Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We use it for perimeter security because it gives application layer security and we also use it for VPN access.

We use the PA-3200 and PA-200 models. In terms of the version, we are one version behind the latest one. The latest version is 11, and we are still on version 10.

The biggest benefit we have seen from it is the ability to identify the traffic of our networks based on the application ID that Palo Alto can provide. Palo Alto firewalls have the most extensive App-ID library, so we are able to identify which applications are necessary for business and which ones are not. We can then block those that are not crucial for business at the firewall itself, so App-ID in the firewall was the biggest benefit to us.

Palo Alto NGFW embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, which is important and very helpful. I wouldn't be able to compare it to any other product because we have used Palo Alto for eight years, but the machine learning that they have embedded into their OS has been very helpful. Based on the learning that they have done, they have been able to analyze the traffic and coordinate traffic patterns to alert us about possible malware and even block it.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Palo Alto NGFW has been able to give us all that we need from one particular appliance itself. If we wanted, we could have also used the DNS feature, and in that case, one device could have met all our needs.

Because it's a unified platform, management is easy. You have to learn only one particular management interface. Once our IT team gets familiar with the management interface, it's easier for them to apply security policies, monitor the traffic, and manage the plans using the same GUI. There are no learning curves for different products.

We try to keep our security fairly tight. The policies that we have created on the Palo Alto NGFW have been based on security requirements. As of now, we haven't detected anything that would point to a hole in our environment, so it is very hard to say whether Palo Alto NGFW’s unified platform helped to eliminate any security holes.

It has helped to eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together with each other. It has helped us consolidate into one vendor. Earlier, we used to have an appliance for the firewall, and then we had an appliance for VPN. We had a separate appliance for the collection and correlation of data. We have eliminated all of those. They are now in one box. The same firewall gives us security policies and lets us collect all the data about the traffic flowing in and out of the network and correlate events. It has helped us eliminate the VPN appliances that we were using in the past. It has helped us to eliminate two other vendors and bring all the services into one.

The single-pass architecture is good. Everything is analyzed just once, so it improves the performance. 

Application layer firewalling has been the most valuable feature because it gives thousands of application IDs that we can use to control traffic into and out of our environment. The second most important feature has been the GlobalProtect VPN feature.

The only problem that I see with the Palo Alto NGFW being an all-in-one appliance is that because of the different features that are being put into a single appliance, the OS tends to be beefier. Over the eight years, we have seen that the number of features or analyses being put into the appliance itself has a tendency to slow down the appliance, especially at the time of bootup. So, any time we are doing maintenance work, the time required for the appliance to boot up and be fully functional again is significantly longer than eight years ago. They could find a way to make this all-in-one appliance faster.

They should also make the documentation much easier to understand. Given all the features that they have built into the firewalls, it should be easier for the end users to understand the product and all the features available on the product. They should be able to utilize the product to the maximum capabilities. The documentation and the tech support available need to improve. The tech support of Palo Alto has deteriorated over the past few years, especially after our pandemic. Getting tech support on our issues is very difficult. They could definitely improve on that.

I've been using it for about eight years.

It's very stable. We have had no issues. There are only two issues that I recall ever happening on our firewalls. The first one was when they released an application ID that caused a problem on the network, but they were able to resolve it quickly within a matter of hours. The second issue was also because of the change in the OS. In both cases, the resolution was quick.

In terms of scalability, they have a huge range of models, so depending on what your requirements are, you can scale up from the very base model that goes from 100 megabits per second to the largest one that goes to 10 gigs per second. They have a wide range of appliances that you can upgrade to based on your needs.

In terms of the traffic that can pass through the firewall, it has been fairly good for us. We have not had to upgrade our network. Being a small company, we don't have too many users. In the past eight years, we have not had to change our bandwidth for the increase in traffic. Whatever we selected four years ago, they remain the same. We have not had to upgrade the hardware capabilities just because our traffic is increasing, but in terms of feature sets, we have added more and more features to the appliances. When we started off with Palo Alto, we were only using the firewall features, and then slowly, we added a VPN for mobile users. We added a VPN for site-to-site connectivity, and the scalability has been good. We have not had to upgrade the hardware. We have just been adding features to the existing hardware, and it has not caused any deterioration in the performance.

