Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

I am the team manager responsible for various security products. My customers use Palo Alto Networks products, and I am working with Palo Alto partners. We support a variety of solutions including Strata firewalls, Prisma SD-WAN, and Wildfire for advanced threat protection.

Wildfire, a sandboxing product, allows for analyzing malware in virtual machines. Its strength lies in threat intelligence, which is significant for proactive defense. Palo Alto's robust threat intelligence supports new updates, and I can open cases directly with their Threat Intelligence team. Customers appreciate the throughput and reliability of VM-Series Firewalls, as they can be managed efficiently through Panorama.

I find it difficult to reach technical support at Palo Alto Networks. Most customers go for partner-enabled support, which involves multiple layers, leading to delays. Additionally, the technical maturity level of support is not always high, resulting in dissatisfaction. The pricing of Palo Alto is relatively high, particularly for smaller companies.

I have been familiar with Wildfire for nearly five years. I have been working with the VM-Series for nearly two years.

Palo Alto products are stable compared to others. Stability issues may arise when exceeding throughput limits, but hardware is generally very stable.

Scalability is a strength of Palo Alto VM-Series. They are easy to upgrade, and with credit licensing, they scale effectively according to demand.

I can give Palo Alto Networks technical support a six out of ten. It is very hard to reach, and the process can be lengthy and frustrating because support involves several layers.

Neutral

Initial setup is easy, especially in public cloud environments where VM-Series can be obtained from the marketplace.

Our ROI is measured in terms of catch rate, however, customers often focus on the total price of the product rather than detailed ROI calculations.

Palo Alto is expensive in terms of pricing, particularly when comparing features to cost. Their Premier Support is also very expensive and not widely chosen by customers.

I would recommend Check Point and Fortinet as alternatives for companies where the budget is a concern.

I would recommend Palo Alto VM-Series to others and rate it an eight out of ten. However, for companies below midsize, it may not be a fit due to cost. For those companies, I suggest considering products like Check Point or Fortinet.

I use it for two main reasons. In case there is a customer query, Palo Alto firewall is one of the vendors that we support for syslogs, rule management, change management, and traffic monitoring. 

Our product is used to query the firewall and provide a dashboard that raises alarms if any suspicious activity is detected. It involves the management of the firewall. We have a partnership with Palo Alto, and I have worked with VM-Series. 

When a customer encounters an issue with our product in accordance with Palo Alto, I analyze the problem and provide solutions. Additionally, I have constructed a lab with network devices for partner training. This lab uses Palo Alto firewalls for communication.

By using this firewall, we were able to address a lot of customer queries and answer to their VM-Series. This helped us retain our customers and gain confidence from them.

Palo Alto is easy to use. The UI is very easy to understand and does not require any certification or highly skilled technician to handle the firewall. It is very user-friendly and straightforward out of the box.

An area for improvement would be AI-related features, particularly in rule management or threat intelligence. Focusing on AI-based threat detection would be beneficial. 

Additionally, enhancing the ease of accessing technical support would be useful.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for about three to four years.

Stability is good. Once it is configured, it is stable, and I would rate it nine out of ten. I have not experienced any outages with Palo Alto, unlike other vendors like Sophos.

Scalability is good, and I would rate it eight out of ten. We use it for testing with a low load, and it works well. In production setups, I have observed it being used effectively with a large number of transactions per second.

Reaching technical support is challenging, and I may not be eligible for direct support since I'm not a customer. It involves multiple channels. I would rate their technical support seven out of ten.

Neutral

I previously used Cisco ASA, an older version, due to its market leadership at the time. We moved to Palo Alto due to multiple customer requests for other solutions like Sophos, FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard.

The initial setup was very easy and can be rated nine out of ten. It is straightforward to configure, and the UI is simple.

I did everything myself. One person is sufficient for the deployment and maintenance of five to seven firewalls.

The return on investment is seen in customer retention and addressing their queries rather than in revenue.

I'm not the right person to give a rating for pricing, as I use a not-for-sale license provided by Palo Alto for testing.

We evaluated Cisco ASA, but due to diverse customer demands and requests for vendors like Sophos, FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard, we extended our support to Palo Alto as well.

For software application firewalls, this is the best solution. If you are using it in a cloud or as an application firewall, then Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is the best one for you.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

For remote access and securing our perimeter, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series greatly enhances our network security posture. It serves as a primary firewall for enterprise security and ensures secure remote access to our environment. As for traffic handling in our multi-cloud deployment, Palo Alto Networks' solution effectively manages it, delivering on its promises.

