Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

NG Firewalls form the edge between customers' networks and the internet. They often provide load balancing to multiple internet providers. In most cases, people use NG Firewalls for more than just a basic firewall function. 

The intrusion detection and prevention feature is usually the most significant piece that people want because it provides layers of protection against malware, ransomware, and things of that nature.

My colleague likes to tell our clients that none of his customers who installed a Palo Alto have ever had a ransomware attack. I'm always nervous when he says that because things change so fast. However, it gives people peace of mind that they're protected at the network's edge. 

The firewall is going to do everything possible to protect resources and data. We have customers with social security numbers, HIPAA data, and other sensitive customer information. Other products don't seem to provide the same level of protection and leave customers open to malware or ransomware attacks.

Palo Alto has many features to protect against data leakage and unauthorized downloads, so it can do quite a lot to protect a network against any attack. The leadership at our client companies feel reassured that they've done what they can with the best solution out there to protect themselves.

Smart people always do stupid things, like clicking on something they shouldn't. They often realize their mistake five minutes or five seconds after doing it. We've seen what these mistakes can quickly do to an organization. Palo Alto's features help you prevent those types of things from happening. You can immediately block suspicious file downloads and push those up to Palo Alto to investigate. You can get ahead of the problem and help other folks who might not have seen that attack.

NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Having all those features in one platform at the edge is essential. That's a massive component of the customers' overall security structure. It isn't everything, but it protects the edge of the network. 

It does not prevent someone from getting their company laptop infected at home and infecting the network when they come to the office the next day. That's where other pieces come into play to make an overall security structure. The firewall is designed to protect everything at the edge and has everything you need to do that. It protects you at the edges and provides reports that give people information about what's happening on the network at a given time and date. 

NG Firewalls take care of any holes in the client's network and reduces the number of security tools needed. A decade ago, deploying these types of tools required multiple devices, whether that was Barracuda email, firewall, and an intrusion detection platform. Generally, people had antivirus and anti-spyware systems running in their enterprises. All of that is now integrated into the Palo Alto Firewall platform. 

The antivirus and anti-spyware features are as good as anything out there. It's updated constantly, so any novel threats are automatically detected. On top of all these features, it provides a solid edge platform that incorporates all of the security features necessary in that edge component.

One of the simple features I like about Palo Alto firewalls is that it's extremely easy to find out what's happening in the network. The reporting is phenomenal, and it's easy to find which threats have been detected and what traffic is going through the box. When a customer notices something is wrong, you can quickly check the amount of traffic going through the firewall around that time. If there is anything out of the ordinary, you can decide it needs to be investigated further.

I talk to customers a lot about simple aspects. Palo Alto firewalls have vast technical capabilities in the signature database, which is constantly updated. Palo Alto does a lot of work to find threats in the wild, which is rare among vendors. From a practical and operational standpoint, the ability to see what's happening at any time, live or historically, is a huge benefit compared to other firewalls that are out there.

Machine learning is a massive part of it. Threats are always evolving, and they can constantly update the signatures they're hunting and the raw data streams they're looking for outside of something that's been defined as a true signature type of attack.

Most of my customers use what Palo Alto refers to as the Wildfire functionality. Their online analysis team checks every 15 minutes to find anything new that has been detected in the wild anywhere in the world. Once their team finds something, they immediately disseminate that information down to the firewalls so they can start looking for something new. That includes anything that has evolved from one version of an attack to another. So far, we have not run into any issues with changing attacks creating problems for customers with a Palo Alto firewall in place.

It's rare for our customers to use the zero-day intelligence feature to upload information to Palo Alto. Still, receiving anything from Palo Alto that others have detected out in the wild is beneficial. Any zero-day signature people find in a data stream can be pushed down to the firewalls, and it's a huge benefit to know that the firewall can stay on top of the changes in the attack world.

The PA 400 series is excellent. It's the product that they were missing. Years ago, there was a Palo Alto 200 and a Palo Alto 500. The 500 was a relatively low-cost platform that focused more on team-sized businesses. It reached the end of its life, and they replaced it with an 800, a similar form factor but quite a bit more expensive. The 200 was replaced with a 220, which was at the low end cost-wise in the product family, but they never had anything in the middle. 

They didn't have something that offered high performance at a reasonable cost. The 400s provide that missing link inside their product family to cater to small and medium-sized businesses. Because more and more, even though companies are small, with 50 to 100 people in a company, internet bandwidth has gotten so cheap that they're typically running 1+ gigabit-per-second connections out to the internet.

While they may not be using that much bandwidth today, that will change as they do more and more online. We saw during the pandemic how that could change quickly. Suddenly, everybody's working from home, and internet connectivity is the company's lifeblood. The 400 series gives customers decent performance at a lower price point in a small form factor. It's a product they can deploy, knowing it will protect them and provide the performance they need for years.

The reporting and visibility are phenomenal, but you don't get that information out of the box. They can email reports regularly, and the functionality is all there. However, a lot of it is based on an older model for email, where customers have in-house email servers. The small and medium-sized business customers I deal with are moving toward Office 365 or some other cloud-based mail and not maintaining their own internal mail servers. 

Palo Alto is developing that, and I need to understand how they integrate with an Office 365-type mail environment. The next piece is figuring out how to get that information to the people who need it without somebody physically sitting in front of the screen or going to the firewall to have it delivered to them regularly. The capability is there, but it's primarily based on an older email architecture that customers rarely use anymore.

I'm an integrator who has been doing professional services with Palo Alto installations for at least eight years.

Palo Alto firewalls are solid. I can recall that we haven't had platform failures or product issues with the Palo Alto Firewalls. Everything can have a power supply failure. We have seen that occasionally, but it's rare. In eight years, we've had to replace power supplies in two firewalls out of hundreds we've deployed. It's a physically stable platform, and the software is also solid. I typically avoid the most recent software versions until they reach what I consider mature and seasoned. 

We've seldom had issues with performance. I always tell people that internet bandwidth will be bigger and cheaper in the future, so firewalls need to keep pace from a performance standpoint. Palo Alto has done a decent job of bringing out new models with higher throughput levels while maintaining all the threat-driven functions. But we constantly need to evaluate where we are with internet bandwidth and where we expect to be in the future. 

We tell people that the physical hardware platform they choose will protect them today, no matter which one. However, the choice will determine how long that can stay in your network. It ultimately comes down to pure bandwidth. As we move towards the cloud, more and more internet bandwidth becomes critical. Multiple internet providers are now essential on most of our customers' networks. The raw bandwidth and performance through the box must keep up with that. Palo Alto's newer platforms have multiple-gigabit throughput, and I assume they'll continue with that as they evolve the product line further.

Their product line includes sizeable chassis-based firewall systems that can do multiple virtual firewalls within a single platform. Even their middle-tier products have that capability. Some of our customers have numerous divisions that need separation between departments, so those scalable features come in handy. Most are organizations with one or two firewalls per site. Still, I've worked with large enterprises that had tens or hundreds of firewalls in their overall environment to maintain a separation between departments and to separate users from servers.

Palo Alto also has a product called Panorama that lets you centralize the configurations of vast numbers of firewalls. It acts as a central point for changing firewall settings, and you can push the changes out to a subset of firewalls in your environment or all of them. The bottom line is that Palo Alto can scale up NG firewalls to massive numbers of platforms.

I rate Palo Alto support eight out of 10. 

Positive

NG Firewalls are easy to set up. I've been doing it for a long time, so it's effortless for me to set them up. When registering a firewall with Palo Alto, you can download a Day 1 configuration into the box with many of the standard protection features activated. 