We have about fifty users that are split between the East Coast and the West Coast. Each coast has only about twenty-five users. All in all, we have about fifty users using these products.

It used to be good in the past, but over the last few years, it has been very bad. You open a case, and you expect somebody to get back to you and help you out with the issue. They say that based on the SLAs, somebody will get back to you within a certain number of hours for the priority ticket that you created, but that getting back actually includes the initial response where somebody is just acknowledging that they have the ticket. That does not mean that somebody provides me with the solution or takes action on it. If I open a priority one case, which means my network is down, somebody will get back to me within two hours based on the SLA, but that response only includes the acknowledgment mentioning that your case has been received. That's it. It's a different question whether someone is going to get on the phone with you or give you an email about how to troubleshoot the issue and fix that issue.

I'd rate them a six out of ten based on the response time and the quality of the responses received over the last three or four years.

Neutral

We were using Cisco's router-based firewalls. They had some advantages, but they did not have a graphical interface for configuration, which was the weakest point. Getting team members on the team who were not familiar with the command line configurations for our Cisco firewalls made us select a product that provides a graphical interface for configuration, and that was a reason for moving to Palo Alto.

It has been fairly easy to set up. The initial setup is good. The migration to a new box can also be pretty straightforward.

I have had experience with setting it up from scratch, and it has been good. It's more on the simpler side. The initial setup to get the firewall in place with basic security principles is straightforward. When you go to the advanced features, it gets trickier.

The deployment duration depends on the complexity of the network and the kind of rules that you want to implement. The physical appliances are relatively straightforward to set up. For the base security, it doesn't take more than a couple of hours to set it up, but it can take a relatively long time to set up and configure the firewalls that sit in the cloud.

We use physical appliances and virtual appliances. The physical appliances are in our on-prem environment, and the virtual appliances are in our cloud environment. It took about four hours to set up the physical appliances from scratch, whereas the virtual or VMCD ones took a lot longer. It took two to three days to set them up.

For the VMCD ones, we had to get help from their pre-sales support team, but for the on-prem physical appliances, we did the implementation ourselves.

It isn't cheap. It's cheaper to replace the equipment every three years than to upgrade. We have done two refreshes of their appliances. What I have seen is that the initial hardware cost is low, but you need a subscription and you need maintenance plans. After every three years, if you're trying to renew your maintenance or subscription, that can be very costly. It's cheaper to just get a newer solution with a three-year subscription and maintenance. It's cheaper to replace your hardware completely with a new subscription plan and a new maintenance plan than to renew the maintenance subscription on existing hardware. That's the reality of the Palo Alto pricing that gets to us.

You pay for the initial hardware, and then you have to pay the subscription cost for the features that you want to use. Every feature has an extra price. Your firewall features are included with the appliance, but the antivirus feature, DNS security feature, VPN feature, URL filtering, and file monitoring features are additional features that you need to pay for. So, you pay extra for every feature that you add, and then based on the features you purchase, you have to pay the maintenance plan pricing too.

Before moving to Palo Alto, we did evaluate other options. In those days, we tried out the Check Point firewall. We tried out Fortinet, but Palo Alto was the one that met our needs in terms of the features available and the ease of learning its features and configuration. We went for it also because of the price comparisons.

Try to get hold of a presales engineer and do a PoC with all the features that you're looking at before you make a purchase decision.

It isn't cheap. It's definitely the faster one. It meets all the needs. If you're looking for an all-in-one solution, Palo Alto NGFW would definitely meet your needs, but it isn't the cheapest one.

We have not used their DNS security feature because we use a competitor's product. We use Cisco Umbrella for that. The reason is that for the DNS security to work, the traffic from those endpoints needs to flow through the firewalls, but we have a lot of mobile user devices whose traffic does not flow through the firewall and we'd like them to have DNS security. We use Cisco Umbrella because that's an endpoint application that protects the endpoints from vulnerabilities based on the DNS reputation, and all the traffic from those endpoints does not necessarily need to go through a central endpoint, like a firewall.

