WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

We primarily use WatchGuard Firebox like a typical firewall, to protect ourselves from outside and inside threats. 

I have the WatchGuard Firebox M270, deployed on-premise. 

WatchGuard Firebox improved our organization by acting as a firewall, with all the specific components of one. If you have an antiviral solution, you can see how many were blocked; from where they were blocked; what the statistics are on the areas that the attacks came from; and if there are attempts, or if they do get through the firewall, where they came from and where they went. You know exactly what to look for, to see if there is any kind of penetration inside your system, or if anything has been compromised, and you can take any measurements against these threats. 

All of the features have been valuable. There's nothing on my M270 that I'm not using. If you have remote access, you can see how many users are coming from the outside world to be connected to the systems, through the virus systems that we have behind the firewall, in order to gain access to their files and do their work. We can also see how long they stay online and whether these connections are closed forcefully or for any other reasons, such as a glitch or some kind of misbehavior, to see if internet traffic is optimized and if that particular traffic is under company policies, concerning which websites were visited. 

There's always room for improvement, especially if the threats are getting more sophisticated and the IT department cannot sufficiently meet this kind of sophistication with their own knowledge and experience. Knowing that this solution can get up to the level of addressing a lot of these threats is something that everybody wishes for. If we look at the dark web and the lawful web, they are two opposites, and if these two good and bad collide in the world of the internet, you want the best possible product—especially if you cannot get to that point of knowledge. I am just an individual and end user, with limited knowledge of usage. That's why I say there's always room for improvement, from their side and also from mine, because by knowing exactly what they can achieve and the knowledge that they can get on an everyday basis, and the portion that is understandable to me, it's an improvement for them as well. 

Most of the features that I have right now are more than okay with me, but something like a better interface is always worth suggesting. Also, things like computer-based training on firewalls and specific solutions—especially in things that have been deployed on every new version—is usually something that we need to see in order to understand what, exactly, these people have created for us. 

I have been a WatchGuard user since 2004. 

This solution is stable. 

I am the only one who maintains the firewall—we don't have a team to handle it. 

This solution has been scalable to the level that my company wants. 

Behind the firewall, we have 60 users. On a daily basis, there are approximately 40 to 45 users in the office: they are people from the purchasing department, technical department, accounting department, operation department, etc. 

In general, their support is okay, and nothing fancy. We have had a few chats and a few cases on several things that I wanted to do by myself, but needed some guidance on. The speed is not the speed of light, but we are getting through to what we want to have within a day or so. 

I don't have any comparison to make with a solution that's on the same level as WatchGuard Firebox. We had some experience with all of the Cisco firewalls, but they didn't have the same level of security that we have with our existing firewall. Those were quite old, so I cannot really compare that old technology with something that is so new. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward because we are a small company. We have 50 people working at this company, so it's a rather small installation with no fancy or complex configuration. The deployment took an hour or so, but from that point on, there have been numerous hours of work to get up to the point we're at now with our firewall solution. 

It's quite easy to deploy because the initial installation doesn't involve many fancy things. Out of the box, it's quite clear that it has features that need to be blocked, and these features have already been blocked by default, to help anybody deploying this solution. It's like having 35%-40% of your configuration ready, so you only need to add another 25%-30% to reach approximately 70% of your full configuration, which takes no more than a couple of hours. The additional 30% are the small, exact things and the prediction correction, the things that are usually done on a firewall solution in the following hours, days, months, years by the users of the device. However, you can reach the level that you personally believe in, 100%, within a matter of days if you know exactly what you need to do. 

I implemented this solution all by myself, since I was lucky enough to have basic firewall knowledge. Our implementation strategy was to get to the level, as fast as possible, where I could meet the minimum requirements of the company, concerning its firewall policy. 

I have definitely seen a return on investment. To be exact, you cannot really value the return of investment on this kind of product because an IT product usually delivers services that cannot really be measured in money. Rather, it can be measure in things that we can do and things that we cannot do. So, money-wise, you cannot really measure it, but if I'm measuring it on things that I wanted to achieve with a device, there was a 100% return back. 

The licensing contract we have is on a three-year basis. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fees—usually, every three years, we just purchase or renew the same license and we are okay. Every six years, we completely change the firewall, but that's the usual schema. So after three years, we just renew the licenses for another three years, and then after that particular period of time, we just purchase another firewall equivalent to the ones that we currently use.