I don't use that, but I periodically check it to see if there is something else Palo Alto has determined should be enabled or a feature that should be tuned differently than I typically do. They provide the initial configuration with the critical features activated.

Deployment requires a small team. Sometimes, it's only a person from the customer side and me. Usually, it is me plus one other engineer working on deploying these where we've got changes on switches to support the firewall or adjustments to the DNS systems. A lot of different areas come into play when we change the edge. Frequently, our customers are transitioning from a rudimentary network design to a new design where we're implementing firewall and network segmentation within their environment. That's easy, but we use a team of two or three folks to finish the job as quickly as possible.

While all next-generation firewall platforms have some degree of these different components built into them, Palo Alto has rock-solid antivirus, anti-spyware, threat prevention, data leakage prevention, and file blocking, plus all of the typical functions that a firewall does. It does all of these functions exceptionally well in addition to regular firewall aspects like blocking DDoS attacks and generic types of attacks. It tends to be more expensive than most competing platforms, but the return on investment is huge. I'm almost to the point of saying that I won't support any other firewall platforms out there.

There are several new firewall models that have come along, but I tell people that Palo Alto will provide all the protection you could need. There's no reason to look at anything else out there because most other platforms don't provide the same level of protection. The value proposition to customers is the peace of knowing they've got the best protection at the edge they can buy.

The licensing model is becoming more and more typical of vendors. There are several different licenses that we usually provide with the firewalls. DNS security is a newer one, and we're considering the types of customers who might benefit from that. 

The cost of the license is platform-dependent. It would be nice if they standardized that across the board to make the license a flat fee instead of based on scale and the platform you're using. Functionality shouldn't change based on the platform or the amount of data going through it. It's the same functionality on there. That's one aspect customers often raise. The platform's price is what it is, but the ongoing cost of the annual license is hard for some customers to wrap their heads around. 

Many people are just looking for the cheapest, fastest firewall, and my answer is always the same. It's a cliche to say you get what you pay for, but when you opt for the cheapest product, you have to understand that the costs of an attack are monumental. We had a customer who deployed SonicWall firewalls because they wanted something inexpensive that provides a basic level of functionality. They have spent three weeks trying to recover from a ransomware attack because the firewall didn't prevent them from downloading files into their environment, and it lacked some of the features a Palo Alto firewall has.

I tend to use examples like that. It's like switches. When everything's working great, you can go to the local store and buy yourself a cheap and expensive switch, and it'll be fine. But when there are problems, how do you recover? And what can you do with the firewall that will protect you against attacks you don't anticipate? That's where Palo Alto shines. You know you are protected when you deploy it.

Other products are less expensive because they don't provide the same level of functionality. They'll talk about threat prevention, anti-spyware, and malware functions, but they have not been updated automatically like Palo Alto and they lack zero-day functionality. Maybe they don't have some other components, like data leakage protection or file download protections to thwart a concerted attack against organizations.

I always ask people what it would cost to shut down their business for several days. This customer had a solid backup strategy for their servers at least, enabling them to start using cloud-based versions of all their servers within three days. They still were out of business for three days. Now that we've put Palo Alto firewalls in place, they feel confident that's not going to happen again.

I get nervous when people say it can't happen, but we haven't seen it happen with the Palo Alto firewall with the capabilities and features we enable on these boxes. When people say they don't want to spend that money, they need to consider it as something protecting their entire business. An internet connection isn't a nice-to-have; it's the lifeblood of their business, being protected by the firewalls.

I rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls 10 out of 10. People who are only starting with these firewalls should rely on the technical notes and briefs Palo Alto provides on functionality. I started using Palo Alto firewalls years ago, and we deployed firewalls the way we knew how. Later, I worked with another integrator who had been doing it for about two or three years more than I had. He was configuring areas on the firewalls that I had never considered. That becomes the critical piece; turning a firewall up based on what another firewall vendor does is enough to get you the same level of functionality that the other vendors provide.

But with the additional capabilities that Palo Alto includes in the firewalls, it's imperative to have all the different pieces activated as much as the customer can accommodate in their environment. And that's a critical piece that Palo Alto provides a lot of online resources, and there are a lot of technical notes that are out there on what needs to be enabled in addition to that Day 1 configuration. That can give you a big headstart on all the different areas that need to be enabled within the firewall.

We are using PA-820. This Palo Alto series is being used in our separate branch office. We are managing surveillance and internet activities with this Next-Generation security firewall. We are using the UTM features and running best security practices through this firewall. Moreover, VPNs and other remote access security features are being implemented in our environment with this firewall.

It has a very good security database for attack prevention. There are many security breaches, and most of the 2022 security breaches use automation. It has a really good automation engine that clearly prevents new types of attacks. We recently avoided an attack with Palo Alto.

DNS security is super good in this. Its DNS attack coverage is 40% more, and it can disrupt 80% of attacks that use DNS. Without requiring any change in your infrastructure, you can avoid the attacks. With this Palo Alto firewall, we are able to manage DNS security in a single device because it has single-pass architecture.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It has a VPN. We don't need to go for additional security features or devices in our environment. It is an all-in-one solution. With other firewalls, such as FortiGate, you require separate licenses. For example, for high availability, you would require an additional license, which is not the case with Palo Alto. In this way, Palo Alto is completely in line with our budget requirements. We are also planning to go with the higher version of Palo Alto firewalls in our environments.

It has helped to eliminate security holes. It creates a usage pattern with its machine learning and artificial intelligence features. It uses a good amount of artificial intelligence to create a pattern. If there are any changes in the usage pattern, it notifies us, and we are able to take action.

In our environment, we are running a lot of production servers. So, we cannot compromise on security. We give more priority to security than performance in our architecture. We put 70% focus on security and 30% on performance. Palo Alto completely suits our requirements. They have three-tier security. We can see the application layer traffic, network layer traffic, and session layer traffic.

It integrates perfectly. It integrates with SIEM solutions such as Darktrace. For log analysis, we are able to completely retrieve the logs.

The most important feature is advanced threat prevention. It stops most malware. It provides 96% or 97% prevention against malware. It has a leading intrusion prevention system in the industry. It is really good at malware prevention. It ensures that files are saved in a good and secure environment. It automatically detects and prevents unknown malware with its powerful malware prevention engine. 

It has a unique approach to packet processing. It has single-pass architecture. We can easily perform policy lookups, application decoding, and integration or merging. This can be all done with a single pass. It effectively reduces the amount of processing required to perform multiple actions. This is the main advantage of using Palo Alto.

It is a complete product, but the SSL inspection feature requires some improvements. We need to deploy certificates at each end point to completely work out the UTM solutions. If you enable SSL encryption, it is a tedious process. It takes a lot of time to deploy the certificates to all endpoints. Without SSL inspection, UTM features will not work properly. So, we are forced to enable this SSL inspection feature. 

It has been three years.

It is extremely stable.

It is scalable. There is a VM solution also, so it is completely scalable. 

We have about 3,000 users in our branch office. In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we are also planning to go for Palo Alto as our main firewall. We are planning to go with the higher-end version.

I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

In our branch office, before the Palo Alto firewall implementation, we have been using FortiGate. We switched because of the budgetary requirements. With FortiGate, for the high availability feature, we required two devices. We had to buy two licenses, whereas Palo Alto required only one license. It was completely in tune with our budget. So, we had to go with Palo Alto.