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

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for our network security. We deployed the solution on both the cloud and on-prem.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning secures our network against threats that evolve rapidly.

The DNS security feature is already commonly used for authentication by clients, with many threats being pushed from the inside to the outside. DNS security helps improve our network.

The DNS security feature is integral in protecting against DNS tunneling.

The solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' unified platform helps us eliminate security threats. We use all the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' features including the UTM, WiFi, and VPN feature to protect our network. 

Both the network performance and security of the single-pass architecture are good. 

There are many valuable features, such as wireless cloud features. The IP and signals are updated regularly, and all UTM features provide good basic gateway-level security.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention is a basic requirement for our private security network.

The bugs can be improved.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable. We encounter small bugs sometimes but they are not a problem.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

For experienced people, the initial setup is straightforward. Cloud deployment can be challenging for someone new. The deployment takes around one hour.

We implement the solution for our clients.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Our clients are enterprise-level.

The PA400 series has good performance and security.

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to others.

We use these firewalls to manage wastewater systems for over a hundred municipalities across the country. As a result, we exclusively use them in the operational technology (OT) space.

One of the key benefits is that it enables us to secure environments that may pose more significant security challenges.

The centralization capability is the most valuable feature of this solution as it enables us to monitor our systems efficiently. Additionally, the firewalls are excellent, with straightforward configuration and comprehensible interfaces that our engineers can set up with ease.

The cloud firewall solution offers a unified platform that integrates social security capabilities, but it comes at an additional cost.

I think having the ability to see the big picture is important for us, and that's not always easy to achieve. 

As for how important it is for us to have Palo Alto NG Firewalls and defense machine learning at the core of the firewall for real-time attack prevention, I think it's a bit premature to say. There are many players in that field currently, and I would prefer to see them get it right before jumping in just for the sake of being there.

A major concern is making the licensing more accessible to enable small municipalities to afford and manage their own systems independently.

I have had experience working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for a minimum of three to four years.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are very scalable.

As far as I know, the technical support for this solution is excellent. 

My team has used it a few times and has always been satisfied with the service. I have never received any negative feedback regarding the support lines.

I would rate the technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

A lot of the municipality's systems rely on Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to stay online, and we've found that they provide better uptime compared to most other solutions.

Our downtime has been reduced by 80 to 90% with the implementation of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

I was not involved in the deployment process.

We have seen a return on investment. By centralizing our monitoring of systems, we have been able to make our lives easier.

The licensing leaves a lot to be desired. 

We buy the license and then we can't transfer the license without paying an exorbitant fee to our client if they leave us, and that just seems to be a bit of a pain point for us, and there's really no way to partner effectively to make that more reasonable.

We continuously review firewalls, whether it's Check Point or Fortinet, or Cisco. But Palo Alto has been the best for us.

As most of our environments are in the cloud, we don't have a lot of experience in securing data centers.

If a colleague at another company is only looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would advise them that Palo Alto Networks is not the right solution for them. 

While it may not be the most affordable or the quickest to set up, the investment in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is well worth it in terms of reliability and security. 

Choosing a firewall based solely on cost and speed may result in a false sense of security and leave the organization vulnerable to breaches and downtime.

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

We use the solution for IPS. Palo Alto's firewall is really good compared to firewalls like FortiGate, Cisco, or any other competitor.

We're able to monitor traffic based on the source destination and geolocation. The firewall allows us to restrict user access. For example, we have restricted user access to the chat feature on Facebook.

There are about 170 total users on the client side. On the administrative side, we have two or three people.

We're using version PA-200. The solution is deployed on-premises.

We reduced access to unwanted websites by 80%. It allows us to optimize user efficiency. For example, I have restricted the calling feature on LinkedIn, so people can still use LinkedIn, but they aren't able to dial out or receive calls.

We restricted social media sites so that only basic features can be used. The monitoring functionality allows us to see which users are using which websites,  the frequency, and the level of usage. It improves the network monitoring in our organization and gives us the required control level to restrict user access.

Palo Alto Next-Gen Firewall has Panorama, which is a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, but I haven't worked with it yet.