I rate WatchGuard Firebox an eight out of ten. 

This is a solid device and it delivers what it says. It doesn't do fancy or extraordinary things, but it does delivery exactly what it's supposed to deliver. 

Our primary use cases are for the firewall and for limited routing for small to medium-sized businesses. 

I had a client that was saturated with RDP, remote desktop attempts, while using a standard low, consumer-grade firewall. Putting in WatchGuard allowed me to drop a lot of that traffic and reduce a lot of load on their otherwise poorly performing Internet connection.

Reporting PCI and HIPAA compliance reporting, firmware updates, cloud-based firmware updates all make for visibility within the client site much easier. I can provide comprehensive reporting on user activity and user behavior which goes along with user productivity. It has excellent mobile SSL VPN capabilities that have allowed for very rapid deployment of remote workers during our current situation.

As a whole, it has a very low requirement for ongoing interaction. It's very self-sufficient. If properly patched, it has very high reliability. The total cost of ownership once deployed is very low.

It absolutely saves us time. All firewalls can be deployed with a very basic configuration in a reasonable amount of time. The uniform way in which WatchGuard can be managed allows for the deployment of much more comprehensive configurations more quickly. When it comes to troubleshooting and identifying any kind of communication issue, they use a hierarchal policy layout. It allows you to manipulate the order of precedence, simplifying troubleshooting by tenfold. Compared to a competitor, I spend less than 10% of the amount of time on WatchGuard that a similar task would take on a Meraki, a FortiGate, or a SonicWall.

The most valuable features are: 

• The unified threat management bundle
• Advanced threat detection and response
• APT Blocker
• Zero-day threat detection.

With most Internet traffic being encrypted, it is much more difficult for firewalls to detect threats. Some of the advanced features, such as the APT Blocker and the advanced threat protection, use advanced logistics to look for behavioral, nonpattern related threats. And the threat detection and response has the capability of working with the endpoints to do a correlated threat detection.

For most people, they don't think about one workstation having a denied access, but when multiple workstations throughout a network have requests that are denied in a short period of time, one of the only ways you can detect that something nefarious is going on is through a correlated threat detection. And WatchGuard has that capability that integrates at the endpoint level and the firewall together, giving it a much better picture of what's going on in the network.

It is the single easiest firewall to troubleshoot I have ever worked with. It deploys very rapidly in the event that a catastrophic failure requires the box to be replaced. The replacement box can be put in place in a matter of minutes. Every single Firebox, regardless of its size and capability, can run the exact same management OS. Unlike some of the competitors where you have dissimilar behavior and features in the management interface, WatchGuard's uniform across the board from its smallest appliance to its very largest, making it very, very simple to troubleshoot, recover, or transition a customer to a larger appliance.

It absolutely provides us with layered security. It has one of the most robust unified threat bundles available with Gateway AntiVirus, APT Blocker. It does DNS control. It does webpage reputation enabled defense. It effectively screens out a lot of the threats before the user ever has an attempt to get to them.

Externally it does a very good job of identifying the most common threat vectors, as well as different transported links, attachments, and things of that nature because of the endpoint integration. It helps protect from internal and external threats, along with payload type, and zero-day threats.

The cloud visibility feature has improved our ability to detect and react to threats or other issues in our network. It has improved firmware upgrades and maintenance reporting as well as investigating and detecting problems or potential threats.

It has reduced my labor cost to monthly manage a firewall by 60%.

The data loss protection works well, but it could be easier to configure. The complexity of data loss protection makes it a more difficult feature to fully leverage. Better integration with third-party, two-factor authentication would be advantageous.

I have been using WatchGuard Firebox for fifteen years. 

We mostly use the T series: T30s, T70s, some M3, and 400 series.

It is the most stable firewall I work with. The incidence of failure is very low, maybe once every two years.

It's very scalable. Because it has the unified configuration interface and the unified tools, or the common tools that are used from the smallest to the lowest, a ton of time and configuration, and thereby money, is saved during an upgrade, for example. The time to take an upgrade to a new appliance is a fraction of the time it would be with a competitor because of the direct portability of the configuration from the prior firewall.

We have one engineer and one part-time technician to maintain approximately 75 WatchGuards for limited, physical installations and onsite. It is very reasonable for one or two engineers to manage 200 to 300 WatchGuards. It's very reasonable.

