Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

We use Palo Alto Networks WildFire for firewall and IT services. We also use it for bank security requirements. They are remarkable for support of threat analysis on files. 

There are always problems with the operational files. You can only do malware identification. That is the way that this device functions.

All of the traffic is scanned in a single flow, which improves the response times for the user. This is how Palo Alto Networks WildFire helps our organization.

We appreciate the support of Palo Alto Networks WildFire for our next-generation firewall equipment in deployment.

There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. Their database has good Information over threats because of Unit42 however there is a serious competition to the product from Cisco ThreatGrid and Umbrella

I don't think there are any major features that are different from Palo Alto versus their competitors but with time the PA needs to improvise on products and threat feed if it needs to be the leader

I regularly work with companies with over 2000 users and they safely use Palo Alto Networks WildFire. I haven't seen any problems with stability. 

At my company, we use it regularly. For my previous customers, it's a first for them to use Palo Alto products.

Using virtual settings, scalability with WildFire is awesome. On the physical configuration, it is harder and more independent. The scalability is limited there. 

There are very good options available with the Palo Alto Networks WildFire. They have given me options for all the support that I need. 

With internet speed, the settings range from 2GB or 10GB to 40GB. There are a lot of internet settings options, so I guess they're very scalable in that.

We are not an overly large company, so I can say safely around 400 to 2000 is the user base of people that we support.

Palo Alto's customer support is good. They are awesome. I would rate them nine out of ten for technical support services.

We have not compared this product with other but we would like to evaluate the options if they are available. 

They have many different options with Palo Alto WildFire and the setup is quick. The deployment normally takes around 15 minutes.

If you have all the details in hand, it does not take more than 15 minutes to deploy a wildfire and integrate them. Most of it has been deployed before the said timeframe. The only challenge is for tuning on policies and implementing it with DLP to make sure it is in compliance. The key point that I look for while protecting the customer is to make sure that they don't have any opportunities for a malware attack.

An integrator was not required for deployment. I did the installation myself. We had very good documentation. I just needed to read the documentation thoroughly and it was deployed.

Palo Alto does not require any additional costs to the standard licensing fees, but we have the regular license model. If I just want a firewall, then I need to buy two licenses. 

If we use a VM base, then I need to buy the VM base license, along with the support package from the provider. However, without the license fee, I need to buy IPS support separately.

Other products like Cortex Data Lake support also need to be licensed separately, but that is a wonderful feature. 

With Palo Alto, I can just go buy whatever extra features I want, and they give me a 30-day free license, so that is useful for me.

I can go ahead and buy the product, or if it is not for me anymore, it is free to try. That is a good way to sell their products too. Our subscription runs on a yearly base.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give Palo Alto Networks WildFire a 8 for safety.

It can do sandboxing on the premises, and it can be directly integrated with Palo Alto NGFW. The malware information on the file that has been sandboxing will be directly updated to the Palo Alto NGFW, and added to the Palo Alto Networks NGFW malware signature library. Also, the credential data within the file that has been sandboxing still be kept on the premises.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire can detect many types of attacks that are using malware embedded on files/URLs with minimum time, and it can increase the effectiveness of resources (time and people) to prevent the malware.

In my opinion, it could be developed to be dependent not only on signatures, but also on patterns and behavior of malware. What I would like to see in the next version/release is to be able to handle much more file types on premises during deployment, because now on premises deployment a .APK file must be sent to the cloud for sandboxing.

I can't remember exactly, but probably more than six months.

For now, I have no issues with the deployment.

For now, I have no issues with the stability.

For now, I have no issues with the scalability.

Both customer server and technical support are very good.

In our case, before we contact Palo Alto Networks technical support, we can contact the Palo Alto Networks local distributor, who provide Palo Alto Networks technical support locally.

I forgot what the name or product that used previously, but the reason I choose Palo Alto Networks wildfire is it integrated with Palo Alto Networks NGFW that already used on the network environment

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is simple.

We’re the ones who implement the Palo Alto Networks WildFire in our customers environments.

It’s not about what we will get directly from having Palo Alto Networks WildFire as an ATD device, but it’s all about the loss of resources you suffer if you don't have it implemented.

We use the solution for site-to-site VPNs and it replaces the proxy.

The most valuable features of the solution are user-friendliness, price, good security, and cloud-related options.

The solution can improve its traffic management.

I have been using the solution for three months.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a seven out of ten. We have seven thousand people using the solution.

We previously used Cisco Networks but we switched to Palo Alto Networks WildFire because it has more options that meet our needs.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The price is fair and comparable to other solutions.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

A limited number of people are required for maintenance. One person is enough for the day-to-day but we have overlapped for coverage. 

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is an ATP solution. It provides advanced threat protection, so it can protect customers against zero-day attacks.

The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire demonstrates good performance. It's stable.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire has good scalability.

We came across some issues with the Palo Alto support team, but overall their support is okay.

Like any other firewall, this product is okay, in terms of setup. The initial setup was very quick, and can be done within a few minutes.

This product and its license is expensive.

Most of the customers get a yearly subscription.