The unified platform gives us more visibility and restricts unwanted guests and unwanted traffic. It gives us more insight into network traffic so that we can analyze it.

It helps eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together. Previously, I used other network monitoring tools for bandwidth monitoring. Now, the security features and wireless detection are in a single platform, so it definitely reduces the need for multiple platforms.

It has affected our network operations and network-related costs, but it's not the main benefit. The main benefit is the visibility and not having to maintain or manage multiple platforms. It's a bit costly because it has a lot of features, and each feature has a cost. It's important to do a cost-benefit analysis and know the requirements of your organization. We don't have to manage five to seven platforms and we're getting all the information in a single platform, so we can compromise a little bit on the cost side.

The packet level inspection is the most valuable feature. The traffic restriction features allow us to restrict the sub-features of any platform.

I really like the security aspects. That's why it's highly rated on Gartner. The antivirus definitions, updates, and malware detection are pretty good.

It embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention, which is a very nice feature. It's part of the add-on services subscription. The autonomous behavior toward malware and potential risk is pretty good. 

Machine learning is really good to have. We received some false positives with machine learning, which was the main problem we had with it.

It's very important to me that the solution integrates natively with security solutions. Inside attacks are very rare. Most attacks are generated from the outside or from a public site, so having Palo Alto is really important on a public site.

Palo Alto is like Microsoft. It has varied features, but it's too technical. A lot of the features could be simplified. The procedure, process, features, and usability could be more simple.

It's too complex and sometimes the process to implement a single thing is hectic.

I have been using this solution for about eight months.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable. If you use the virtual solution, you may need to change the subscription.

I haven't directly worked with Palo Alto's technical support, but their community logs have been really helpful and we can find the answer to almost anything. The documentation is good.

We previously used Fortinet and Cisco.

We switched to Palo Alto because it's an all-in-one solution. We were attracted by its level of detection, level of monitoring, and level of packageable inspection.

The setup is straightforward. Deployment took a week. 

I haven't used it inline directly. First, I did a port mirror. Once I was fully satisfied with the level of detection, I put all of my traffic through it.

We use two or three administrative staff for maintenance. 

The price is high.

We evaluated other features, but we chose Palo Alto early on in the process because of the features and usability.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

In terms of a trade-off between security and network performance, I would rate it more toward network security. We have a lot of other alternatives for monitoring but not for the security side or antivirus detection.

I would highly recommend Palo Alto. If you want a cheap solution, I would recommend Sophos. But if someone is looking for real-time protection, I would suggest that they go with the virtual instance of Palo Alto, which is PA-200 VM, because it simply fulfills our requirements.

For personal use or SMEs, the price of PA-400 is high, but the security and performance are worth it.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as internet firewalls, LAN or WAN firewalls, as well as data center firewalls.

When you apply App-ID and User-ID and Content-ID, you will protect your environment more than with any other firewall. That's because Palo Alto is a leader in App-ID. They invented it. It knows the application and who's communicating with it, and how it is used inside a network. If you use Palo Alto as your internet firewall, for example, when your employee accesses the internet, you will determine which applications he's communicating with, including which ports and the behavior of the user. That helps protect your environment.

The Palo Alto NG Firewalls unified platform has helped to eliminate security holes in our customers' environments. When you have multiple firewalls from Palo Alto to protect more than one segment, such as the LAN, WAN, internet, and data center segments, you can manage all of these from a single point with Palo Alto Panorama. It makes it easy to configure and monitor all of these segments.

The most valuable features are the power of the threat prevention and the WildFire service. Its strength comes from the huge number of sensors all over the world. The firewalls have a rich library of signatures.

Also, the new generation of Palo Alto firewalls includes machine learning embedded in the hardware itself and that is effective in the new era of attacks. Nowadays, we don't know the behavior of the attacks, so we need a product to learn along with us: How an attack will affect us and how the attack will enter a corporate environment. That's why the machine learning aspect is important.

They also provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. You can configure or change anything in the firewall itself from the management console, and there is a separate console for managing all the firewalls you have, called Panorama. It's a very good central manager. I like Panorama. It is the most powerful and capable central manager of firewalls. It gives you very rich information about your environment, and what is moving inside it. It helps you to configure it easily.