We've integrated all necessary functions into a single box shop currently. This setup is convenient for those who aren't yet in the cloud and prefer to stick with familiar tools. However, there's now a plethora of cloud-based tools that offer similar functionalities, leading to potential duplication and increased costs. 

In terms of security breaches, the product aids in categorizing and monitoring traffic, allowing for the identification of potentially malicisous or incorrectly formatted applications. While there are often false positives, the product has successfully detected unauthorized traffic streams.

I believe that the licensing and overall cost could be more transparent and aligned with how features are utilized, especially considering the duplication of features. 

Sometimes, it's challenging to determine which features to activate or deactivate.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for the past 5 years.

In terms of stability, it's quite reliable once it's up and running. I'd rate it a 9 out of 10. However, it's not a perfect 10 due to the need for manual intervention, especially during firmware upgrades and certificate management. This aspect isn't as seamless as with cloud-native firewalls.

As for scalability, it can be scalable if deployed correctly from the start. Regarding usage, the number of users will likely remain consistent, but the deployment of various firewall types may increase. This could include different instances or flavors beyond the Palo Alto VM series, such as cloud-native versions on Azure or from other vendors. 

The support team is quick, knowledgeable, and responsive. They address issues promptly and escalate them efficiently if needed. Overall, we haven't encountered any significant problems.

We managed the deployment in-house, which presented some challenges.

As for technical staffing, we aim to reduce the team size needed for deployment, ideally managing it with minimal personnel or even through code automation. Currently, we don't have a dedicated firewall team.

Regarding pricing, I initially downloaded the product for feature comparison purposes, not specifically due to pricing concerns. However, the current licensing model can be a sore point as we're paying for features we're not fully utilizing. Simplifying the pricing structure would be beneficial, especially given the duplication of services in some cases, leading to increased costs.

I'd rate it a 9, considering it's an industry-leading firewall with excellent support and features. However, as more customers shift to cloud-native solutions, some unique features of the Palo Alto solution may become less relevant. The company may need to offer a more robust and feature-rich solution to remain competitive. Currently, the monolithic nature of the firewall can be challenging to maintain and secure, which could impact its future viability compared to more agile competitors like Cisco.

When considering the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, organizations need to carefully assess their specific use case and the extent of changes planned for the firewall. It's crucial to determine if all features are necessary and if they are not replicated elsewhere in the infrastructure. For those already operating in a cloud-native environment, leveraging native security features may be more cost-effective, as they are already included in the package. Conversely, organizations accustomed to traditional on-premises setups may prefer a single firewall device for security. Ongoing support and the frequency of changes to be made on the firewall should be factored in, as these can significantly impact the overall cost and effectiveness of the solution.

I use the solution in my company to block threats, detect vulnerabilities, and protect the organization's internal network.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that its UI is good since it offers options. In terms of being compliant with the firewall security standards, the product falls in the first or second place. The product can also be considered as NGFW. In general, the product is user-friendly.

The reporting part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. Compared to Palo Alto Networks VM-Series's reports, FortiGate NGFW provides users with reports that are easy to understand.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for three to four years.

The product's stability is good. Considering the cloud availability, I can say that the product is 99.99 percent stable. The firewall functions properly on the cloud, and there has been no downtime in the last couple of years. Unless the cloud services from Microsoft Azure go down, the firewall works properly.

My company has 1,000 users of the product, but not all of them are connected to the product all the time since my company has three different fire products running in the cloud. I would say there are around 600 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series users.

The technical support for the solution is very good.

The product's deployment phase is not complex. The tool is easy to deploy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

There is a need to make payments toward a yearly subscription-based model in which you need to add modules that you want to use in your company.

I can't elaborate on how the product was deployed in our company's existing infrastructure since the product was not deployed by our company, as the vendor handled it. The product can be deployed on the cloud platform you want to use. If you are using Azure's cloud services, then we select VM-Series, take care of the configurations, and upload the required details to get the product.

In terms of the product's ability to improve our company's network security posture, I see that the tool keeps our systems protected since all the network traffic is routed through the tool. The tool provides protection against any malicious traffic that attempts to get into the company network as such networks get blocked and quarantined by the firewall. Been blocked on the firewall network. Malicious components in the network don't enter our company's internal network, so the users are protecting the systems attached to the internal traffic.

My company has not integrated the product with any third-party software.

