What advice do you have for others considering Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall?

If you're not an expert and you haven't taken a course or have the correct materials to run the solution, I don't recommend it. You have to be an expert in this specific solution before using it. Overall, I'd rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall six out of ten.

The platform has significantly enhanced the security of our public services. However, with the rise in IoT devices, it is unclear if Forcepoint addresses this challenge. I advise ensuring you have experienced personnel to handle the device effectively after installation. I recommend Forcepoint's firewall and rate it a nine out of ten.

The tool's SD-WAN capabilities are supported by the tool. It is a nice product to use. The product can be used in the data center as a firewall. The product does provide reporting and visibility features. There are many features provided by the product, especially the area of availability. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We utilize Forcepoint to manage secure remote access primarily through VPN terminals and VPN clients. The SD-WAN capability of Forcepoint did not directly support our network performance, as we did not proceed with its implementation. We were in discussions about enabling SD-WAN but needed help executing the plan. Eventually, due to the end-of-life status of our product, we transitioned to Fortinet as our vendor for SD-WAN solutions. Deploying and managing the platform was not particularly straightforward. It necessitated experienced engineers trained in Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. Once set up, there were no significant issues or challenges in day-to-day management. They offer templates that provide detailed reports categorized by user, device, and internal network access. The value and impact of using this solution lie in the assurance of protection and security. Ultimately, the greatest return on investment (ROI) comes from safeguarding the business from potential attacks and vulnerabilities. I rate it a nine out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

I recommend Fortinet. Fortinet is booming now, but it is expensive. Both have pros and cons. You can compare both with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is more stable and more scalable. Forcepoint has many more features than Fortinet. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We are partners. We are using the latest version of the solution. I'd recommend the solution to others. Overall, I would rate the product eight out of ten.

We are Forcepoint partners. I deployed the latest version of the solution about a month ago. For those that plan to implement this solution, I'd advise them to know their environment very well first in order to successfully implement the firewall. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I would rate Next Generation Firewall five out of ten.

I think Forcepoint is a good simple solution for firewalling. Because of the instability we faced within our project, which I think can be common with Forcepoint, I would only recommend this solution for a retail business with minimal, non-complex requirements. If you need more SD-WAN features, like auto-scaling, I don't think I would recommend Forcepoint. I would rate this solution as a five out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

I would rate Forcepoint a 7 out of 10. I would recommend that anyone considering this solution to upgrade their software to have more advantages.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.

Our company makes use of every current version of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. Our clients who use Forcepoint run the gamut from small, medium to large businesses. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would tell potential users that it's difficult for us to compete with Fortinet's firewall. Fortinet offers good performance, a good price, and is stronger. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight.

If you have Cisco integration, then I wouldn't recommend this solution — it won't integrate. It depends upon the endpoint security. If you have Cisco endpoints, you'll lack certain protections, especially in this multi-vendor environment. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a rating of eight.

We have a partnership with Forcepoint. We are resellers of the solution. We have clients that have the solution, and therefore we tend to deal with different versions of the solution. It might not always be the latest. I would recommend the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

This is a good product and I have already recommended it to one of my friends that is now implementing it in the educational sector. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would probably not recommend the product to customers because it is not top of the line. It depends on the customer though, their usage, budget, etc. If they have the budget I would probably recommend Palo Alto Networks, not Forcepoint. I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a six out of ten.

I recommend this solution, we are going to continue using it. I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a ten out of ten.

I would recommend this solution in general. We have collected a lot of feedback from customers related to the management, which we will forward to Forcepoint, and then after some time, they will take action on that. They have improved a lot since they were acquired from McAfee. Earlier, if you wanted to access SMC, you needed remote desktop access to the server or you had to install a small software from the SMC as a client to control the firewall. Customers used to ask us about why they cannot access the firewall management by UI or browser when most of the other firewalls already have such access. We received a lot of such feedback from customers, and when we escalated this to Forcepoint, they took a serious note of it. After some time, they released that option. You can now access the management center through UI, which is a good improvement. I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Forcepoint is a very big company with a very good product line. It fulfills most of the needs of the customers, especially enterprise customers in the financial sector. I use Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall as well as the DLP, web, and email solutions from Forcepoint. No other solution can compete with Forcepoint's DLP solution. We are going to keep using Forcepoint products. Some of our customers are only interested in Forcepoint. I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a nine out of ten.