It's also important that the NSS Labs test report from July 2019 about Palo Alto's NG Firewalls showed that 100 percent of the evasions were blocked. NSS Labs is the most accurate public report that all my customers want to see. All my customers ask about NSS Labs and where Palo Alto is positioned in their reports. To position Palo Alto, I will show my customer the NSS Lab report. It's the most important report.

In addition, in the last two series, Palo Alto separated the engines. That means you will not face any issue with the performance or the firewalls. There is an engine for performance, an engine for the IPS, and another engine for other features. There isn't only a single engine responsible for all these features.

The IoT could be better. IoT environments will be part of IT and measuring these zones will make your IT environment more resistant to attacks. You need a powerful firewall to secure the IoT segment, the same way that Palo Alto Firewalls do for the IT segment.

Also, if you enable SSL you will face a problem. The throughput of the firewall will be degraded. SSL is a big issue on all firewalls. All products suffer from issues with SSL, but Palo Alto firewalls suffer more from it.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for at least four years, but for my company it has been almost 10 years.

I have worked with many Palo Alto models, including the PA-3000 Series, the new PA-3020 Series, and the new-generation PA-3400. I have worked with the PA-800 Series and the 5K as well.

Our company provides services for the whole cycle, from design and sizing to ordering and implementation. We provide all professional services. And we support systems after implementation.

It's a very stable firewall.

If you choose a model, from PA-3000 or PA-400, or the PA-5000 Series, you should size it correctly from the beginning, and you must consider expansion, otherwise you could face a big problem, as it's not scalable. But, if you have a big company, and you've chosen it as a data center firewall, you can choose a modular version, so that it is easily scalable.

There are two types of support. If you choose partner support, you will face a big problem because it will take more time to reach Palo Alto. But if you choose direct support from the vendor, they will support you very well.

Positive

It's very simple to deploy Palo Alto NG Firewalls into our clients' environments. One of my professional service team engineers was able to do an implementation on his own after shadowing just one implementation. He didn't take any courses or do any formal training. He was just a shadow on a single implementation. After that, he did an implementation. It's a very easy firewall.

The time it takes to deploy this firewall depends on the environment. If it's a complicated environment, a big corporate environment, the number of policies and rules and segments will be the determining factor. But it won't take that long. If you enable App-ID, you will need more time. App-ID is one of the most powerful tools inside NG Firewalls from Palo Alto, but it needs professional engineers to implement it. After that, you will have a very good security tool.

Our customers certainly see ROI from Palo Alto firewalls. For example, if a bank doesn't have Palo Alto firewalls, or any technology from Palo Alto, they will face many attacks, which would be resolved by Palo Alto. These attacks could compromise some of their customers and result in taking their money. What will the bank do then? The ROI comes from protecting customers.

Palo Alto is one of the most expensive firewalls in the world. Everyone knows that. But you need at least one layer from Palo Alto to protect your environment because it is the strongest company in the security field.

The licensing model for container security is complicated for me and for my customers.

I deal with Fortinet Fortigate firewalls, Forcepoint firewalls, and Cisco firewalls every day. We sell and implement them, like Palo Alto.

Palo Alto now has the IoT license on the firewall. They can protect you from DNS attacks. The WildFire license is a very rich license, and other vendors don't have that. And if your firewall is an internet edge firewall, Palo Alto GlobalProtect will give you a host compliance check without adding anything else. Also App-ID and Content-ID are very good and very mature, unlike with other vendors.

I have also used Palo Alto NGFW’s DNS Security for two of my customers. It's a good addition to the firewall, but it's not perfect. Palo Alto is not specialized in DNS attacks. There are a lot of companies that specialize in DNS attacks. They are more mature than Palo Alto in this area. Palo Alto is not like Akamai or Infoblox or EfficientIP, as those companies are specialized in DNS, DNS servers, and DNS attacks. Palo Alto is not only a DNS company.

Someone who says, "We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall?" can get a free firewall, but they will not be protected. They will not be updated against the latest attacks all over the world.

There are tools on the Palo Alto portal that can be used to enhance the configuration of your Palo Alto product and they are free.