Speaking about the benefits of dynamic scalability, I would say that my company has not used the product's scalability features. I don't think there is anything wrong with the tool's scalability functionalities.

The tool is good for enterprise-level organizations because it has many options for users in its office. The product also comes with a lot of add-ons. If you can leverage the benefits of everything the product offers, then it can be useful. It is easy if you want to integrate the tool or connect it with other applications or third-party software, and you can do cloud monitoring and SIEM. The tool also works with XDR products. In general, the tool has its pros and is good software.

I have not encountered any issues with policy management in the product.

The product helps find vulnerabilities in the system, especially opened ports and unwanted ports that are open. If there are any issues, you can explore your system further with Nmap and with the help of a given IP address.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for cloud firewalling, SASE, ZTNA, and CASB compared to the hardware-based NGFW or cloud firewalls.

The product is easy to use and deploy, and it enhances the overall security posture while deploying the application in the cloud. The most effective features of the solution for threat prevention are Layer 7 inspection, SSL decryption, IPS, and the web filtering profile. You can use the solution to easily protect your data from cyber criminals, including insider or outside-based attacks.

The solution is easy to deploy, easy to manage, and easy to create policies. An organization's overall security posture can be improved by deploying Palo Alto Networks VM-Series firewall.

The DLP functionality or data classification can be improved in the solution's basic firewalling.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for two to three years.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is a stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Compared to Checkpoint Maestro Firewall, the solution's scalability is not up to the mark. We'll need to upgrade the firewall for any tech refresh, throughput requirement, or hardware-based incremental. We have more than 100 customers for Palo Alto Networks VM-Series.

The solution’s technical support is great.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's deployment time depends on the business application or business requirement. Based on that, the solution is easy to deploy and use.

Based on the customer budget, they can choose from 12-month, 36-month, or 60-month licensing models. The solution is quite expensive compared to Fortinet, Check Point, or Cisco. Customers can go for the solution's premium version, which I wouldn't say is expensive because it secures important data.

We cannot say that we have achieved 100% security by deploying the solution, but we have added one more security layer to protect us from security threats or attackers. For deployment, we have more than 400 engineers handling our SOC, including the MSS part, the security of business center implementation, and manageability.

Deploying the solution does not provide a 100% data safeguard, but it adds another security layer. The solution provides single-pass parallel processing (SP3) architecture, which is more effective than other firewall vendors. From the hardware and architecture perspective, the solution is good compared to Check Point or Fortinet firewalls.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are using it on Azure Cloud for our internal systems, where we have set up our internal workloads. We are using it as a perimeter firewall.

We are using it because our internal workflows are on the cloud. Almost everything in our production and development uses these instances. We are using it extensively for conducting reports of the development environment. It is working fine.

It improved all compliance activities. We can close open cases. Compared to other firewalls in these cases, it improved our score on the compliance side.

We are using the complete box. We are mostly using the security services and firewall rules in Panorama.

We need to look at different variables and granular policies of various tools. This makes it easy to understand.

We use Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system. We have an on-prem firewall where Panorama is very good for pulling logs in from the cloud so we can see what is going on. It gives us visibility into that as well as showing us what attacks are coming in.

Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view.

We have been using it for the last two years.

Stability has so far been good. We monitor the resources on the firewall to determine if there will be any spikes on the CPU, RAM utilization, or the load of the firewall. Though, we are yet not putting much load on it. 

I don't think that scaling will be a problem since we can adjust the VM-Series model that we want.

I have around 100 instances protected behind this device.

The customer support is good. They are able to give fast, readily-available solutions upon the creation of a help ticket. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We did a fresh setup for this, but it was pretty easy. We could easily integrate with the VM-Series, then just create our business servers. We were able to do this with the help of the tech team.

It took around seven to eight hours to deploy this solution and configure it to our environment.

We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple. Once we had a checklist of what to do, it was pretty easy to deploy.

Deploying Panorama has saved us a lot of time. When any incidents happen, our people are comfortable going to the Panorama logs and view the incident report to see what happened.

Initially, pricing was high. Later on, we were able to negotiate the pricing and get something that fits our budget.

The solution provides protection and there wasn't an additional cost involved, in terms of security.

We evaluated FortiGate, Cisco, and the stuff that we are using. Compared to other products, we found it a very useful part of our compliance requirements and liked its format on the graphical interface. It is also a more secure firewall compared to other existing ones in the market. Based on our evaluation, it matched our compliance requirements.

