Stormshield Network Security Reviews

We use this solution for the security of our local network.

The performance of this solution is good.

This solution is quick and easy to configure.

The Web GUI is easy to use. It is clear and I have had no problems with it.

Stormshield is easy for administrators to use.

The technical support for this solution needs to be improved.

This is not a next-generation firewall.

The VPN portal needs to be improved, although it functions.

This solution does not have support for a sandbox.

We used to have more bugs and crashes, and trouble with the Anti-Spam feature, but the solution is now ok.

We have between one hundred and one hundred and fifty users.

The users' devices include Wi-Fi, phones, and computers. We also have five servers on the network. All of our users are end-users.

The technical support for this solution in Poland is not good.

I have been in touch with them by phone and by email. Their response time is not quick.

The initial setup of this solution is easy. The configuration is quick and easy.

The price of this solution and the price of support are ok. They are not expensive. Support is paid on a yearly basis.

Purchasing additional options is expensive.

This is a solution that is stable and not expensive, but it is not a next-generation firewall. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use Stormshield Network Security for IPsec VPN, URL filtering, QoS and the other ones. We also use it for SSL VPN for the user and some other things.

I like that it works fine. Stormshield is a very good solution.

It could be better if it were more user-friendly for us as we dont use it very often evn if we never had problems to modify setup when needed.

I have been using Stormshield Network Security for about four years.

Stormshield Network Security is a very stable solution. We haven't had any problems with it.

The solution works perfectly so we never had to contact technical support

We used Arkoon solution during 10 years and it worked perfectly. Arkoon evolved and was replaced by Stormshield solutions

Vendor team did it for us using previous Arkoon setup. It was done in a half day.

vendor team : level of expertise was perfect (10/10)

We bought a three-year license, and we renew it whenever it expires. The price could be lower but firewall licenses are always expensive.

I would tell potential users that it's a very good solution although I heard Palo Alto was also a very good solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Stormshield Network Security a nine.

• Very good Web user interface
• Reports about internal machines needing security fixes
• Simple clustering

Tells me which internal machines could have security issues by passively monitoring traffic and spotting un-patched systems.

Being more cost effective. I went with a pair of Watchguard M300 recently when buying a new firewall cluster for our own use because it was way cheaper than NetASQ/Stormshield N700 while being faster, and it offers true multi-master firewall clustering if needed.

3+ years

Not really.

None.

No multi-master clustering.

Very good. Because of their presales support helping me with initial setup, I decided to go with NetASQ in the first place. Support after the sale has been equally good as well.

Excellent.

Cisco ASA. Their GUI was OK for most things, but when I had to start messing with CLI, GUI was no longer safe option to use.

A bit more complex, because I turned on man security features. For simple packet filter it would be way easier than with Cisco.

Both. Vendor helped us a lot during preparation and initial setup. Very pleased with their technical expertise.

Lower prices for the entry level boxes. Competition is not bad at lower prices.

The primary use is to protect the company's IT infrastructure.

The solution has improved my organization because I can see what traffic is happening and I can use it to block and prevent attacks.

All of the features are valuable.

The pricing could be improved. For me, in terms of the solution, what they currently have is enough. A more user-friendly interface would be helpful.

The solution is very stable. We have about 25 people. We don't use the antivirus solution, we just use the firewall. 

The solution is very scalable.

Technical support is okay.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was okay. It was not too complex. It was normal. There's only one admin, which is me. It only takes one person, me, to maintain.

We license on a yearly basis. It's expensive. At the moment, there aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I'm still evaluating, but I have looked at pfSense and Check Point software.

The product is continuously being used every day. I use quite an old interface for this, and I don't know what the current version is like. I would rate this solution a 7 out of 10 because from time to time there are some little issues that I don't understand.

Netasq Seismo is valuable.

• Management interface (GUI)
• IPS engine
• Log management

I've used the UTM for 15 months.

Always, especially in the in-line mode (bridge mode). It sounds like it should be easy to integrate on an existing network, but this is not true as the product was not functioning as expected/designed.

Always as it unexpectedly reboots. The product is not stable at all, difficult to configure and manage.

I have never had the chance to deploy more than two units or in a large environment.

They need to have people that are able to communicate efficiently using the English language. Before working with Netasq, I used to deal with Fortinet a lot, and there is no way that you can make any sort of comparison.