FortiGate did not have single-pass architecture. It took a huge amount of resources for each action. For policy lookups, it took a considerable amount of system resources, such as CPU, RAM, etc. The waiting time was too high for policy lookup, application decoding, and signature matching. All this is carried out in a single pass in Palo Alto. So, it is considerably fast and also secure. There is no compromise in terms of security. It is completely secure, and we are able to do more functions in a single pass with the Palo Alto firewall. So, we save a lot of resources. With FortiGate, security was around 50%. After the implementation of PA 820, it has increased to 80%. We have achieved about a 30% increase in security. Even though PA 820 is not a higher-end series, performance-wise, it matches the higher-end series of FortiGate. So, there is a considerable amount of cost savings. We are able to save 20% to 30% extra.

In our organization, we have multiple vendors. We have FortiGate, Cisco ASA, and other security implementations. We have already purchased many other products. So, we cannot simply suggest Palo Alto across the organization. We have to consider the older purchases.

Palo Alto is a good competitor to FortiGate. Cisco, FortiGate, and Palo Alto are the three main competitors. When we compare these products, they have similarities, but I would suggest going with Palo Alto for higher security. If you are giving more priority to security and less priority to performance, definitely consider this. Cisco ASA and FortiGate are more performance-oriented. So, if you are planning to give more priority to security, I would definitely suggest Palo Alto.

Its initial setup was complex. It was not straightforward. It required a considerable amount of time and effort. Migration was a little bit complex because we had a different vendor product. Migrating to this product required a considerable amount of time and planning because we didn't want to disrupt the networking in our existing environment. It took a good amount of planning and decision-making to migrate to Palo Alto.

Its deployment took about a week. In terms of the implementation strategy, we were deploying it at the branch office. We already had a solution there. So, we had to completely migrate the policies and everything else. We also had to identify the interfaces with the utmost urgency. We first migrated important interfaces and made sure that they all are working fine and all the security features are working fine. After that, we enabled all the policies and other features. In this way, we were able to completely migrate in seven days.

It required three network administrators. They are responsible for actively managing the firewall configurations, taking backups, etc.

With this highly secure environment, we are able to maintain our production-level servers on-premises. We were planning to move them to the cloud for security, but with the implementation of Palo Alto, we were able to maintain them on-premises. We could create a considerable amount of production service, and thereby, we had a great return on investment through this.

It is not that expensive. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing. Other than the licensing, there are no additional costs.

We didn't evaluate anything other than FortiGate and Palo Alto.

I would recommend this solution if security is more important to you. If the performance of the users is more important, I would not suggest Palo Alto. It gives more priority and weight to security. It has a complete security mechanism with AI, log-based analysis, etc. I would recommend it for higher cybersecurity and IT-related environments.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

On-premises, we used Cisco but replaced our core firewall world with Palo Alto because we wanted more visibility. Plus, we were looking for features such as IPS for PCI compliance. We wanted next-generation capability, but we had the ASA traditional firewall with Cisco, which doesn't do much, so we replaced it with Palo Alto. 

In the cloud, we use Palo Alto for the zero trust implementation. Initially, we tried to work with the Azure firewall, but we found a lot of limitations in terms of visibility. It couldn't provide us with the same visibility we wanted for Layer 4 and above.

The solution is deployed both on cloud and on-premises. The cloud provider is Azure.

We have about 6,500 endpoints in my organization and five administrators.

One of our key challenges was for the PCI, the new standard 3.1. There's a requirement that financial applications need to have some sort of zero trust architecture. They need to be completely segregated. We implemented zero trust using Palo Alto so that if we are within the same subnet within the network, we have protection.

The unified platform helps us eliminate security holes. We use another product from Palo Alto, called WildFire, which is basically sandboxing. We have layers of products. Because of WildFire, we're able to identify any weaknesses in the upper layers.

We give a copy of the same packet to WildFire, and this helps us identify things that were bypassed, such as malware or malicious files. It's especially helpful when we're transferring files, like on SMB, because it's integrated.

The unified platform helps eliminate multiple network securities, and the effort needed to get them to work with each other. It's a very good product for us because it fits well in our ecosystem. 

Our other vendor is Fortinet. Previously, we struggled with having multiple products. One of them was command-line based and the other one was web-based. The engineers would have some difficulty because not everyone is good with a command line platform. Palo Alto and Fortinet are both managed by the UI and they're very similar products. They work well with each other, so we use certain capabilities here and there.

For example, for some internet browsing, we generally have a separate solution for our proxy, but there are situations where we need to provide direct internet access to a particular server in a certain situation. The problem is when a particular product does not work with the proxy for some reason. This is where we use Palo Alto's web filtering. If we didn't have a solution that could do this, it would be difficult on our side because how can we provide direct access to the server without securities?

When browsing, the logs provide us with the required information. For example, we allow certain URLs to a particular server, and we have that data also. This goes back into our same solution. With Palo Alto, the connectors are built in.

Our Palo Alto Firewall has the zero-delay signatures feature implemented. For the IPS capability, we rely completely on Palo Alto. If we don't have this implemented and there's a new, ongoing attack, we will be exposed. We make sure there are controls on the policies we have on each layer.

Even if a patch is released for that particular issue, it would take us time to implement it. We actually rely on the network layer, which is our Palo Alto box, to prevent that in case someone tries to exploit it. In the meantime, we would patch it in the background.

One of the key features for us is product stability. We are a bank, so we require 24/7 service.

Another feature we like about Palo Alto is that it works as per the document. Most vendors provide a few features, but there are issues like glitches when we deploy the policy. We faced this with Cisco. When we pushed policies and updated signatures, we ran into issues. With Palo Alto, we had a seamless experience.

The maintenance and upgrade features are also key features. Whenever we have to do maintenance and upgrades, we have it in a cluster and upgrade one firewall. Then, we move the traffic to the first one and upgrade the second one. With other vendors, you generally face some downtime. With Palo Alto, our experience was seamless. Our people are very familiar with the CLI and troubleshooting the firewall.

It's very important that the solution embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention. There is one major difference in our architecture, which we have on-premises and on the cloud. Most enterprises will have IPS as a separate box and the firewall as a separate box. They think it's better in terms of throughput because you can't have one device doing firewall and IPS and do SSL offloading, etc. In our new design, we don't have a separate box.

When we looked at Palo Alto about five years ago, we felt that the IPS capability was not as good as having a separate product. But now we feel that the product and the capabilities of IPS are similar to having a separate IPS.

Machine learning is very important. We don't want to have attacks that bypass us because we completely rely on one product. This is why any AI machine learning capability, which is smarter than behavioral monitoring, is a must.

There was a recent attack that was related to Apache, which everyone faced. This was a major concern. There was a vulnerability within Apache that was being exploited. At the time, we used the product to identify how many attempts we got, so it was fairly new. Generally, we don't get vulnerabilities on our web server platform. They're very, very secure in nature.

We use Palo Alto to identify the places we may have missed. For example, if someone is trying something, we use Palo Alto to identify what kind of attempts are being made and what they are trying to exploit. Then we find out if we have the same version for Apache to ensure that it protects. Whenever there are new attacks, the signature gets updated very quickly.

We don't use Palo Alto Next Generation Firewalls DNS security. We have a separate product for that right now. We have Infoblox for DNA security.

Palo Alto Next Generation Firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates with all security capabilities. We send all the logs to Panorama, which is a management console. From there, we send it to our SIM solution. Having a single PAN is also very good when we try to search or if we have issues or any traffic being dropped. 

Panorama provides us with a single place to search for all the logs. It also retains the log for some time, which is very good. This is integrated with all our firewalls. Plus, it's a single pane of glass view for all the products that we have for Palo Alto.

When we have to push configurations, we can push to multiple appliances at one time. 