We have just a single location in which we do use the T70 box and WatchGuard is in place at 95% of our clientele. We do not replace viable commercial-grade solutions until such time that they are ending their licensing or whatever. We do not replace FortiGates or SonicWalls while they're still viable. However, when the opportunity to replace one arises, it is our first suggestion to the client.

I do not or have not had to use technical support very often, but I find it to be excellent. They're very responsive and very knowledgeable. I get engineers from a similar time zone. They're very skilled engineers and very invested in end-user satisfaction. Even though they are 100% channel-driven, they take end-users satisfaction very seriously.

The complexity of configuring a Sonic Wall, for example, is much, much greater than that of a WatchGuard. Identical tasks can be completed in a WatchGuard in a fraction of the time as a SonicWall. When comparing similar models, the performance of Meraki is far inferior to the WatchGuard. Its capabilities are inferior to WatchGuard. It's a simple cloud interface. Meraki's simple cloud interface is probably more appropriate for a less experienced engineer. FortiGate lacks some advanced features that WatchGuard has, but my predominant issue with FortiGate is that when all the unified threat management utilities are enabled, performance on FortiGate is inferior. Although it has capabilities, when fully enabled it does not perform as well as WatchGuard.

The initial setup is very straightforward. I'm able to deploy a standard template after activating the device. The activation is very simple and takes just a few minutes. Then a base configuration can be applied once the firmware has been updated and a box can be prepared for initial deployment within 7 to 10 minutes after it boots. 

It took 45 minutes to set up.

In terms of the implementation strategy, I have an implementation baseline of minimum acceptable settings and then it is adjusted based on client needs.

We deploy it to distributed locations in one of two ways. The device can be drop-shipped to the user or the endpoint and a cloud configuration deployment can be pushed to the box. My preferred method is to receive the box, perform a firmware update and a base configuration, and then ship the box.

I would recommend working with a partner for an expert-level deployment. It greatly reduces the time to deploy it. An experienced engineer can then deploy the product very rapidly and can often provide instruction on how best to maintain the product. But otherwise, the deployment is very straightforward.

They are very low maintenance, they have a very high rate of my end-user satisfaction. I'm able to provide excellent levels of service to my end-users and my customers. I would say that they have a very high value and a good return on the investment.

Generally speaking, I find the three years of live and total security to be the best option. By going with their total security, you do get the endpoint protection component of the threat detection and response. Typically the trade-in options, depending on your prior firewall, are options that they should request or pursue when dealing with their provider. Those programs are usually available, but they're not always offered by a provider unless you ask.

I would rate WatchGuard Firebox a ten out of ten. 

We use it to keep people out and we use it for a VPN.

The only thing that we care about is that we're kept safe from any attacks. That is important. The VPN is very secure and that's of huge importance because we have remote users who depend on it to do their jobs. So that's crucial.

The improvement it's provided is to our security. We don't have issues with rogue access, with people coming in here, or having access to our, data who shouldn't. That is huge, of course.

The solution simplifies my job. I don't even have to think about it. Everything is set and I leave it alone. And it just does its job. I would estimate it saves me at least 20 hours a month because I don't have to worry about things. It's set and it just runs.

WatchGuard has increased productivity because our VPN is stable. It's up. It doesn't go down. We used to have an issue with remote connectivity but that's no longer a problem. Having a VPN is very big for us.

• We have firewall policies in place to keep safe from malware and we rely heavily on it for our secure VPN.
• In terms of usability, the web interface is great.
  
• The throughput is great. It's perfect. We have no issues whatsoever.
• The management features are very powerful, although I don't use the reporting features at all.

The software base, the management piece that goes onto a server, is not as user-friendly as I would like. There are three different pieces that you have to manage, so it's a little bit convoluted, in my opinion. For people who use it all the time, it's great. But I don't use the management interface all the time.

Overall, it's powerful enough, so that is something that we can overlook.

It's very stable and it meets our needs. The stability is huge. It's rock-solid.

It's been able to handle anything we've thrown at it so far. We've never had an issue.

We upgrade as the models we have become obsolete. We upgrade to newer ones and they're usually on a three-year rotation, which is fine for us.

I haven't had to use technical support very often, but when I have they've been great.

We tried a software-based solution. I don't even remember what it was now.