Cisco is pretty complex in nature to deploy. It is helpful to have a skilled person with at least two years of experience. 

We are happy with their features for how we are using it and what we have deployed.

I would recommend giving the solution a try and see the difference between it and your existing firewalls. Give it a shot and see the difference.

In the firewall market, it is the number one product right now. I would rate it as 10 out of 10.

The primary use case involves using next-generation firewalls, hardware, VM-Series, Prisma Access for SASE solutions, Prisma Cloud for cloud security posture management, and Cloud Workload Protection. It's used primarily for securing customers' virtualized data center environments as well as public cloud environments.

The additional visibility, which was lacking with cloud-native tools, has improved the organization's cloud security posture. Advanced enforcement and granular security controls help manage potential threats.

The most effective feature for threat prevention is the threat prevention model in the VM-Series. This is bundled with advanced URL filtering, decryption, and wildfire sandboxing.

If additional web application firewall capabilities could be integrated into the existing firewall, it would negate the need for additional products.

I've been working with Palo Alto VM-Series for at least five to six years now.

We haven't had challenges with failovers yet.

We've controlled the scalability via VMSS in Azure, using auto-scale groups in AWS. It's quite seamless, though there's room for improvement in cost management, especially during traffic spikes.

The technical support is great. We've had no challenges and there are established channels for customer success and professional services.

Positive

In the past, I used to work with Check Point, but haven't worked with them lately. Given the support from Palo Alto, there hasn't been a necessity to explore others.

The integration process involved using a Panorama setup for centralized firewall administration, transitioning from cloud-native firewalls to VM-Series.

We are primarily a consulting firm and reseller, so we've had significant involvement in the process.

The solution tends to add to costs especially when scaling, although measures like using large compute instances minimize the need for scaling.

Potential competitors mentioned are Check Point and Cisco but haven't been evaluated recently.

For straightforward firewall inspection and basic IPS, IDS requirements, native firewalls might suffice. For more advanced needs, using VM-Series or Palo Alto Firewalls is recommended.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Palo Alto VM-Series is something we recommend as a firewall solution in certain situations for clients with particular requirements who have the budget leeway.  

The Palo Alto VM-Series is nice because I can move the firewalls easily. For instance, we once went from one cloud provider to another. The nice thing about that situation was that I could just move the VMs almost with a click of a button. It was really convenient and easy and an option that every firewall will not give you.  

We would really like to see Palo Alto put an effort into making a real Secure Access Service Edge (SASE). Especially right now where we are seeing companies where everybody is working from home, that becomes an important feature. Before COVID, employees were all sitting in the office at the location and the requirements for firewalls were a different thing.  

$180 billion a year is made on defense contracts. Defense contracts did not stop because of COVID. They just kept going. It is a situation where it seems that no one cared that there was COVID they just had to fulfill the contracts. When people claimed they had to work from home because it was safer for them, they ended up having to prove that they could work from home safely. That became a very interesting situation. Especially when you lack a key element, like the Secure Access Services.  

Palo Alto implemented SASE with Prisma. In my opinion, they made a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention), those things need to be fixed.  

I have been using Palo Alto VM-Series for probably around two to three years.  

I think the stability of Palo Alto is good — leaning towards very good.  

Palo Alto does a good job on the scalability. In my opinion, it has excellent scalability.  

My experience with Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support. When we have a situation where we have to call them, we should be able to call them up, say, "I have a problem," and they should ask a series of questions to determine the severity and the nature of the problem. If you start with the question "Is the network down?" you are at least approaching prioritizing the call. If it is not down, they should be asking questions to determine how important the issue is. They need to know if it is high, medium, or low priority. Then we can get a callback from the appropriate technician.  

Do you want to know who does the vetting of priority really, well? Cisco. Cisco wins hands down when it comes to support. I do not understand that, for whatever reason, Palo Alto feels that they do not have a need to answer questions, or they just do not want to.  

It is not only that the support does not seem dedicated to resolving issues efficiently. I am a consultant, so I have a lot of clients. When I call up and talk to Palo Alto and ask something  like, "What is the client's password?" That is a general question. Or it might be something even less sensitive like "Can you send me instructions on how to configure [XYZ — whatever that XYZ is]?"  Their response will be something like, "Well, we need your customer number." They could just look it up because they know who I am. Then if I do not know my client's number, I have got to go back to the client and ask them. It is just terribly inefficient. Then depending on the customer number, I might get redirected to talk to Danny over there because I can not talk to Lisa or Ed over here.  