Previously for SSL offloading, we utilized a different product. Now we use multiple capabilities, IPS, the SSL offload, and in certain cases the web browsing and the firewall capability altogether. Our previous understanding was that whenever you enable SSL offloading, there is a huge impact on the performance because of the load. Even though we have big appliances, they seem to be performing well under load. We haven't had any issues so far.

We have had some challenges. There are some advanced features that we aren't able to use, which include active IP authentication and app ID. We are facing challenges with implementing those two features.

Other products provide you with APIs that allow you to access certain features of the product externally with another solution. In the cloud, we have a lot of products that provide us with these capabilities, such as Microsoft. It has its own ecosystem, which is exposed through Graph API. I would like to have the capability to use the feature set of Palo Alto and provide it to another solution.

For example, if we have a very good system to identify malicious IPs within Palo Alto, we would like the ability to feed the same information into another product using the APIs. These are obviously very advanced capabilities, but it would be great if Palo Alto would allow this in the future.

I have used this solution for more than five years. I'm using version 10.1.

It's extremely stable. We've used it on the parameter and as a core firewall in our data center. In both cases, it's what we rely on today.

The scalability is amazing. When you look at the data sheet, sometimes you'll find that the equipment won't perform well under the same load. However, if something is mentioned on the data sheet and you implement it, you'll find places where you have high CPU and high memory utilization. When you buy something, maybe it should be 50% load, but when you put it into actual implementation, you find out that the CPU and memory remain very high.

With Palo Alto, the CPU and memory are both intact. It's performing well under load. We have different timings where we have a large load and it goes down and then goes up again. In both scenarios, the product is very good. The CPU performs well. Especially during upgrades, it was very stable and straightforward.

We have plans to increase usage. We're doing a migration in the cloud right now, and we plan to move a lot of our services to the cloud. This is where we'll either add more virtual firewalls in the cloud or increase the size and capacity of firewalls that we have there.

The technical support is great. We've faced very, very serious problems where our systems were impacted due to some reason, and they were able to provide adequate support at the same time. When we raised a P1, an engineer started to work with us right away. Some vendors don't touch the customer's product.

Palo Alto's support is great; they're willing to get their hands dirty and help us.

I would rate technical support nine out of ten.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the IPS for compliance, but there were other factors as well, such as usability. We didn't have enough engineers who were well trained on Cisco because it's a very traditional kind of product that's completely CLI driven. We only had one or two people who could actually work on it. Even though people understand Cisco, when we asked them to implement something or make a change, they weren't that comfortable. 

With Palo Alto, it was very simple. The people who knew Fortinet also learned Palo Alto and picked it up very quickly. When we had new people, they were able to adjust to the platform very quickly.

It was straightforward for us. For the initial deployment, we had two experiences. In one experience, we replaced one product with Palo Alto. In that particular situation, we used a tool from Palo Alto to convert the rules from Cisco to Palo Alto. It took us around four or five days to do the conversion and verification to make sure that everything was as it was supposed to be. The cloud deployment was straightforward. We were able to get the appliance up and running in a day.

For our deployment strategy, when we replaced our core, one of the key things was if we wanted to go with the same zones and to identify where the product would be placed and the conversion. We tested the rule conversion because we didn't want to make a mistake. We took a certain set of policies for one particular zone, and then we did the conversion and applied it. We did manual verification to ensure that if we went with an automated solution, which would do the conversion for us, it would work correctly and to see the error changes. Once we applied it to a smaller segment, we did all of it together.

For the cloud deployment, we had some challenges with Microsoft with visibility issues. From the marketplace, we took the product and deployed it. We did a small amount of testing to check how it works because it was new to us, but we were able to understand it very quickly. The engineers in UA helped us because the virtual networking for the cloud is a little bit different than when it's physical.

We were able to get it up and running very quickly. Palo Alto provides a manual for the quick start, which we used to do the deployment. It was pretty straightforward after that.

For maintenance and deployment, we have two engineers working in two shifts. We have around 15 or more Palo Alto firewalls, so we can survive with six members. That's more than enough to handle operations.

We offer security services, so it's difficult to calculate ROI. But since we're an organization where we cannot compromise on security, I would say the ROI is very good. We don't have any plans to change the product since we moved from Cisco.

The cost is much better. We've worked with multiple vendors, and Palo Alto is very straightforward. We've done many implementations with Cisco, and they kill you on the licensing. When you enable each capability, it costs a lot. They charge you for the software and for the capabilities. They charge you for the licensing. It's very complicated. 

With Palo Alto, the licensing is very straightforward. For example, if you only have a requirement for a firewall, you can go with that. If you want to go with a subscription, you get all the features with it.

I work for an enterprise, so we have the topmost license for compliance reasons. There is an essential bundle and a comprehensive bundle for enterprises.

Palo Alto also has a security essential bundle, which covers everything that's required for a small organization.

The PA-400 series of Palo Alto is the smaller box for small businesses. The good thing is that it has the same functionality as the big boxes because it runs the PAN-OS operating system in the background. It's a very good product because it provides you with the same capabilities that an enterprise uses. It provides the same operating system and signatures.

It's also good for an enterprise because you get the same level of capabilities of the firewall. There are firewalls that are 20 times more expensive than this. However, on a small box, you have the same capabilities, the same feature set, and the same stability, so I feel it's a very good product.

We chose Palo Alto right away because we couldn't go with the same vendor, which was Fortinet. We needed a different vendor, and the only option left was Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. 

As a recommendation, I would say go for it. It's a very good product. With implementation, we looked at a lot of different processes that said they offered a lot of capabilities. We've used almost all of them, such as GlobalProtect, which is for the VPN capability, and site-to-site VPN. We have done all kinds of implementations and in most of the cases, it's pretty much worked for us.

At some point, you will have requirements where you have third-party vendors, or you have to integrate with a third party. With Palo Alto, you're safe no matter what. With other open-source solutions, they work but you'll face issues, and you'll have to step up your security. 

With Palo Alto, it's straightforward. You'll have adequate security, it works well, and you'll be able to work with other solutions too, create tunnels, and GlobalProtect.

There are people who utilize open source products also, and it works well for them. But if you're an enterprise that provides 24/7 services, it's better to go with a company that has the support and features that work. We don't have any challenges with it. 

This is very important because maybe you can get a cheaper solution, but stability and functionality matter, especially when we talk about zero-day issues every single day. This is where Palo Alto would be best.

Secondly, with new types of technologies, like with Kubernetes or microservices, it's better that you go with a company that's actually able to cope with all the technology changes that are happening in the background. If you have a multi-operating system, you'll notice that the signatures for the attack are different for different types of operating systems. 

For instance, if you have Linux, Windows, and Unix, you need a product that understands all the different types of attacks on different systems. I think it's better to go with something that's well supported, works well, and is stable.

We basically use it to protect our network from various malicious activities out there. We have two subscriptions. We have the WildFire subscription, which is similar to DNS filtering. We also have Threat Protection, which allows the firewall to inspect traffic up to Layer 7. It inspects applications as well as unknown applications, quarantining and stopping things. So, you are not always chasing, "What applications should I be running on this device?" It does a good job of all of that. The management of it is a little tricky, but that is how it goes.

We are running the PA-3250s. We have two of them. They operate in Active/Passive mode. Therefore, if one fails, then the other one takes over. 

It is pretty important to have embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, because all these different attacks and threats are constantly evolving. So, you want to have something beyond just hard pass rules. You want it to learn as it is going along. Its machine learning seems pretty good. It seems like it is catching quite a few things.

