Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs.

The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side.

I'm going into my second year here now.

Its stability is good.

It is good in terms of scalability. We have around 25 users currently, and we don't have any plans to increase the usage. The current solution supports up to 1,500 users. It is a little bit overkill for what we actually need. It would probably be good for quite a while in the future.

Their support is fantastic. You can call them and have a technician sitting with you at three o'clock in the morning to help you through things.

Previously, we were running Cisco's solution, but then we got told from headquarters in the US that we needed to change.

If you know what you're doing, it goes quickly. If you don't know what you're doing, it's going to take a while. That is why I requested an easier setup.

In terms of maintenance, our IT unit is responsible for all VPN traffic. We have now automated things a bit, but in the beginning, it was manual. 

We did it ourselves.

The physical appliance is around €3,000 or €4,000, and then, you have the licensing for a year for around €3,000.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it at an eight out of 10.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks WildFire are the good URL and file analysis that uses artificial intelligence. It has different interfaces, such as rest, SMTP protocol, and HTTPS. The Security incidents and event management are very good. Additionally, there are many file types that are supported and there is no limit to the number of files it can handle simultaneously. It integrates well with SIEM solutions. 

Palo Alto Networks WildFire could improve by adding support for manual submission of suspicious files and URLs. Additionally, it would be an advantage to add rule-based analysis. Currently, it uses only static and AI. We need to be able to analyze archive files.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks WildFire for approximately two years.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is a stable solution.

I rate the stability of Palo Alto Networks WildFire a four out of five.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is good.

We have approximately 3,000 people using the solution. We have all the staff members in the company using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks WildFire a four out of five.

The support from Palo Alto Networks WildFire is good.

I rate the support of Palo Alto Networks WildFire a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is easy.

The length of time it takes for the deployment depends if do integration with different third-party applications. The solution itself does not take a lot of time, but to integrate another solution, takes extra time.

We use two engineers to do the deployment of Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

There are different types of licenses.

I rate the price of Palo Alto Networks WildFire a three out of five.

The solution uses artificial intelligence and it doesn't delay the normal process of auto-detecting the analysis of files. The response time is very fast for robotic files.

I rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire a nine out of ten.

The solution is used for threat protection.

The solution can be deployed on-prem and in the cloud.

All the features are valuable.

The technical support response needs improvement.

I have been a reseller of the solution for ten years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

A long-term customer who has been purchasing Palo Alto products from us for the past five or six years experienced major issues. Despite raising the issue with about ten tickets, the customer did not have an account manager at Palo Alto that we could turn to for assistance. Furthermore, the support team was not responding to their messages or the tickets they opened. Consequently, I had to take action to assist the customer. Unfortunately, I did not receive any response either. It took about four or five months for us to receive a reply, which was not even from Palo Alto but from the distributor we purchased the solution from. We cannot buy directly from Palo Alto. Ultimately, it was the distributor who helped us, as Palo Alto did not resolve the case.

Negative

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. The deployment of one firewall requires one day.

We implement the solution for our clients.

The pricing is affordable and fixed. I give the price an eight out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The Palo Alto Networks WildFire solution is effective, however, it is limited in terms of support. Therefore, I recommend using this solution only if adequate support is provided.

The solution is deployed on-premise.

The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN.

Palo Alto is the top leader in the Magic Quadrant of Gartner. So, I don't think it needs to improve anything, except maybe the speed to deploy the changes.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The stability is very good. It's at the top of the market.

The scalability is good.

I have never needed to contact technical support.

Initial setup is straightforward. It's user-friendly. It's not too difficult to use it, and the learning curve is pretty good.

We used a system integrator.

The solution is a bit expensive. You pay for security.

For the cost, I would rate the pricing a 5 out of 5.

Palo Alto is a good product, but in the future I will deploy FortiGate because I prefer it.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

There are things to improve, and nobody is a perfect 10 in security.

We use the product to identify and analyze unknown threats. This includes handling new files or URLs that are not yet known to be malicious. It operates in a secure environment, ensuring that no infrastructure is at risk while determining if a file is harmful.

The most valuable feature is WildFire's integration with other threat prevention modules on the firewall. This capability allows for the automatic marking of malicious URLs and rapid propagation of this information, which is crucial for defending against widespread phishing campaigns.

One area for improvement is the expansion of the sandbox environment to include a broader range of platforms, such as Linux, macOS, and mobile operating systems.

The solution is stable and effectively handles the analysis and identification of unknown threats without significant issues.

The platform is scalable as it integrates with other threat prevention modules.

The integration with threat prevention modules and the quick propagation of malicious URL data make WildFire a valuable tool for threat detection and response.

I rate it an eight. 

We had two 800-Series Palo Alto Firewalls, but as they reached end-of-life, we began researching alternatives. Ultimately, we chose to switch to Cisco Firepower, so we no longer use WildFire.