Above average.

Fortinet, Dell SonicWall and Check Point because these products offer a wide range of features that are not available with Netasq.

The router mode works fine but this was not the case with bridge mode.

We implemented it in-house.

It's average.

No, which was a big mistake but the management decided at that time to go with Netasq since there was no existing distributor in Middle East region.

I don’t recommend this product at all. Go with Fortinet, Juniper or Check Point unless you don’t have the required budget then Netasq or any other low grade UTM might be enough for you.

The primary use case of this solution is for network security, to deploy controlled users, and to prevent the network from attacks.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises.

The solution permits me to control everything in the network including, users, Wi-Fi, access, Kuta for users, and load balancing.

It has also taught me how to deal with users with vulnerabilities, the good side and the bad side of the solution, and how to control users from anywhere.

The most valuable features of this solution are the URL filtering database. It is great and contains all internet categories.

The interface has great scalability. I can turn them into what I want including hybrid, bridge, or into a router mode.

The security has no back doors. It's more secure than other solutions and the hardware performance is also better than others.

The pricing of this solution needs to be decreased.

Authentication needs to be improved. If any user out of my domain wants to authenticate, he can't because the captive portal is not compatible with many browsers, like Google Chrome. This is a big problem that we are having with the captive portal. It needs to be improved.

Also, security policy needs to be more straightforward and easier.

In the next release, I would like to see the Security Policy simplified. It has a few features, like, Filter-NAT, URL filtering, and SSL filtering, but it would be nice if there were a way to combine the features in one tab or to create a setup wizard for this option.

I would like to create a Filer-NAT rule to decrypt or to block some sites with HTTPS and HTTP. I think that there is a way to combine them using a wizard to create the rule.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable.

We have five hundred users, and six of them are technicians.

I am from the Middle East and they are in America. I contacted them twice and they were very helpful. They helped me to test the situation.

Previously we did not use another solution. This was the first one.

The initial setup was not complex for me, but it was for other technicians who were using the firewall. They need time to understand how the firewall is used.

The deployment took about two days to complete and deploy correctly.

The implementation was done by myself. I am the technical support in Egypt. I have been told by other agents that they prefer to work with me and no other agents.

You can choose between a standard license and a premium license.

Before choosing, we evaluated FortiGate. It was lower than Stormshield by almost double.

We chose to go with Stormshield because it is well known on the market, just like Apple and Samsung. Most are aware of this solution and go with it.

Also, it has task managing, and I haven't seen it in any other solution.

I did a comparison between FortiGate, Sophos, and Stormshield. The result was that Stormshield was better. It is stable and it has great hardware performance and security features.

I would advise others to buy an extended license for this solution. They will benefit from Kasperky Antivirus, the extended control option, and the vulnerability manager. It's a great tool for IT.  

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for Stormshield Network Security is to protect the company IT infrastructure. We don't use an antivirus solution from them. We just use the firewall.

This product has improved the way our organization functions. I can see what traffic is going on. I can easily block any programs from attacks.

Everything with Stormshield Network Security is valuable.

The main area of this product that has room for improvement is pricing. Stormshield Network Security is quite expensive.

For me, what they currently have with features is enough. Maybe because I use a quite old interface of this, the price and a more user-friendly interface could be improved.

Stormshield Network Security is very stable.

Stormshield Network Security is scalable. We have twenty-five users. All end users are some kind of employees. For administration, it's only me for deployment and maintenance.

This product is currently being used every day.

Stormshield Network Security was the first firewall that we implemented.

The initial setup was not too complex. It was normal.

We are a reseller of the product.

Our license for Stormshield Network Security is on an annual basis. It should be less expensive.

We were choosing between pfSense and Check Point.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a seven because from time to time there are some little issues. You don't know what is going on.

The firewalling as we can create object groups and apply a rule to this group. You can have IP services, subnets, and network masks in the same group.

Filters and URL filtering helped us to optimize our bandwidth.

An application firewall like other next generation firewalls have. We still haven't implemented Stormshield. I hope it'll be better for this part.

I've been using it for eight years, and we're currently migrating onto StormShield.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10.

9/10.

Eight years ago, we were using an old 3Com firewall.

It was straightforward and it's done though a user-friendly console manager.

We implemented it in-house.

• Checkpoint
• Cisco