There is a web-based GUI to do management, but you need to know how the machine or firewall operates. There are hundreds of different menus and options. I have used other firewalls before. Just implementing or designing a policy with Palo Alto, if you want a certain port to be open to different IP addresses, then that could take 20 to 25 clicks. That is just testing it out. It is quite complex to do. Whereas, with other places, you tell it, "Okay, I want this specific port open and this IP address to have access to it." That was it. However, not with Palo Alto, which is definitely more complex.

The VPN is only available for Windows and Mac iOS environments. We have a variety of iPads, iPhones, and Android stuff that wouldn't be able to utilize the built-in VPN services.

I would like easier management and logging. They can set up some profiles instead of having you create these reports yourself. However, you should be able to set it up to give you alerts on important things faster.

We have had this in place for four years. I have been at the school for almost a year and a half. So, this is my second year here at the school, so my experience with it has probably been a year and change. I use other firewall solutions, but I have gotten pretty comfortable with the Palo Alto solution.

It is very stable. We have never had any issues with any failures on it.

I haven't felt any performance lags on it. It has been handling everything just fine.

We purchased it a few years ago. Since then, we have had a lot more clients on our network, and it has handled all that fine. You go into it and just have to scale it higher. Palo Alto doesn't give you too many choices. There is not a medium; it is either very small or very big. So, you don't have a choice in that.

We have never had to call Palo Alto. Secure Works does all our support maintenance on it.

I have been here for a year and a half. Before, the firewall that they were using (Barracuda) was barely adequate for what we were doing. We got new ones simply, not because we had a software/hardware-type attack, but because we had a social engineering attack where one of the folks who used to work for us went on to do some crazy things. As a result, the reaction was like, "Oh, let's get a new firewall. That should stop these things in the future."

The initial setup was pretty complex because they did not do it themselves. They actually hired some folks who put it in. 

We use Secureworks, which is a big security company. They actually send an alert when there are problems with the firewall or if there are security issues. They handled the deployment. 

We also use another company called Logically to monitor the firewall in addition to all our other devices.

Active/Passive mode is very redundant, but they require you to buy all the associated licensing for both firewalls, which is kind of a waste of money because you are really only using the services on one firewall at a time.

I would suggest looking at your needs, because this solution's pricing is very closely tied to that. If you decide that you are going to need support for 1,000 connections, then make sure you have the budget for it. Plan for it, because everything will cost you.

If another school would call and ask me, I would say, "It's not the cheapest. It's very fast, but it's not the cheapest firewall out there."

I have been looking at different firewalls because our service and maintenance contracts are up on it. We have two different outsourced folks who look at the firewall and help us do any configurations. My staff and I lack the knowledge to operate it. For any change that we need to make, we have to call these other folks, and that is just not sustainable.

We are moving away from this solution because of the pricing and costs. Everything costs a lot. We are moving to Meraki MS250s because of their simplicity. They match the industry better. I have called the bigger companies, and Meraki matches the size, then the type of institution that we are.

If someone was looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall product, I would suggest looking at the Meraki products in the educational space. I think that is a better fit.

Its predictive analytics and machine learning for instantly blocking DNS-related attacks is doing a good job. I can't be certain because we also have a content filter on a separate device. Together, they kind of work out how they do DNS filtering. I know that we haven't had any problems with ransomware or software getting installed by forging DNS.

DNS Security for protection against sneakier attack techniques, like DNS tunneling, is good. I haven't had a chance to read the logs on those, but it does pretty well. It speaks to the complexity of the firewall. It is hard to assess information on it because there is just a lot of data. You need to be really good at keeping up with the logs and turning on all the alerts. Then, you need to have the time to dig through those because it could be blocking something, which it will tell you.

I haven't read the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW, but it sounds interesting. Though it is a little bit of snake oil, because the worst attacks that we had last year were purely done through social engineering and email. I feel like this is an attack vector that the firewall can't totally block. So, before you put something in, like Palo Alto Firewalls, you need to have your security policy in place first.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10. Technically, it is a good solution, but for usability and practicality, I would take points off for that.

We use Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls in our data center to manage security for both east-west and north-south traffic. These firewalls provide comprehensive protection for various traffic types, ensuring secure communication within the data center and between the data center and external networks.

Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls provide a unified threat management solution with various security features, including threat prevention, URL filtering, security policies, and zone protection. These features are crucial for internet-level protection, enabling URL filtering, threat prevention, security policies, user identification, and a comprehensive VPN solution for site-to-site and remote access connections.

Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls include WildFire, which uses machine learning for inline, real-time threat prevention.

It effectively secures our data centers with their application-based approach. Unlike traditional firewalls that solely rely on port numbers and IP addresses, these firewalls identify applications to determine whether to allow or block traffic. This enhanced inspection ensures only legitimate applications access the network, providing robust security.

It has also helped us reduce downtime because the failover is very swift and the performance is good. This offers us good throughput and parallel processing.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are highly valued for their performance and parallel processing architecture. Unlike traditional firewalls that operate based on ports, these next-generation firewalls are application-centric, identifying specific applications to provide enhanced security against a wider range of attacks.

Palo Alto recently introduced a security analyzer in version ten, but this feature could be enhanced, and the URL filtering improved.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are stable and reliable when deployed and configured correctly.

Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls offer scalability both in the cloud and on-premises, but the methods differ. Cloud deployments benefit from auto-scaling, allowing for automatic adjustments to firewall capacity based on demand. On-premises solutions require manual provisioning of new hardware and subscriptions to achieve scalability.

Palo Alto offers multiple tiers of support, including basic, premium, and premium plus. Overall, the technical support is good.

Neutral

I have experience with both Check Point and Palo Alto firewalls. In a previous role, I worked with Check Point firewalls, while my current client utilizes Palo Alto firewalls.

The initial deployment, while challenging, successfully validated Palo Alto's claims regarding throughput, session count, and parallel processing capabilities. Their assertion that enabling all engines does not cause packet rebuffering proved accurate, resulting in impressive performance. With a strong design and skilled architects, the deployment process ultimately proved efficient and successful.

The migration tool assists in transferring configurations from systems like Cisco or Check Point, eliminating the need for manual migration.

The return on investment from Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is excellent. Their user-friendly interface and Panorama central management, which provides a comprehensive overview, make them an ideal investment.

While Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls may be considered expensive, their quality justifies the cost. They offer various support levels, including basic, premium, and premium plus, to cater to different needs.

I would recommend Cisco firewalls for those seeking the cheapest firewall.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls require maintenance due to the ongoing creation of new rules and policies, configuration changes, and necessary upgrades. For example, the operating system version is frequently updated, necessitating regular maintenance to ensure optimal performance and security.

The staffing needs for maintaining Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vary based on several factors, including the size and complexity of the organization. Key considerations include the number of data centers, hosted applications, users, and remote locations. Essentially, larger organizations with more users, devices, and network activity will require more personnel to effectively manage and maintain their firewall infrastructure.

Admins should be knowledgeable and should take proper training. It's essential to follow the correct configurations to avoid inconsistencies that may require significant maintenance.

We use the solution to filter out the traffic from our internal networks, not a public-facing network.

The predictive analytics and machine learning for blocking DNS-related attacks keep track of IP addresses and DNS names from other countries requesting access to our resources. The solution helps us identify any malicious activity and maintain our network safety. We first check the DNS issue and put it into the blacklist. If we get a similar DNS issue from another country in the future, we block the IP range altogether.

Apart from traditional technologies, we have been relying on signature-based identities. For example, we have been following up on what is in the data system and the firewall. These systems can only detect what has already been returned by the data system. If any security vendor does not update its databases or firewalls, or if its upgrades or firmware are not up to date, then malicious attacks can occur. The advantage of Palo Alto is its real-time analysis, as opposed to traditional methods that use signatures. Palo Alto Network NG Firewall has come up with some great behavioral analytics and the Wildfire feature, which helps organizations stay safe from false positive notifications or alerts.