The most valuable feature for us is the VPN. We used GlobalProtect for the VPN, as well as site-to-site.

It is very simple to use.

The support needs to be improved because it takes too long to resolve severity-one issues.

Better integration with third-party products and services is needed.

The need to implement their own multifactor authentication, rather than relying on third-party add-ons for it.

They have malware protection and web-filtering in place, although they are not as effective as Titan or Cisco Umbrella.

I began working with Palo Alto WildFire a year ago when I joined the company.

It is a solid, stable network solution.

In terms of scalability, Palo Alto is at the top of the market.

Managing this solution we had six network administrators, who are network analysts. In terms of end-users, the entire company was using the Palo Alto network.

When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing. Sometimes you are left on the phone for three or four hours before you can speak with an engineer, which is very, very poor. If you have an emergency situation or a network outage of severity-one, then you cannot wait for hours to support your clients.

Palo Alto was the first solution of this type that we used. However, we have recently purchased Cisco Firepower and no longer work with Palo Alto products.

Prior to Firepower being released, Palo Alto was very simple and better than Cisco ASA. Now, however, Firepower is simpler and the support is outstanding. With Cisco, if you have a severity-one outage then it will be less than ten minutes before you get an engineer on the phone to help you.

I have also worked with Check Point and Juniper solutions, and I feel that scalability-wise, Palo Alto is better than the rest, except for perhaps Cisco, where it is neck and neck.

The setup is not complex. When you come from a CLI background of Cisco ASA or any other platform, Palo Alto is much easier. As long as you are familiar with the general steps in the procedure, it is not difficult.

This solution is very pricey and it depends on the package that you implement. There are sometimes promotions on, which can save on costs.

The Palo Alto models that we were using are the PA800-500 and PA830. 

I have seen people in different organizations and different industries set their firewall solutions up in different ways. It depends on the level of support, in terms of who will be maintaining the network. It also includes the level of knowledge they have, as well as their management preference. Some people choose Palo Alto because they don't care about the costs, and it is an easy solution to use, especially if they are already familiar with it. I would say that if they have the budget then this is a good choice and I recommend it.

However, if they are looking to consolidate all of their services, then the option to choose is definitely Cisco. It's a cloud-based solution with malware protection, filtering, and everything you need all in one box. It makes a lot of difference.

Finally, some people prefer FortiGate because the pricing is good and it is simple to use, whereas some people prefer Check Point for other reasons. It's an individual choice, but it should be well researched before the final choice is made.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My company uses Palo Alto Networks WildFire to protect itself from unknown or zero-day attacks. We use machine learning to send the file or the URL we've never seen before to the cloud and WildFire. WildFire uses machine learning and an appliance update before providing a signature in less than five minutes. All the customers globally receive the signature from WildFire. WildFire is a good feature in Palo Alto besides IPS allowing us to prepare for unknown attacks.

The most valuable features of the solution are its static and dynamic analysis that analyzes many of your files, allowing you to know if it is a good or the best file.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire should be more real-time in nature. The signature updates should happen in a minute or less than a minute to be a very good feature for the customer.

When an unknown attack occurs, Palo Alto Networks WildFire takes less than five minutes to confirm users about the attack, so it should be possible in a minute or less than that.

In the future, it should support uploading files to WildFire Cloud. The solution already supports many other file formats. We should be able to analyze any file before we send it to the cloud.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks WildFire for over four years. I am a reseller of Palo Alto solutions.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten since we never faced any issues.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Mostly we have enterprise-sized businesses with over 1,000 employees in such businesses.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

Regarding the steps for deployment, we need to go to the security profile of WildFire, which is something you can do before, or create a new custom WildFire profile. After the creation of the profile on WildFire, we use it after we can create a policy to check the unknown file and send it to the cloud. We use the policy to start with the deployment process.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten since it can be pretty expensive.

The pricing of the solution depends on the hardware model. Some can be cheap, while others can be more based on the hardware model. Our company only buys licenses for Palo Alto Networks WildFire, so we don't need any additional licenses.

I think the customer implementing a one-tier or two-tier firewall should have Palo Alto Networks WildFire's subscription. When the unknown types of attacks are coming in, we need to have WildFire for protection.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use it for DNS security, URL filtering, and threat prevention.

The global product feature, the VPN, needs improvement, and we need some enhanced features.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks WildFire for three years now.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is definitely stable.

We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable.  We currently have six thousand users for the product.

Technical support is responsive when we have used their services.

Positive

We were using Cisco for the last ten years and we wanted to change the product.

We migrated from a Cisco firewall to Palo Alto, so it took some time to migrate all the services.

Our migration process was completed by a third-party consultant.

When purchasing the product there are subscription fees involved.

We made the conversion between Cisco and Palo Alto Networks WildFire without any other options being considered.

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