The tedium in the steps to get a simple answer just make it too complicated. When the question is as easy as: "Is the sky sunny in San Diego today?" they should not be worried about your customer representative, your customer number, or a whole bunch of information that they really do not use anyway. They know me, who I am, and the companies I deal with. I have been representing them for seven or eight years. I have a firewall right here, a PA-500. I got it about 11 years ago. They could easily be a lot more efficient.  

I have clients whose architecture is configured in a lot of different ways and combinations. I use a lot of different products and make recommendations based on specific situations. For example:  

• I have one client that actually uses multiple VM-series and then at each one of their physical sites that have the K2-series — or the physical counterpart of the VM-series.  
• I have other clients that use Fortinet AlarmNet. As a matter of fact, almost all my healthcare providers use Fortinet products.  
• I have another customer that used to be on F5s and they had had some issues so switched to Fortinet.  
• I have a couple of holdouts out there that are still using the old Cisco firewalls who refuse to change.  
• I have a new client that is using a Nokia firewall which is a somewhat unique choice.  

I have a customer that used to be on F5s and they had had some issues. The result of the issue was that they came to me and we did an evaluation of what they really needed. They came in and they said, "We need you to do an evaluation and when you are done with the evaluation, you need to tell us that we need Palo Alto firewalls." I said that was great and I sat down and got to work building the side-by-side comparison of the four firewalls that they wanted to look at. When I was done, just like they wanted the Palo Alto firewall was right there as the first one on the list. They selected the Fortinet firewall instead.  

Nokia is specifically designed to address the LTE (Long Term Evolution, wireless data transmission) threats with faster networks and such. So it is probably not considered to be a mainstream firewall. The client who uses Nokia is a service provider using it on a cellular network. They are a utility and they are using Nokia on a cellular network to protect all their cellular systems and their automated cellular operations. The old Nokia firewalls — the one on frames — was called NetGuard. This client originally had the Palo Alto K-series and they switched over to the Nokia solution. That is my brand new Nokia account. They were not happy with the K-series and I am not sure why.  

The thing about Cisco is nobody is ever going to fire you for buying a Cisco product. It is like the old IBM adage. They just say that it is a Cisco product and that automatically makes it good. What they do not seem to acknowledge is that just because their solution is a Cisco product does not necessarily make it the right solution for them. It is really difficult to tell a customer that they are wrong. I do not want to say that it is difficult to tell them in a polite way — because I am always polite with my customers and I am always pretty straightforward with them. But I have to tell them in a way that is convincing. Sometimes it can be hard to change their mind or it might just be impossible.  

When I refer to Cisco, I mean real Cisco firewalls, not Meraki. Meraki is the biggest problem I think that I deal with. I do not have the network folks manage the Meraki firewalls differently than they manage their physical firewalls. I do not want there to be a difference, or there should be as little difference as possible in how the firewalls are handled. They do have some inherent differences. I try not to let them do stuff on the virtual firewalls that they can not do in the physical firewalls. The reason for that is because in defense-related installations it matters. Anytime you are dealing with defense, the closer I can get to maintaining one configuration, the better off I am. Unless something unique pops up in Panorama, I will not differentiate the setups.  

I say that there are differences because there is a little bit of configuration that inherently has to be different when you are talking about physical and virtual firewalls, but not much. I can sanitize the virtual machine and show the cloud provider that since I was going into a .gov environment or a .gov cloud, that it met all the requirements as stated in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. That is huge for our situation. Of course with a cloud provider, you are not going to have a physical firewall. Had we had a physical firewall, that becomes a bit of a chore because you have got to download the configuration file, then you have got to sanitize the configuration. Things like that become a bit of a burden. Having a VM-Series for that purpose makes it much easier.  

I did not mention Sophos in the list. Sophos does a semi-decent job with that too, by the way. The only problem with Sophos is that they are not enterprise-ready, no matter what they say. I have deployed Sophos in enterprises before, and the old Sophos models did very well. The new ones do very poorly. The SG-Series — Sierra Golf — they are rock solid. As long as we keep going with them, our customers love it. It works. I have one client with 15,000 seats. They are running 11 or 12 of them and they have nothing but great things to say about the product. The second you go to the X-Series, they are not up to the task.  