The unified platform helps eliminate security gaps. We had certain servers that we hosted with open ports and we needed to ensure that these ports were closed. When we first set up the solution in the production environment for testing purposes, we detected traffic coming from ports on the server that had not been identified by our previous firewall. Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls uses all of its resources to detect security threats. The solution helps our organization close security vulnerabilities, Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls provide us with the instruments we need to complete our job. 

The unified platform helped eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together. We need to be able to detect the type of traffic being generated from which applications are on which systems and by which users. This will help us identify which IPs are making the requests. Previously we had to rely on multiple tools to collect this information. Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls also provide one graphical interface to display all the information. The solution simplified the process by dropping two to three tools and giving us a clear view of some first-hand data, especially data that has been preliminarily investigated in the case of cybercrime, which is essential.

Security is our primary concern which we build our networking concept around and networking is secondary. We have a single sign-on agent and a dedicated service to run the firewalls. Our architecture is set up in a way that, if a DDoS attack occurs, all the traffic would go down and we have to be prepared. When we consider both the network and security features, we are more inclined toward the security side. Our clients are usually understanding if the downtime is only two to ten minutes and we can recover quickly. 

There are no actual delays happening on the side of setting the solution up because we have all the resources documented on YouTube and on the website itself. We haven't experienced any delays in identifying and collecting the documents or installing the server. However, once we began the onboarding process, some technical issues arose. We forgot to include a customer's request for support from Palo Alto and as a result, the customer executed support themselves either through our website or a call, but a customer service agent acknowledged and resolved the request quickly. Because of that issue, we have been able to allocate adequate resources for implementation. We feel as if we are receiving premium service.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls are policy editing and rule assigning for firewalls, as well as Wildfire. The solution does a great job of identifying malicious items and vulnerabilities with URL filtering. When combined with Fortinet, we have instant results.

Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls is doing impressive work with its AI technology, which is important to our organization. I have forwarded the papers to the director board in a recommendation to make the solution public-facing. We are considering using Palo Alto as an internet-facing firewall for our next project because the solution is an excellent firewall appliance with impressive features and a great UI.

The user interface can be significantly simplified. The dashboard and other features can be more thoughtfully designed. We get all the data in a single dashboard, which gives us additional insights. However, it takes time to sort it all out so it's easily accessible. If the data can be presented in a more graphical and structured way, it would be more helpful.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

We have had a very minimal number of false positives with the solution and it has been very stable. There have been no issues with the firewall itself. In the previous case, we had a lot of tension between the firmware update and the customer service department. This was due to the system working itself up. We had absolutely zero capability issues.

The solution is scalable with the Azure environment. I believe it is scalable because we have many data connectors. We were able to speed up the process within the hybrid environment.

We had some technical support from Palo Alto at the time of installation.

Positive

We have been using the FortiGate firewall for almost 20 years in our environment, but we recognized the Wildfire feature and some of the AIM firewall systems. FortiGate is not a next-gen firewall. Other applications such as Gartner insight offer better connections and recommend a firewall, similar to Palo Alto Networking NG Firewalls, for better application performance. We procured the solution and we have been testing it. We don't like to put all our eggs in one basket. We need multiple firewall solutions to connect with our environment. If one fails for any reason, we can have the second one take over the job. We have servers hosted in the cloud environment and each server has a different firewall installed. If we lose our connection due to a firewall issue, a firmware issue, or if Fortinet couldn't detect malware or a zero-day attack, we would be out of luck without Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. We are considering utilizing both solutions to best suit our needs. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Depending on the resources and skill set of the network engineers the deployment should take between 15 and 20 minutes.

The solution provides good protection and is worth the price.

The only additional cost to our organization comes from having to train our engineers on the proper use of the solution.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have two network administrators, which have been working on the design end, three analysts working on the system itself who are continuously monitoring the firewall status, three cybersecurity engineers, and two network engineers to deal with the networking concepts and any delays with the networking protocols. We also have three cybersecurity engineers to follow up with the monitoring, checking the security incidents, and responding. In total there are five users administrating this firewall on eight servers. The firewall acts as a router, filtering the packages between five servers on the other side. This provides an eight versus five network filtering job. The firewall is not public-facing. We are utilizing it to filter up the data, and packets of files, which are moving between the load balances.

We have an environment for production and for development. The development environment is for scaling our application. The production environment goes to the public, and we have a staging environment for testing our application. We have a joint venture with our clients, which we call UIT. This joint venture helps to reduce costs and create an environment that is beneficial for both our clients and us. We only use our staging environment occasionally, whenever we need to push something new to our service for testing purposes. It will be used around two to three days a week, or twelve to fifteen days a month. We are underutilizing the solution currently because we have only completed five percent of the development. We have analyzed the cost and are trying to procure the solution in our live environment.

The cost of security can be expensive when we analyze new technology and the need for new technologies to cover emerging vulnerabilities and malicious acts. I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because most of the colleagues in our environment, such as Cognizant, Deloitte, and many other IT companies use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. 10 to 12 years ago, Fortinet was the leading security solution that most people were using followed by Cisco Firewall. Presently Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide the most value from a security solution, such as the detection of vulnerabilities and malware, in a cost-effective way. 

Apart from the standard features of any firewall system, Palo Alto Networks offers some additional benefits that make it worth the price. These features include URL filtering and deep packet inspection, with the best feature being Wildfire. I recommend the solution.

We are a consulting group that specializes in deploying Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for a telecom-related partner in Pakistan. Additionally, we implemented global protection for remote users. Furthermore, we configured different policies for internal users based on their job designations and privileges, such as URL filtering and application controls.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' advanced machine learning capabilities offer real-time attack prevention and are crucial in our security setup. We implemented a multi-layered security approach and are currently working towards a zero-trust model, including defense for development. According to the Gartner report, Palo Alto ranks second after Check Point, highlighting the significance of security in our environment.

We access all the firewalls via Panorama. We configured certain global user profiles to allow access to our site for remote or work-from-home situations, which we then access through GlobalProtect.

Before we started to use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we had a different FortiGate firewall that presented several issues such as deep security URL filtering and throughput issues. However, with Palo Alto, we were able to address these problems, particularly with the use of parallel processing. We have successfully deployed inbound and outbound SSL inspection, as well as different URL filtering, making Palo Alto a more resilient option compared to other products.

It is important the solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Compared to other products, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' unified platform is a ten out of ten and suitable for all environments. 

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help fill security leaks by enhancing confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help automate multiple security tools and unify them.

The solution assisted us with managing our network operations and reducing related costs. We use various Network Management Systems to monitor our network, including Palo Alto which we monitor from its dashboard. Additionally, we use various Security Operations Center solutions, as well as SolarWinds. We also utilize different monitoring platforms to track network traffic.

The WildFire feature offers protection against Zero-Day attacks, and we find that Palo Alto is a valuable tool for mitigating such attacks using WildFire.

Palo Alto's single architecture provides parallel processing and reliability as well as superior visibility compared to other products. The reporting feature is excellent and can impress management during presentations or when accessing logs.

The application IDs, application controls, URL filtering, visibility, monitoring, and reporting are the most valuable features.

I would like to have an on-prem sandbox solution included in a future update.

The cost has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical team is good.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the setup a ten out of ten. The deployment took three months to complete. We require five to six people for deployment.

The implementation is completed in-house.