The initial setup wasn't too bad. We didn't have any problems with it. It took a couple of hours.

We planned ahead of time, put the policies in place on paper and then tested them out. We then went live with it and fine-tuned it as necessary.

Our reseller helped with deployment. Our experience with them was great. We still use them.

We pay about $3,500 every three years. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

We looked into offerings from Dell EMC, from Fortigate, and Cisco. But it was just going to be too much of a nightmare.

Rely on your vendor.

For us, it's in use every day. it's 24/7.

We're not using the solution's cloud visibility feature. That's something you have to pay for, and we haven't. I would love to, but there's a wireless piece and it's just too expensive. They have a wireless product that integrates perfectly with the WatchGuard appliance. But that's just not a reality for us because of the cost of those appliances. We would love to but just can't.

In terms of users, we've got about 15 people worldwide. They do support, testing - all of them use remote access. And then we have our internal users as well. It keeps us safe internally and our remote users are able to work with a reliable connection. It's very reliable.

I'm the only one who manages the firewall. If I need any help, there is a local vendor that helps me out as well. We're a small company but it's been great for us. I'm not that technical but I just know it works.

WatchGuard is a ten out of ten for me, because of its reliability.

I'm deploying the WatchGuard Firebox for many of my clients, and they all stay satisfied with the product. The primary reason as a common request from most of the users is to protect the environment from the outside network attacks. It is popular because of its security layers dependencies and its great performance.

The proxy policy and packet filtering templates make it very clear while I am configuring the Firebox for customers. Also, the variety of actions that are designed per kind of packet payload are dependent on the protocol's payload.

The Firebox is developing most of my client's infrastructures, starting from internet access and its amazing protocol-oriented proxy policies. It also has a deep understanding of the packets, meanwhile the most powerful HTTPS inspection features.

It is supported by the VPN, either Branch office or mobile users.

In addition to its impressive extraordinary DNS security, it has an access portal, which is a feature for publishing web applications, cloud applications, or even publishing internal RDP and SSH. 

https://www.watchguard.com/wgrd-resource-center/2019-nss-labs-ngfw-group-test

The traffic management feature is very flexible and it let you manage varieties of our customer's needs as it is working per policy, for all policies, and per IP address. You can apply it also per application or application category, all in the same proxy policy.

The differences between backup and restore and the configuration file allow us to perform a migration from one box to another in a single click.

The security that is used for defending from the attacks is very good. As an example, for the HTTP packet, you will find botnet protection, Reputation Enabled Defense "RED" and DNSWatch "the DNS security", in addition to the AV gateway. They are all working together to protect internet access.

I would like to see the number of management consoles reduced. As it is now, Firebox can be configured using the web UI, WatchGuard System Manager, Dimension server, and from the cloud. This should be done without affecting the way we deal with the configuration file, as it's one of the strongest points in making its implementation smooth and easy.

I would like to see the devices made more flexible by adding modules to increase the ports that we can use. As it's started from T80, the last edition of tabletop appliances, it should also be applied to all M series appliances.

As I work as a services provider, I have used many different solutions. I find WatchGuard Firebox provides very good value. as you find in the following points "Not everything":-

1. Configuration migration between boxes.

2. More flexible while applying traffic management.

3. Best performance.

4. Security layers and its dependencies.

5. Protocol oriented.

6. Rapid deploy feature that it let you make a total configuration remotely for a box on its default factory mode.

7. total protection for inbound and outbound traffic by applying the policies with a deep understanding of the traffic. 

8. The DNS security and how it stops the malicious DNS requests on the scale of network security and its endpoint for mobile users to apply the same while they are outside the environment.

9. SD-WAN feature and how it deals with lines quality by its Jitter, loss, and latency.

10. The exception for sites, ports, and IPs, it has a huge variety and you can do it at many levels. Before the policies starting already in the default threat protection, Or in the global settings but after the policies starting to scan then you can avoid all of that per policy per protection type which is meaning that you can expect something from geolocation or WebBlocker or APT Blocker, etc...

11. there are some other features in the box Access Portal, Application Control, APT Blocker, Botnet Detection, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Gateway AntiVirus, DNSWatch, Geolocation, IntelligentAV, Intrusion Prevention Service (IPS), Reputation Enabled Defense (RED), spamBlocker, Threat Detection and Response, and WebBlocker.