Overall, I love Palo Alto.

We have deployed Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and every web filter security available. So, we came to know each website user who got blocked and the "not required" categories. These categories are permanently blocked, and if any changes are required in these categories, we will first get approval from management. 

I like the sandbox feature, and it's very good. It kills each malware deployment in the sense of signatures within five minutes. So, we can secure our network and infrastructure very well within the stipulated time.

The WildFire functionality is very good because a few files are also getting blocked. It's critical as malware attacks are also getting ignored, and the logging is very well maintained in this firewall.

The most valuable solutions in this field are application-based firewalls. That is the main criteria of the firewall and functionality. We can get all the logs related to this and each and every packet. I like that the firewall is working as an application. The application-based entity we have deployed is well maintained and working very well.

We were able to find lots of vulnerabilities when we deployed it, but we could not disclose all. But there were vulnerabilities we could block by updating the firewall and taking actions on clientside machines. So, we got to know that we have lots of vulnerabilities inside the organization too, and we took lots of steps and resolved the number of vulnerabilities.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is an all-in-one solution. It provides every entity log, which is a very good functionality of this firewall. It gives every packet and aspect that the firewall is performing through its logs, and it does it very well.

This firewall's unified platform helped eliminate multiple network security tools. If anyone uses P2P sites, cryptocurrency websites, or any illegal sites, we can block it easily. It gives us a proper alert for these kinds of sites, and it properly secures our network. Monitoring is the best thing we are doing here, and we can block this kind of vulnerability as soon as it comes to us.

We are not happy with Palo Alto at all. It would be better if they provided more support for the firewall. We have a few pending issues with the configuration for each application. We cannot deploy them yet due to some support-related problems in the firewall.

We have deployed a few policies for DNS spoofing and DNS attacks, but we could only block a few IP addresses through the policy. That's DNS security, and we have configured a few policies for DNS spoofing and more.

URL categorization and URL filtering are not yet adequately maintained. For example, if you created a few rules in the rule-based configuration and made some rules downstairs, you will lose some of them if you give access upstairs. It's not giving us a proper solution for which route it is using. We need to apply the application-based policies and URL filtering-based policies. It creates more issues because we are not getting good support from the team.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for the last three or four years.

Stability in the sense of security and alerts, this solution is very good, and we have not had had any issues. However, web filtering and application-based approach are very poor.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a scalable solution.

Palo Alto Networks support could be better. We bought this solution for security purposes, and we asked the support team to convert each and every entity. They have not been able to convert this New Generation Firewall to date. 

Their name suggests that the product will use every application and work as a New-Generation Firewall. Yet, it's not configured, and we can only configure 30% to 40% of the applications. That is also giving us some problems sometimes.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks support a three.

We have a policy in our organization to change the firewall every five years. So, I have experience working on FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard over the last 20 years.

WatchGuard is very good at web filtering. FortiGate is also very good, and they have their own application to manage the firewall, and SonicWall is also very good. 

Palo Alto is a web-based firewall, and there are no applications to deploy and support. I mean, I take all the logs and all things from the client-side. As it's web-based, it's extremely slow. 

When you click on a particular log, it will take a lot of time because it generates lots of logs. That is a good thing, but performance is a little slow. Both WatchGuard and FortiGate are very good for this kind of thing. Also, WatchGuard is application-based, and I didn't have to deploy it. I came to know about Palo Alto from my friends who said it was very good for application-based security. 

The initial setup and deployment are straightforward. We did not have any issues at all. It took us about 15 to 20 days to implement this solution. 

The policies we have with Atelier and WatchGuard were exported, and we tried to deploy these policies on the new firewall. The reseller helped us configure it but without our concession or permission and could not deploy the firewall. We later had more problems, and the reseller helped us with that as well.

Video Import Solutions is our local reseller in Pune, India. In our experience, not every engineer knew the firewall concept. I mean, not at all. If we wanted something new or had to deal with this application-related issue, they always told us they would log a case and resolve it. But they did not support us at all and did not give us any reason why they could not do it.

I am a technical guy, and I would say that you will not get a return on your investment. Even FortiGate and WatchGuard will offer next-generation solutions that perform better than Palo Alto Networks.