The cost of Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls is significantly higher compared to Huawei. For instance, while we can buy a Huawei box for 100 rupees, a Palo Alto box costs 100,000 rupees.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is an impressive product.

The solution is used for our enterprise clients.

Although Palo Alto is not the most inexpensive firewall solution, it is worth the cost to ensure proper protection for our networks.

Palo Alto PA-400 series cost and performance for small offices are good.

We use both the NG and VM series of Palo Alto firewalls. We sell and install them for clients to provide the best security that money can buy. Additionally, adding SD WAN on the same edge device has made an all-in-one, security-edge-intelligent routing solution possible without sacrificing performance or a secure environment.

The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry. We value the security of our client's infrastructure so these features are valuable to us. 

An example of a very valuable feature behind Palo Alto is the application-aware identifiers that help the firewall know what its users are trying to do. It can block specific activities instead of just blocking categories. For example, you can block an application, or all unknown applications. On one occasion, I was alerted by Palo Alto that something unusual was happening through a particular port at a client location. I blocked the port access because I didn't know what exactly was going on and alerted the client. Then the client called me up and said, "Hey, I need the port that was blocked because [of this]." We could then test what was going on in a secure environment where it couldn't affect anything else to be sure the behavior was not something to be concerned about. In this case, Palo Alto kept the client totally safe. That is a fantastic capability.

Palo Alto needs to adjust their pricing a little bit. If they would work on their pricing to make it more cost-effective and bring it in line with their high-end competition, it would be extremely disruptive to the industry. They rank among the best firewall solutions, but because of pricing — even if it is deserved — they cut themselves out of consideration for some companies based on that alone.

I have been using the solution with clients since at least 2008 when I became a solutions architect.

Palo Alto is the most stable firewall that I have experience with. Firepower is second to Palo Alto. Fortinet is third coming in just after Firepower. Meraki is in there around number 100. The stability of that solution is absolutely horrific. That it is a security device — a firewall — makes that relatively more frightening because it affects the stability of the entire infrastructure.

Palo Alto's stability means that it is always on the alert and it keeps infrastructure safe.

Palo Alto is quite scalable and versatile.

Easy to speak with, level of professionalism is high.

Anyone should tinker with hardware from different manufacturers, then see what fits with your application. 

The complexity of the setup is somewhere in the middle of the road. It certainly isn't the most difficult, nor is it the easiest. 

MSP

Palo Alto is a little expensive compared to every other solution, but you get what you pay for. The question I have been asking customers since I became a solutions architect is what the best in security is worth. The problem with people seeking security solutions is thinking that all solutions are the same, thinking the newest technology solutions are best and thinking cost-first. A better way to think about it would be how expensive a break-in is. 

If I am shopping around for a firewall solution and I see I have to pay a lot per year for Palo Alto and I see Meraki is a much lower price, I might be attracted by the less expensive product. When it is deployed, we get broken into and lose $10 million worth of design documents. It may be quite possible that break-in could have been avoided by paying more for a better security solution. Because I went the cheap route, I lost many times what I 'saved.' For possibilities like this alone, it is hard to put a price on security. 

Take a deeper look at what happens when you try to save money on security. Meraki does SD-WAN (Software-defined Wide Area Network). That is touted as fantastic because the client is going to save a whole lot of money because they don't need MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) anymore. But the reality behind it is, there is absolutely no application acceleration, no data deduplication, and no forward error correction. Forward error correction is extremely important when you're using a device between points. But Meraki sells its devices for nickels or pennies on the dollar in comparison to other security solutions. Only then you only learn the lesson of what happens when you go cheap. Your network gets broken into more easily because of the inherent exposure in SD-WAN and it goes down a lot. 

If you have sales offices and those sales offices have Meraki firewalls, the device may observe a problem out on the internet. When it does, the Meraki's failover results in an outage. With Meraki, failover to a better link takes 30-seconds. Whether it is a 30-minute failover or 30-second failover, you can drop a call. If you are cold calling and you dropped a call, you don't get a second chance. It is impossible to say how much money you might lose. For example, if my company sells microchips and that call was going to develop into a $40 million sale, that sale is gone. It is gone because of the small comparative cost savings in security and the instability of the solution you chose to use. But a 30-second outage every single time a route is withdrawn across the internet means your phone is going to ring if you are the IT Director, and you will eventually lose your job. 

The costs for Palo Alto are structured in a similar way to other products. With Palo Alto you can do one, two, three and five years contracts. It is the same thing with Fortinet and Meraki. Hardware cost is very different than the application license. The hardware maintenance agreement is separate. With all of the firewall solutions, you will pay for a hardware maintenance agreement. That protects the hardware itself. That is an annual billing and separate from the software in all cases. Nobody bills for firewalls on a monthly basis. Even the VM version of the Palo Alto is billed per year. Using that license, you can build up a VPN that forces all default traffic to a particular device before it goes out to the internet. It is comparatively pretty cheap in practice, and it works. It works well because you only need one piece of hardware. Build the server and start slicing out VMs. Then it becomes possible for everybody in a network to be protected by Palo Altos security at a lower cost. 

As a solutions architect group, we are what you would call "vendor-agnostic." We evaluate any solution that seems like it may be viable to provide clients with some advantages. I will never go to a customer and say that these are the only products that we are going to support. However, if there is something that a client wants to use which I feel would be detrimental to their business or that doesn't fit their needs, I will encourage them to look at other solutions and explain why the choice they were leaning towards may not be the best. When a solution they want to use means that no matter what we do they are going to get broken into, I'll let them know. It isn't good for their business or ours.

That said, some of the most requested or considered firewall solutions by clients beside Palo Alto are Fortinet, Firepower, and Meraki. Looking at each provides a background into how we look at solutions and how we evaluate options for clients. You have to look at the benefits and disadvantages.

Cisco Firepower NGFW (Next-Generation Firewall)

I think that Firepower can be simplified and can be made into a more viable product in the Cisco line. I think that Cisco has the ability to get into the Firepower management platform and trim it, doing so by breaking down all of the different areas of concern and configuration and categorizing them into overviews, implementation across the board, and steady-state management. If they were to do that, then users could start at the top layer and drill down more as they see fit to customize to their needs. I believe that Cisco can do that with Firepower and make it a much better security tool.

Firepower is not just a firewall, it is an SD-WAN. It is an application that Cisco sells that gets loaded onto an ASA 5500 series appliance (the appliance has to be the X platform). It is not a bad solution. I can use it to get into your network and protect a lot of your customers who will be running traffic through it. But a problem that you are going to get into as a result of using Firepower is that it is extremely difficult to configure. Security engineers that I have handed the setup after a sale came back from the service and asked me never to sell it again because it was very difficult for them to set up. However, it is also very secure. The difficulty is in using the GUI, which is the console that you would log into to set up your rules and applications. It can take about 10 times as long as Meraki to set up, and that is no exaggeration. Palo Alto is easier to set up than Firepower, but not as easy to set up as Meraki. But, the security in Palo Alto is phenomenal compared to Meraki. Firepower is pretty secure. If it was a little easier to operate, I'd be recommending it up one side and down the next, but ease-of-use also comes into play when it comes to recommending products.

I'll support what Firepower has to offer considering the quality of the security. But I can't take anyone seriously who is proud of themselves just because they think their firewall is next generation. It might have that capability but it might not be 'next generation' if it is set up wrong. Some vendors who sell firewall solutions that I've spoken to admit to dancing their customers around the 'next generation' promise and they make amazing claims about what it can do. Things like "This firewall will protect the heck out of your network," or "This firewall has built-in SD-WAN and can save you lots of money." These things are true, perhaps, depending on the clients' needs and the likelihood that they will be able to properly manage the product. 

