huge. If you had to do it manually and you had thirty locations, that'd be like a day's job versus thirty minutes.

Having a centralized platform where they all feed into the Panorama solution significantly drops firewall-by-firewall management. We can use the Panorama solution to communicate with all of them.

I like the navigation of the general Panorama solution. I can easily navigate around and get to the thing I need. I'm not wasting time trying to find something.

Personally, I feel that their dashboards for reporting and things like that need some improvement.

We've been using Palo Alto for one to two years.

It has been very stable so far.

So far, it has been scalable enough to hit multiple divisions.

I have not personally contacted their support. That just dictates that they have a good product.

Positive

We also use Cisco firewalls.

I am not directly involved in its deployment, but I do help manage it. To my knowledge, the deployment was straightforward. It was easy to connect them into the Panorama platform.

There was a consultant. They knew their stuff.

There is typically no return on investment for firewalls because it's an IT cost, and we don't make money because we don't resell them.

It's pretty good.

We evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

The value I receive from attending an RSA Conference is huge because I visit all my vendor partners to understand their roadmaps for the future. Attending an RSA Conference has had an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year afterward because it brings out new features and subsets of the vendor partners. Also, if there is a deficiency in any of the current ones we currently use, we'll go engage other providers in order to find out if they can reach that gap or not, and then it'll dictate future proof of concepts and decisions.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, but I personally haven't experienced that. It's a good thing that there hasn't been an attack where that became useful, but that's great to know.

As a result of our experience with Palo Alto NGFW, to a colleague at another company who says, “We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest Firewall,” I would say, "Go with Palo Alto."

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto NGFW an eight out of ten.

We chose Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to replace our outdated firewalls.

The overall security of the organization has been improved.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is pre-sales and post-sales because of the support and relationship building.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. 

The integration of all security capabilities in Palo Alto NG Firewalls provides a unified platform, which is crucial as it reduces complexity.

Having machine learning embedded in the core of the solution for in-line, real-time attack prevention is of great importance to us, it is a top priority. 

This is significant because it enables automation, reducing the number of man-hours needed.

When evaluating the ability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to secure data centers consistently across all workplaces, I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

By using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we have been able to decrease our downtime by several hours per month.

The solution could be more cost-effective.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for two years.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very stable solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are easily scalable.

We previously used Barracuda Networks.

We switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls after having a bad experience with our previous vendor for firewall solutions.

Palo Alto is more forward-thinking when compared to Barracuda.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was complex in multiple ways.

The solution itself is not a simple solution.

An integrator assisted us with the deployment.

They were helpful and knowledgeable.

I have experienced a return on investment with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. One benefit is that there are fewer man-hours required for deployment and maintenance.

That solution's pricing and/or licensing are very convoluted.

Based on my experience with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, if a colleague at another company said they were only looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would not recommend Palo Alto.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

Attending an RSA conference provides high value and helps us to see the impact of our organization's cybersecurity purchases annually.

We are resellers. We're testing this solution in our network and learning about the scalability, how to set up the firewall, and the rules. It's a layer 7 firewall, so we want to know about the capabilities and detection.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The most important feature is the firewall. We can make rules to filter the application layer of traffic. It's a very helpful feature.

The interface is user-friendly. It minimizes clicks and the need to type comments. With the GUI, we just have to drag and drop. It's quite helpful. For those who don't have a lot of experience with Palo Alto, there's a lot of good documentation.

The machine learning is very good. From our tests, the detection is quite good. I would rate the machine learning a nine out of ten.

I would like to see more integration.

I have used this solution for about eight months.

I'm a consultant and appliance tester. My job is to test the network and know how it works.

The stability is good.

I don't know about the scalability because we only have one appliance, which we haven't upgraded.

I haven't contacted technical support, but all of the answers to my questions are available in the documentation.

We previously used Fortinet.

The installation is straightforward. It's just a simple button. The deployment took less than two hours.

We used four people for testing the capabilities and for the deployment. There were also three or four people outside my team who were involved.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

To those who are interested in using this solution, what I would first say is that Palo Alto is a leader in Gartner. I would give them recommendations about the technical side, what we have done in our testing, the protection rate, the benefits, and how quickly and accurately the firewall can detect threats.