The price could be better. Pricing is very different compared to WatchGuard, which costs around 60 lakhs, and FortiGate, which costs approximately 40 lakhs. Palo Alto Networks costs about a crore which is very high pricing.

We bought this firewall, and our organization did not want to pay so much. We spent around one crore rupees which is not within our budget at all, and we are unhappy with them.

This firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security
capabilities. It will queue all functionalities like firewall protection and alerts and track all DDoS attacks. It shares all the information with us, and we can monitor and take immediate action on the other alerts we receive.

I would advise potential users to only go for this solution if they have the budget and don't require any support. Only buy this firewall if you can install, configure, and solve potential problems on your own. If not, FortiGate and WatchGuard are much better options.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a five.

I primarily help users migrate from traditional firewalls to Palo Alto NG Firewalls. This involves troubleshooting, assisting with application control and backup configuration, and teaching users how to optimize the firewall for their needs. Additionally, I guide users through the process of redesigning their firewalls and migrating their servers, which often includes helping them understand and manage the vast number of applications they have. Sometimes, the firewall cannot identify specific applications, requiring customization to ensure accurate recognition and security. Currently, I am working on a management query language, which involves collaborating with other teams to assess the necessity of specific applications and connections between the firewall and various assets. This ensures optimal security and network efficiency.

Although Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls now utilize machine learning, its significance wasn't initially apparent to me. My first experience with Palo Alto revealed the power of their machine learning through features like WildFire, which uses real-time analysis to understand and combat hacker attacks. While early versions had tools like Power Tool that hinted at machine learning capabilities, Palo Alto didn't explicitly promote this functionality until version 10, likely in response to increasing market competition and the growing prominence of machine learning in firewalls. The embedded machine learning is helpful.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls has improved our organization's security by providing strong protection through network segmentation and XDR. The firewall has proven effective in reducing security risks and monitoring endpoint activity. It offers excellent application recognition and thorough threat analysis, boosting overall network security.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls have reduced over 90 percent of our network downtime.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls offer an efficient interface that simplifies log checking, troubleshooting connection issues, and firewall policy configuration. The process is user-friendly, guiding users through network infrastructure setup, interface creation, settings application, and policy configuration in a clear and intuitive manner.

Palo Alto Firewalls can improve their support structure, especially concerning longer working hours for engineers. Enhancing support teams' capability to handle cases without much delay would be beneficial. Additionally, the high cost of the product could be re-evaluated.

I have been using Palo Alto Next Generation Firewalls for over ten years.

Palo Alto NG Firewalls are stable. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate them around seven or eight for stability.

I find Palo Alto NG Firewalls to be highly scalable, and would rate their scalability as eight out of ten.

Customer support's effectiveness depends on the clarity and completeness of information provided by users.

Neutral

I've used Check Point and Fortinet in addition to Palo Alto, but I prefer Palo Alto's interface and performance.

The initial setup for Palo Alto NG Firewalls is clear and instructive, detailing network infrastructure setup before advancing to policy configuration.

A fresh deployment of Palo Alto NG Firewalls can be completed in three days, followed by a two-day handover session to train users. This totals five days for deployment and training. However, migrations for companies with over 10,000 users and 20 subnets can take up to a month, potentially involving additional user requests or a phased approach.

I have vast experience deploying these firewalls on-premises within our team, making use of the intuitive interface provided by Palo Alto for implementation.

Although Palo Alto is expensive, its superior security functions, application identification, and overall performance justify the cost and make it stand out from the competition.

I would rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls nine out of ten. The Palo Alto NG Firewalls are great, but they are expensive.

I'm most interested in Palo Alto NG Firewalls, specifically how to improve their efficiency and application identification capabilities. Sometimes applications have unique requirements or behave differently, making accurate identification crucial. Palo Alto NG Firewalls excel at application-level security because they can block traffic, prevent attacks, and identify potentially compromised applications. Unlike traditional firewalls, Palo Alto NG Firewalls go beyond basic policy enforcement and traffic filtering by incorporating intrusion prevention systems and antivirus functionality. This allows them to analyze internal traffic for risks, similar to how antivirus software protects endpoints.