Setting up Palo Alto is relatively quick. But I also have an absolute rockstar on our team for when it comes to Palo Alto installations. When he is setting it up, he knows what he is doing. The only thing he had to really learn was the difference between the VM-Series and the PA-Series.  

I lay out the architecture and I tell people doing the installations exactly what has to be there. I sit down and create the rule sets. Early on, the person actually doing the fingers-on-the-keyboard complained a little saying that the setup was a little bit more complicated than it should have been. I agree, generally speaking. I generally feel that Palo Alto is more complicated than it needs to be and they could make an effort to make the installations easier.  

But, installing Palo Alto is not as bad as installing Cisco. Cisco is either a language that you speak or a language that you do not. I mean, I can sit down and plot the firewall and get the firewall together about 45 minutes with a good set of rules and everything. But that is me and it is because I have experience doing it. Somebody who is not very well-versed in Cisco will take two or three days to do the same thing. It is just absolutely horrid. It is like speaking English. It is a horrid language.  

I do not have to do budgets and I am thankful for that. I am just the guy in the chain who tells you what license you are going to need if you choose to go with Palo Alto VM-Series. How they negotiate the license and such is not my department. That is because I do not resell.  

I know what the costs might be and I know it is expensive in comparison to other solutions. I get my licenses from Palo Alto for free because they like me. I have proven to be good to them and good for them. When they have customers that are going to kick them out, I can go in and save the account.  

I will tell you, they do practice something close to price gouging with their pricing model, just like Cisco does. When I can go out and I can get an F5 for less than half of what I pay for Palo Alto, that is a pretty big price jump. An F5 is really a well-regarded firewall. When I can get a firewall that does twice what a Palo Alto does for less than half, that tells me something.  

Sophos decided that they were going to play with the big boys. So what they did is they went in and jacked up all their prices and all their customers are going to start running away now. The model is such that it is actually cheaper to buy a new firewall with a three-year license than it is to renew the Sophos license of the same size firewall for an older product. It sorta does not make sense.  

I make recommendations for clients so I have to be familiar with the firewalls that I work with. In essence, I evaluate them all the time.  

I work from home and I have two Cisco firewalls. I have a Fortinet. I have the Palo Alto 500 and I have a Palo Alto 5201. I have a Sophos. My F5 is out on loan. I usually have about eight or nine firewalls on hand. I never go to a client without firing up a firewall that I am going to recommend, testing it, and getting my fingers dirty again to make sure I have it fresh in my mind. I know my firewalls.  

The VM-Series are nice because you can push them into the cloud. The other nice thing is whether you are running a VM-Series or the PA-Series, we can manage it with one console. Not without hiccups, but it works really well. Not only that, we can push other systems out there. For instance, for VMware, we are pushing Prisma out to them. VMware and the Palo Alto VM-Series do really well with Prisma. The issue I have with it is — and this is where Palo Alto and I are going to disagree — they are not as good at SASE (Secure Access Service Edge). I do not care what Palo Alto says. They do a poor job of it and other products do it better.  

Palo Alto claims it is SASE capable, but even Gartner says that it is not. Gartner usually has the opinion that favors those who pay the most, and Palo Alto pays them well. So when Gartner even questions their Secure Access Service Edge, it is an issue. That is one of those places where you want the leader in the field.  

From my hands-on experience, Fortinet's secure access service edge just takes SASE hands down.  

My first lesson when it comes to advice is a rule that I follow. When a new version comes out, we wait a month. If in that month we are not seeing any major complaints or issues with the Palo Alto firewall customer base, then we consider it safe. The client base is usually a pretty good barometer for announcing to the world that Palo Alto upgrades are not ready. When that happens, making the upgrade goes off our list until we hear better news. If we do not see any of those bad experiences, then we do the upgrade. That is the way we treat major revisions. It usually takes about a month, or a month-and-a-half before we commit. Minor revisions, we apply within two weeks.  

I am of the opinion right now that there are some features missing on Palo Alto that may or may not be important to particular organizations. What they have is what you have to look at. Sit down and be sure it is the right solution for what you need to do. I mean, if the organization is a PCI (Payment Card Industry) type service — in other words, they need to follow PCI regulations — Palo Alto works great. It is solid, and you do not have remote users. If you are a Department of Defense type organization, then there are some really strong arguments to look elsewhere. That is one of the few times where Cisco is kind of strong choice and I could make an argument for using them as a solution. That is really bad for me to say because I do not like Cisco firewalls.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the Palo Alto Networks VM-series as an eight-out-of-ten.