We use it as a firewall. It protects us from security threats and uses a VPN tunnel.

WatchGuard Firebox made it so that I can connect to my remote offices without having to set up every computer to connect to our headquarters. Now, the remote offices can all just login to their system and work as if they are here at our headquarters.

The throughput and performance are excellent. I have never had a problem with them.

The solution provides our business with layered security. It gives us the ability to prevent traffic from coming in on certain ports and the ability to navigate certain traffic to different locations, not letting it just come into my system and do whatever it wants to do.

The VPN and tunnel between the two different clients. 

The ability to route Internet traffic to certain computers or IP addresses based on ports, etc. It provides me with ease of use, allowing navigation without having to do too much networking. It is all in a user friendly location.

The product is very usable. I haven't had too many issues with it. It seems to always run and be easy to make changes to, as long as you know what you want to do. There is plenty of documentation online to how to do what you need to do.

It simplifies my job because I can make any changes all in one location. I can login at the user-friendly site versus trying to do it in a programming or networking level site.

There is always room to get better, which is why I gave the solution a nine out of 10.

The stability is great. I have only had one go out on me, and it was because of my issue. 

We have one IT person for deployment and maintenance.

It is very scalable. I don't see an issue with scaling. I could always add another system by buying a new box and adding the connection. It would be easy.

I would assume anybody connected to the Internet is using WatchGuard, because they are using their block sites, etc. Everybody in our company is using the Internet, which is around 60 to 70 people. However, the people who are really using it are the people that work at different remote locations and login either via the tunnel or VPN. That is roughly around 15 to 20 people who do data entry and processing.

We do not have plans to increase usage for a couple years.

The technical support was good. Last year, I had an issue with one of the Fireboxes going down. It was overheated, because my server room became overheated and this fried it. However, the technical support was excellent. They got me a Firebox out as soon as possible, which helped me resolve the problem, getting it back up and running. They were great.

I didn't do the setup.

The deployment took about a couple of days, because when we were initially setting it up, we didn't understand everything to do with IPs. Now that we've played with it over time, we understand what it's doing and how it's working. It is definitely easier and faster now, but the first time building it was at least a couple of days.

When we deploy the product to other locations, we usually just get a box. On it, we make a copy of another box, importing the information into the new box, then change the settings that need to connect to the IP address on the incoming box. After that, we just run out and change the ports over, then go. It's not hard at all.

We set it up ourselves.

The solution saves us about an hour a month.

Read up about it. Understand what each of the settings are doing and use the resources that you have to get the best knowledge before implementing.

It's pretty simple to use. It's pretty simple to understand, and there's plenty of documentation. It does a pretty good job of what it is meant to do.

We are not using the solution’s Cloud Visibility feature.

The primary use case is it is a firewall solution. One of the major selling points was that WatchGuard does adapt in real-time as new threats are discovered, and they push out fixes in real-time.

A lot of our servers have been migrated to the cloud, so it is really our primary solution right now.

One of the things that it has done is we have been able to start cutting down on extraneous web traffic. We make sure that our bandwidth is being used for business functions rather than for downloading or streaming media files.

It very much simplifies my job. Before we got the WatchGuard solution, I was doing everything on a per machine basis. All of the security, firewall, and port security had to be done on the front-end before anything could go out. This could take hours to days depending on the system being used, and then it would have to be in the IT department getting provisioned. Now, the provisioning goes more toward what types of software are needed. We have it completely unified across locations with a security standard through the WatchGuard systems due to the roles that we've set up for the organization. We just set the same roles in place, then we are able to ensure that everything is uniform across all locations.

Productivity, especially within the IT department, has increased due to the time that we used to spend on each machine can now be spent on the network level. This allows us to turn our attention to other tasks, such as creating in-house systems, so we can roll out changes faster and be more responsive to the needs of our business.

One of the most valuable features is the Geolocation. Because we aren't a multinational corporation, it allows me to look at things which might be suspicious to make sure that they are legitimate transactions rather than people sniffing around the network.

I have found the reporting and management to be pretty useful a lot of times. When the reporting did come up short, it was due to a configuration error on my part. Anytime that I've had to look up historical information, I found that everything I have needed has been there and it has allowed me to piece together what happened.