Firepower is a capable solution but it is difficult to set up and manage.

Cisco Meraki NGFW (Next-Generation Firewall)

Meraki was a horrible acquisition by Cisco and it is harming their name. All of us who are familiar enough with the firewall know how bad that firewall is and we know that Cisco needs to make changes. The acquisition is almost funny. The logic seemed to be something like "Let's buy an inferior security solution and put our name on it." That is a textbook case on how not to run a company.

If Cisco wanted to improve Meraki, the first thing they need to do is simply activate the ability to block an unknown application. Start with that and then also improve utility by blocking every threat by default like other products so that users can open up traffic only to what they need to. That saves innumerable threats right there.

There are situations where Meraki works very well as is. One example is at a coffee shop. What the coffee shop needed for their firewall solution was to have a firewall at every location for guests. The guests go there to eat their donuts, drink their coffee, and surf the internet. The company's need was simply to blockade a VLAN for guest access to the internet while maintaining a VLAN for corporate access. They need corporate access because they need to process their transactions and communications. All corporate devices can only communicate through a VPN to headquarters or through a VPN to the bank. For example, they need to process transactions when somebody uses their debit card at a POS station. It works great at the coffee shop. 

It works great at department stores as well. All employees have a little device on their hip that enables them to find what aisle a product is in when a customer asks them. If the store doesn't have the product on hand, the employee can do a search for another store that does have it in stock right on the device. They can do that right on the spot and use that service for that device. For that reason, they are not going across the internet to find the information they are searching for. They are forced into a secure tunnel for a specific purpose. That is something you can do with Meraki. If you don't let employees surf the web on the device, then Meraki will work.

I can actually give you the methodologies in which hackers are able to completely hack into a Cisco customer's network and steal extremely valuable information. Meraki is the most simple of all firewalls to infiltrate in the industry. It is an extremely dangerous piece of hardware. What comes into play is that Meraki, by default, does the opposite of what all of the other firewalls do. Every firewall not called Meraki will block every means of attack until you start saying to permit things. The Meraki solution is the opposite. Meraki, by default, blocks nothing, and then you have to go in and custom key everything that you want to block. This is dangerous because most people don't know everything in the world that they need to block. With Meraki, you have to get hacked in order to be able to find out. Now, tell me who really wants that.

An example of this is that Meraki cannot block an application it doesn't know about, which means that all unknown applications are forever allowed in by Meraki. If I am a hacker and I know that you are using a Meraki firewall, I can write an application to use for an attack. When I do, it is unknown because I just wrote it today. If I load it up on a website, anybody that goes to that website using a Meraki firewall has this application loaded onto their computer. Meraki can't block it. That application I wrote is designed to copy everything from that person's computer and everything across the network that he or she has access to, up to a server offshore in a non-extradition country. I will have your data. Now I can sell it or I can hold you for ransom on it.

Customers love it because it is simple to configure. I don't even need to be a security architect to sit down at a Meraki console and configure every device across my network. It is an extremely simple device and it's extremely cheap. But you get what you pay for. You are generally going to suffer because of the simplicity. You are going to suffer because of the low cost and "savings."

All I can say about Meraki is that it is cheap and easy to use and fits well in niche situations. If you need broader security capabilities, spend a few bucks on your network and get a better security solution.

Fortinet FortiGate NGFW (Next-Generation Firewall)

I'm supportive of Fortinet because it is a decent next-generation firewall solution. While not as secure as Palo Alto, it is a cost-effective and reasonably reliable product. I have customers choose it over Palo Alto. But if they decide to use this solution, I want to charge them to manage it for them. The reason for that is, if anything goes wrong in the network and they get hacked, my client will likely get fired and replaced. If anything goes wrong in the network and I am paid to manage their firewall, I am the one in trouble if they get hacked — not the client. I apply my services to the network, make sure everything is working as it should and give them my business card. I tell them that they can give the business card to their boss if anything goes wrong because the guy on the card is the one to blame. That way I remain sure that nothing will go wrong because of poor administration, and my client contact sleeps better at night.

Fortinet is sort of middle-of-the-road as a solution. It has a relative simplicity in setup and management, it has a lower price and provides capable security. Fortinet FortiGate still gets some of my respect as a viable alternative to Palo Alto.
     

Comparing the Complexity of Setup

Firepower is the most complex to set up. The second most complex is Palo Alto. The third is Fortinet. The fourth is Meraki as the simplest.

Rating the Products

On a scale from one to ten with ten being the best, I would rate each of these products like this:

• Meraki is a one out of ten (if I could give it a zero or negative number I would).
• Fortinet is seven out of ten because it is simple but not so secure.
• Firepower is seven out of ten because it is more secure, but not so simple.
• Palo Alto is a ten out of ten because the security side of it is fantastic, and the gui is not a nightmare.
  
  

An Aside About Cisco Products 

It is interesting to note that the two offerings by Cisco are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the learning curve. Firepower is on one end of the spectrum as the most difficult to configure and having the worst learning curve, and Meraki is on the other as the easiest to configure and learn. Both are owned by Cisco but Cisco did not actually develop either of product. They got them both by acquisition.

Palo Alto is my number one choice for firewalls. I support and utilize more Palo Alto firewalls throughout my company and with my customers than any other device. Number two would be Fortinet. I don't really like Fortinet that that much because it is not as secure as Palo Alto, but I have customers who want to use it because it is a lot less expensive. Number three is Cisco Meraki, which I obviously don't like, but people request that because the Cisco name is very popular and a lot of other people are using it. I couldn't recommend against choosing a device more than choosing it by name instead of functionality. 

Palo Alto invented the method of looking at the application identifier in each packet and making a decision. For instance, many companies may want to do something like prohibiting all chat applications with the exclusion of whatever application the company is choosing to use. Let's say the company is using IP Communicator for customers and for employees to chat with each other, but the company wants to block Skype. The reason why might be because they don't want anybody bringing up a Skype call, sharing information via that Skype call, or maybe turning on a Skype call and letting other people see inside the facility. Skype has a very interesting platform in which you block one IP address on the Skype server and it allows another one. You block Skype.com and it creates another URL. Skype loves to get in and around simple security steps. Palo Alto is phenomenal because it takes a look at the application identifier within each packet and will find that it is Skype and block it. If you want to block AOL Instant Messenger, you just block it. Anything out there you don't want employees to use can just be blocked by referencing the identifier.

Netflix is another one that seems to find it's way into corporate networks. It is normal not to want employees sitting around watching movies. The Palo Alto will find out that someone is trying to access a Netflix movie and block it. Then it can also send an email to alert different people of the activity. You could set it up so that when something like that happens, an email goes to the director of IT to say, "Hey, this person may be trying to access Netflix." You may want it to just block the access type and forgo the alert. Or you can block the activity and alert anyone you want that someone appears to have tried to subvert security. The idea of this type of security measure isn't just to lay blame and get people fired, it is to identify different types of breaches and why they occur. It could be that a potential breach requires a sit-down conversation with the persons involved. But the truth is that many malicious sites — like adult related websites, platforms like gambling sites, obviously hacking-related sites, violence or gore — are loaded with malware. You don't want that on your computer, and your employer doesn't want it on the network either. It is just as bad as bringing a device to work and allowing that device to be connected to the network without protection as that is just another potential malware exposure.

Another beautiful thing with Palo Alto is that they have Wildfire. Wildfire can prohibit malware in either direction. Malware is not going to get into the network via a customer or a user surfing and it is not going to get out and affect the network and spread around via a user's BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) that got infected while he was working at home.