Future users need to appreciate the costs involved in using Palo Alto, and the manual configuration required is beneficial because it ensures clarity and control over what is being configured. To enhance your organization's security posture and management, I recommend implementing Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

Three people in our organization are directly using the Palo Alto NG Firewalls.

Upgrading Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewalls requires some maintenance.

I have deployed it as my internal firewall in the cloud. I also have it on-premises as my perimeter firewall. I am also running Palo Alto in my DMZ. 

I'm using the PA-5532 Series. We have cloud and on-premises deployments. The cloud deployment is on the Azure public cloud.

We are using it on Azure Cloud as an internal firewall for filtering the east-west traffic. At the same time, we are using this firewall as a second-layer firewall in our perimeter for filtering the application URL and other things for the users. We are using another firewall as a perimeter for the DMZ. So, all internal applications that are connecting users are connecting through this firewall. We have other vendors as well, but the main applications are going through the Palo Alto firewall.

Its predictive analytics work very well for blocking DNS-related attacks. We are moving malicious URLs to the unknown IP in the network. They are reconfigured.

Its DNS security for protection against sneakier attack techniques, such as DNS tunneling, is good.

I'm using most of its features such as antivirus, anti-spam, and WAF. I'm also using its DNS Security and DNS sinkhole features, as well as the URL filtering and application security features.

In terms of application filtering and threat analysis, it's a little bit better as compared to the other UTM boxes, such as Sophos or other brands. It is secure and good in terms of application classification and signatures. It is a trustable solution.

In terms of the network performance, I am not very happy with Palo Alto. Other solutions, such as Fortinet, have better throughput and network performance.

I am in GCC in the Middle East. The support that we are getting from Palo Alto is disastrous. The problem is that the support ticket is opened through the distributor channel. Before opening a ticket, we already do a lot of troubleshooting, and when we open a ticket, it goes to a distributor channel. They end up wasting our time again doing what we have already done. They execute the same things and waste time. The distributor channel's engineer tries to troubleshoot, and after spending hours, they forward the ticket to Palo Alto. It is a very time-consuming process. The distributor channels also do not operate 24/7, and they are very lazy in responding to the calls.

It is expensive as compared to other brands. Its pricing can be improved.

I have been using this solution for more than four years.

Its stability is fine. I'm happy with it.

It is scalable. Its usage is extensive. We are using it daily. It is our core device.

Their support is very bad as compared to the other vendors. The support ticket is opened only through the distributor channel, and it takes a lot of time to get a solution for the issue. I'm not happy with their technical support. I would rate them a four out of ten.

Neutral

Palo Alto is the main core product in our case, but we also have Fortinet, Check Point, and Cisco ASA firewalls. Fortinet is one of the key products in our network.

The process of configuring Palo Alto devices is very easy. There is not much in it, but if we want to add or remove a device in Panorama, it is a very complicated setup. Adding, deleting, and updating a device from Panorama is very difficult. The interaction between Panorama and Palo Alto devices isn't good. They need to improve that. FortiManager works very well in terms of device interaction and other things.

The deployment duration depends on the customer infrastructure and where they want to deploy the box, such as in the data center or at the perimeter, but for me, generally, two days are enough for the setup. I provide customers the ways to design a secure network, and they can choose whatever is convenient for them based on their existing network.

In my environment, there are the four network security engineers who are the owners of these devices. We take care of the deployment and management of security devices.

Its price is higher than other vendors. They need to re-think its pricing. 

With Fortinet, the SD-WAN feature is totally free, whereas, with Palo Alto, I need to pay for this feature. With Fortinet, there is one licensing, and I can get many things, whereas, with Palo Alto, I need to go for individual licensing.

I'm working in a systems and data company, and I recommend Palo Alto and other firewalls to many people. The users can choose one based on their budgeting because Palo Alto is expensive as compared to other brands.

Palo Alto NGFW’s unified platform hasn't 100% helped to eliminate security holes. In some cases, we are using other products. I'm mainly using it for WAF and securing my DMZ infrastructure. It is working well in terms of the functionalities in layer 3 and layer 4.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.