We do a lot of work with cloud-based and Internet-based vendors. A lot of times when we are on the phone with them, I find that it is a bit more technical than they are used to when we are trying to set up specific exceptions to the firewall. We ask for the ports that it's going to use or the block of addresses that they're going to be going from. A lot of times the only thing that they have for us is the web address that they want me to whitelist. Unless I'm missing that functionality, it seems like it is looking more for those technical data points, essentially. A lot of times, I'm running into a problem where there's a lack of give and take between WatchGuard and me. We get it figured out eventually, but it would just be nice if there was a way to say, "We just want to whitelist this address."

It is a very stable solution. 

Once we had it set up the way we wanted, it seemed to be running extremely well.

For deployment and management, it's just me along with the reselling group (POA).

We have not reached any scalability issues, so far. We have used it in clinics as small as a few practitioners and ones that have more than 30 providers. We have never experienced any issues with the product slowing down or failing in any way.

There are five different users, I'm the main power user of it, and I essentially set up the rule sets and work to ensure that the system is delivering what is needed. The other users are more of administrative users who are viewing the web traffic within their own departments.

So far, I haven't needed to go to the solution's technical support.

We were just using on system firewalls. We were getting to the point where we needed to consider a network-based solution of a physical firewall. WatchGuard came highly recommended from our consultants when we partnered with POA.

At first, I did the guided set up where I chose the rules of what to block and what not to block. That was fairly simple. There are a few things that I had to go in and change. That took me a little bit of time to figure out. Overall, it was pretty simple. 

When logging in and registering it, I did run into an issue where I had to spend about an hour reading to try and figure out why I couldn't activate it. I contacted my reseller and they helped me with it.

The deployment took about two and a half hours.

Implementation strategy was more about my bosses wanting to get in, then set it up afterward. It was more about let's get it in place, get it working, and then we'll lock things down as we need to.

We have hubs in multiple locations. Our strategy for implementing these was once the first one was installed in our main location, then we had the role set up the way we wanted it for the entire organization. We used that to order additional Fireboxes and took them to our other locations. Those were preloaded with the same role sets and put online.

We used Pacific Office Automation. We had a very good experience with them. With the few bumps in the road that we had following the setup, we called them. We let them know what was going on and they helped us resolve the issues quickly.

It saves a lot of time. On a weekly basis, without having to do a per machine basis, it probably saves me about three and a half to four hours a week.

I think we might be subscribed to one or two of the premium features.

We were evaluating a Cisco solution as well. 

Take a look at the needs of your business and how reactive you need to have your firewall solution be. One of the major selling points for our corporate board was: As new threats come up, WatchGuard is constantly taking the information coming in and looking for a solution, then pushing it out. That was one of the major selling points for us. The field that we're in takes security very seriously. We wanted to make sure that we were protecting our client's information. When it came down to it, that was a major selling point for us.

There was a bit of a learning curve. Once I was in it for about a week or two, I found it simple and intuitive to use.

With the throughput, the only issues that we found were at the very beginning, and that was due to a misconfiguration on my part. There hasn't been a noticeable change in slow down from the throughput the way that some firewall solutions might cause. Now, my end users don't even realize that it is there.

We are not using the solution's cloud visibility feature.

Right now, we are on the base usage. It's a firewall solution for us and we haven't really had the chance to dig into the advanced features that much. I plan to expand how we use it in the future, as time allows.

I'm very happy with it so far. I need some more data points to really firm that up. However, at this time, what I'm basing the eight (out of 10) off of is the ease of use, the ease of setup, and its learning curve. Once you learn how to use the system, it is very well-organized. It does save us so much time. The drawbacks are just sometimes not having the technical information that we need in order to easily make connections with all of our Internet-based clients, but we can put the work in and still get it done.

We use them for perimeter security and also to manage virtual LANs.

The main benefit for us is the ability to manage the VLANs. It allows us to monitor types of traffic and to actually review and determine what traffic we want to allow and deny. It also allows us to modify the categories of restrictions that need to be applied.

It has also simplified some of the processes that we have. For example, we were having some issues in identifying where most of our bandwidth was being used up, which devices and which users, and what they were using the bandwidth to do. Were they watching videos or were they looking at some other bandwidth-intensive site or application? We have been able to determine user behavior on the network.

We are quite happy with the Firebox. It really helps us with the ease of managing firewalls at other locations. It has really helped us save time by not having to go to other locations. We have devices at two smaller offices, where we don't have IT staff. It has allowed us to remotely manage and update the firewalls at those locations. It's saving us at least four hours a week.