I didn't see any costs in addition to the standard license and fees for Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

We also provide Palo Alto Networks WildFire to our customers, and we've been dealing with it since it came into the product line.

We deployed this solution both on cloud and on-premises. It's a mixture of both types of deployment.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is a good solution. It has been able to mitigate a lot of threats and attacks.

We have a lot of customers using Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

We have network engineers who handle the deployment and maintenance of this solution, and they are the same people who handle the deployment and maintenance of Fortinet FortiGate.

We recommend this product to people who want to start using it, but if the customer only has limited budget, then we cannot recommend it.

I'm giving Palo Alto Networks WildFire a score of eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases are for firewalls, cloud, and on-premise.

It helps us when segmenting and securing the network and all sort of technologies, all sort of next generation needs. It's the next generation phases of firewall like anti-virus, sandboxing, wifi, and VPN. 

All of the features are quite good. 

Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that.

If there was anything extra for the endpoint security and VNC that would be good, but again it's coming with Palo Alto and must come with some additional cost.

It's very stable. With respect to scalability and stability both, I would say are quite scalable and very steady. I haven't seen any issues.

This solution is being used corporate-wide, more than a couple thousand people. 

Most of the time their technical support has been perfect. A few times a few of the tech support engineers did not have strong knowledge. Overall, though, it's good. 

I have worked with Cisco, Fortinet, Juniper, CheckPoint, too many of them.

The initial setup was straightforward. The setup took less than an hour, it's a simple firewall setup. 

It's a stable product. It's pretty expensive but with respect to value for money, it's okay.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them. When Wannacry first came out, wildfire was detecting it and dropping incoming threats within seconds. We were dropping over 10,000 files per day with no additional firewall load at all.

Dynamic analysis.

I am very happy with WildFire and can see no obvious areas of improvement at this point.

This product is rock solid in terms of stability.

There were no problems with scalability. We have rolled out more firewalls to clients, and no scalability issues were found.

Technical support is fine. We have never needed to contact them regarding WildFire.

We previously used Fortinet. However, we found it to miss a lot of incoming viruses, because at the time, they had no sandbox style service.

The setup was very easy. Simply license the feature and enable it within your scanning profiles.

This feature is implemented in-house.

As soon as it began dropping incoming threats, measured in days, that desktop scanners could not find, it hit its ROI.

It's not particularly cheap, but it is absolutely worth it.

We evaluated Fortinet and Cisco.

Do it.

• App-ID
• User-ID
• Ease of deployment and usability
• Filtering Mechanism like SP3 Engine

From a technical perspective this has given us a new high as this is how a technology solution should function. From a sales perspective, we have been able to pitch the solution to new customers as it seems cheap to customers when we bundle the solution, compared to getting each device for individual functions.

• IP SLA tracking
• GRE tunnel support

I believe these are the major improvements in the pipeline.

I've been using it for four years.

It crashes too frequently for a few boxes, which could be expected from a new vendor as it evolves. The best part is RMA, as you get the box back quickly if you have it in the contract.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

If it is Arrow support, it's pathetic. I wouldn't recommend them. However, if you go directly with the PA team they are the best tech junkies I have worked with.

6/10.

We used to have Netscreen as our favourite, but it went EOL. Being an MSP we have to have expertise with all the devices. Although, Netscreen is our favourite.

I would say that this is difficult to answer, as the setup would be adaptable based on the mode you use, and the way the firewall can be configured. If you ask an expert it would be straightforward. If you ask a newbie, it would be not that difficult to configure if you follow the mentioned steps.

Go forward, this is an amazing device to be implemented if you have the cost to bear.

Being able to discover malicious files unknown to most AV vendors.

It has allowed me to stop new attacks before they could gain a foothold in my network.

• Inspection over different protocols (not just HTTP/FTP)
• Inspecting more file types
• Providing information back to the community that it uses to support its product.

I've used it for three years. However, my current company isn't using the product. I took a different engineering route into the company and I decided to use other protection solutions and not Wildfire.

The deployment of Wildfire was surprisingly easy.

Wildfire itself was a very stable product.

I never had any issues with scalability. When I enabled it, it seemed to work in the environment that the firewall was already servicing.

Great when I was at a large company but average or less than average at a small company.

Overall their support people are better than most tech companies.

There was no solution in this space before Wildfire. Both FireEye and Wildfire came onto the market right around the same time.

It was straightforward as I could, literally, turn on the firewall settings in five minutes or less.

You really don't need to pay to turn it on. The configuration is very simple.

There are two levels of Wildfire.

1. The free version which is great, so I would guess there is no ROI on this version
2. Then there is the subscription version of the service and this is a very affordable yearly subscription per firewall

Initially, the product doesn't cost anything for the first tier of usage you can prove the product before buying it.

• FireEye
• Blue Coat
• ProofPoint.
• Even as the more the list of products I look at each year is pretty long.

If you're running Palo Alto firewalls there is no reason not to use it at the free level. Once you have run it for a while at the basic level, you can make an educated decision if it's worth paying for the subscription (it is).