I don't think it has helped improve productivity in terms of efficiency, but it has enabled us to improve the security of the network. We don't have to worry as much about where the users are going. And if a user was blocked, it will let us know why they were blocked, what category of trip was being blocked, or what policy it was blocked under. Even if our staff is going to a legitimate site, but the site is under a wrong category, it allows us to put that site on our exemption list to allow it.

It has also really helped us with our management and to monitor internet usage. Our department is just three people and it has made it very easy for us to manage.

• Two of the functionalities we use most are the traffic monitoring and the full panel dashboard. Those are two things that are very useful for us.
• It's very easy to use. The interface does not present a challenge for the user. It is a great device for small businesses with up to 500 users. It allows easy management of all devices from one central device and updates are very easy as well.
• The performance is also very good. The throughput is excellent. I've not had any issues with that so far.
• The reporting and management features are excellent. They're easy to navigate and very intuitive, and reports are easy to read.
• In addition, it provides us with layered security. It allows us to determine what types of access, to which networks, we want to allow or deny.
• We also like the site-to-site VPN that allows us to connect to and securely access devices at other locations.

I would like to have a little more control over access points and the ability to see the bandwidth that is passing through a specific access point. We are not able to see that. We can see what traffic is passing through the Firebox itself, but we can't identify if it is coming from a particular access point or not.

We have used WatchGuard Firebox for seven years.

The Firebox is very stable. We have not had a failure over the seven years we've used them.

In terms of scalability, we would need to add another device to the M300 that we have right now. I know there are models of Firebox that you can actually add hardware to, to get them scaled up and for additional portals. But the one that we have, in terms of subscription, is very scalable in terms of features, and it integrates with WatchGuard's central interface where it can update our firmware as the updates come out.

What we want to do is put in some more redundancy in our network access. We want to have a second Firebox at each location. We have two ISPs at each location, so instead of both ISPs going to one Firebox, we want to split the ISPs between the two Fireboxes and have load balancing through the internet on firewalls.

We have 100 employees at our head office, and we have 10 employees at our sub-offices. In terms of devices, we probably have about 150 devices, including printers and computers at our head office, and about 12 devices at each of our sub-offices.

We used the technical support once, when we had some issues with employees trying to access legitimate sites. That is when we learned about setting exemptions for certain sites. A company might be a travel site, for instance, but due to the amount of advertising they do, it might be flagged as an advertising site. To resolve that issue, when it's a legitimate site that does a lot of advertising, you can go to support for help in figuring that out, and also for help in putting necessary exemptions in place. 

The support was very professional. They were very patient, and they explained the issues and the solutions fully.

I don't have a lot of experience with other firewalls. There was a Cisco Certified office that I was exposed to before we moved to the WatchGuard Firebox. It felt like the WatchGuard was a lot easier to use, and easier to set up than the Certified Office device.

The primary reason that we went with Firebox was its cost. It is very economical and it provided us with all the security functions that we were looking for at the time. And the throughput was more than what we required, so it was a very cost-effective device to deploy on our network.

The initial setup of Firebox was straightforward. It was not complex.

For our deployment we configured all three access points at one location, our head office, and tested them in that one environment. Then, at the various offices, it was just a matter of changing the IP address. We had one technician go to one office and another technician go to the other office to install the Fireboxes and connect them to the network. As they were plugged in, they connected and it provided the service that we wanted from day one. We didn't have to do too many reconfigurations. The policies that come with it out-of-the-box provide adequate network protection, and we just had to put in special policies to allow various types of traffic, either both ways or one way, to various ports on the firewall. We didn't have many problems in getting them up and running at each office.

Deployment took one day at each location. Overall, we were able to prepare the Fireboxes and test them in less than a week. We prepared everything at one location, did the testing on the second day, and on the third and fourth days we went to the other two office locations to install them.

With the Firebox solutions we have had a lot more accessibility, in the network, to our third-party vendors and suppliers. Prior to that, we did not have a direct connection to those companies, but with the Firebox we were able to configure a DMZ, and that allowed us to apply the granular restrictions that we really wanted. It allowed us to reduce the number of devices that we have on one desk, at certain workstations. Instead of having the supplier's computer and our computer, we were able to use just one computer, and connect to the supplier.

Going with the Firebox is a no-brainer. It provides the necessary security, out-of-the-box, for your configuration of the policies. It's very easy to use and it also gives you a reporting dashboard that can be customized. It makes a lot of sense out of all the data. It's very easy to read. We use a 40-inch display in our office and have it connected to the Firebox so that we can see what's going on on the network. We can look at it and see how the traffic is going through it.

We are using WatchGuard Firebox for defense of our internal infrastructure.

I wouldn't say that Firebox has improved the way our organization functions, but rather that it protects our organization.

The solution identifies attacks on our services and, as a result, directs our attention precisely to the cause of the problem. As we are not actively watching the traffic ourselves and we completely rely on Firebox to alert us instead, the solution saves us about 30 hours per week.

The most valuable features are WatchGuard’s antivirus, traffic protection, and ease of configuration. I also appreciate their traffic analytics. 

After conducting several tests I found the antivirus is working very well. Additionally, they have a very interesting feature, DNS WatchGuard, which is checking DNS requests for phishing, among other things, and it has caught a lot of unwanted attempts and attacks.

Regarding the management features, the interface is user-friendly, and the instructions are well documented. There is a fast learning curve and everything is intuitive and understandable.

It also provides us with layered security. Firebox protects our traffic, as we have numerous Web Services that are external and which are a priority for us to defend. We don't use the rest as much.

I haven’t dug deeply into the reporting features yet or if they are working well. However, I have generated several reports and there was too much unnecessary information, in comparison with the reporting features in the Sophos firewall. Sophos' reporting is more readable and easier to configure. Having said that, reporting features were not very important for us when selecting a solution. What was important were other types of functionality that WatchGuard Firebox was able to meet.

In addition to the reporting features, I would suggest they work on an SSL VPN gateway.

We have been working with WatchGuard Firebox for about one year. Initially we got an M200 model and then switched to an M470 in a cluster.

In terms of the stability, everything is perfect. We haven’t experienced any issues.

The solution scales intuitively and quickly with any internet, meaning the solution’s protocols support any internet configuration. The connectivity scales in any location.

We could scale it to several companies with up to 100 employees and up to 1 Gb of traffic.

I would rate WatchGuard's tech support at the highest mark of five out of five. I was very pleased with them. We were working with them on the software licensing and opened some tickets related to technical issues. In both cases, they resolved the issues promptly and without unnecessary back-and-forth, unlike when working with the support teams of other vendors.

Before Firebox we used a Sophos firewall. We switched because the WatchGuard firewall offers a broad set of features and parameters that were lacking in the Sophos firewall. Additionally, the WatchGuard solution was cheaper.

WatchGuard has a comprehensive antivirus system included in the firewall and that was important for us. Sophos’ antivirus features were weak, in comparison.

The initial setup was medium in terms of the difficulty of some aspects, such as initially understanding the logic of their security policies. It took several hours to acquaint myself and to fully understand things. The whole deployment took about three days.

We initially had an implementation strategy, but it was adapted according to the recommendations and specifications of WatchGuard.

In terms of the technical aspects, I am the only who works with this solution in our organization.

Initially, we purchased the Firebox just for us but, as of today, we have deployed it to two or three other companies. The client sent us project specs with necessary internet configurations for each device, as well as the physical locations. We replicated their infrastructure in our test environment, configured each device according to their specs, and shipped the device to them. The client then connected the device with a cable to the ports outlined in our instructions and everything worked the first time.

During the deployment we worked closely with WatchGuard’s tech support team and they were very speedy in their responses to us.

The price of the solution corresponds to the quality and the feature set offered. There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

Before selecting WatchGuard Firebox, we evaluated the Cisco FirePOWER firewall and, in comparison, Firebox is much easier to use.

Also, WatchGuard’s solution, in terms of the cost-per-value ratio, is very balanced.

My advice would be to try this product.

As for the throughput, at this point it is hard for us to evaluate it because we don’t have heavy traffic, or at least we do not experience the traffic throughput specified for this model. Our inbound and outbound traffic is 1 Gb and the M470 handles it very well, not even stressing its components.

When it comes to the solution’s Cloud Visibility feature, they need to improve on the reporting. But in terms of the logs, it gives us very good visibility.

Overall, I would rate the solution a strong eight out of 10.