We are managing a customer's infrastructure where we have two pairs of Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall working without any major problem. I would recommend Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall based on your needs. It's very useful for us to mix several technologies on the same platform to increase its security level. We have experience with Check Point, FortiGate, Palo Alto, and StrongGate (which became McAfee and then Forcepoint). Many times, we combine two or three technologies into the same platform without any problem. However, we did have a horrible experience with Forcepoint in the past. Some of the project deployments were not very great, specifically for applications offering very specific services to users. I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

I don't have anything bad to say about the product. I absolutely love it. On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

We're a developing company that works with a lot of legacy suppliers that offer clients security solutions. From my perspective, such legacy supplier companies such as McAfee, Checkpoint, and Forcepoint. We help our clients implement certain solutions. I would absolutely recommend the solution. When it comes to the ease of deployment of the functionality, I would strongly recommend it. Forcepoint has great security functionality. However, one downside that is I see is that they need to improve some network functionality. This is very important due to the fact that network functionality is very crucial when it comes to deploying the solution. I would rate the solution seven out of ten overall.

We tried a few implementations and we did not have very much success because the interface is not user-friendly and the product is complicated. If we had the training on time then it may have been easy but that wasn't the case. The biggest lesson that I learned from using this solution is that you can't trust what people tell you. When they say that they will take care of things and support it, that is not included. My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that the training is completed first, ahead of trying to implement it. I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

It's a nice product. I haven't come across anything that needs to be improved. It is very capable, very reliable, and easy to deploy. It covers all your networking needs for a big enterprise network. If you have a small business you should go with FortiGate or Cisco.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider the company's budget. Forcepoint is a very expensive solution but it is also very secure. For smaller companies, I would recommend Fortinet and Cisco, but if you have the money then you can look at Forcepoint. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like this product and it is one that I recommend. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I recommended Forcepoint to be implemented. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. It would be a full ten if it had integration with endpoints.

We use the on-premises deployment model. I'd recommend the solution, but it depends on the requirements of the user. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

They just need to make sure that their environment is ready for implementing the firewall. They have to prepare for about two hours of downtime because we need some downtime to do the initial configuration. They need to be prepared for the deployment plan. That's all. The biggest lesson I learned is that you cannot provide everything in one box. You can provide everything in one box, but you cannot provide everything deeply with the same quality all in one box. You need to give up on something to gain another. I'm always telling the customer, what's your biggest issue? Is it security or performance? Is it task optimization? What is your biggest concern? Based on their answer, I recommend one of the vendors that we work with. If he said that he does not have any problems with anything, he just wants to get everything, then I provide them with Forcepoint and tell them that they will have some issues in a certain area. If he is okay with that, we go with the product. If he isn't okay and cannot accept that risk or that point, then we go with another vendor. What I learned from them is that you can provide everything in one box, but you cannot provide everything with the same quality in that box. They have really good capabilities if you want to use it. So I do recommend them in some cases, when the customer needs some optimization, along with performance and security. If they want everything in one package, I recommend Forcepoint because they have everything. That's why I recommend Forcepoint in that situation. I would rate the solution as eight out of ten. If they solve the problem of optimization and added those IPS rules, I believe that they would deserve nine of ten. Nothing is perfect, though.

Forcepoint is my favorite enterprise firewall. The security management center is the best part of this solution. It is always very simple to see the state of the firewall and to configure it to look for faults. The quality of this component is very high. Previous solutions were not very good with respect to the management center, but now, in this solution, it is very good. This is the main reason that I recommend this solution to others. This feature is absolutely necessary if you want to configure devices to prevent attacks. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I recommended this solution mostly for large enterprises, a project that needs more than 100 firewalls to be managed. They have a very good management tool as security management centers. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

What others need to know is that they need to have a clear idea of why they're going for this particular firewall. They need to know if are they looking for clustering or if are they looking for link load balancing. If they're not going for clustering, I would suggest they go with the most moderate firewalls like Palo Alto or Fortinet. A certain type of attack, such as evasion techniques, isn't something that other firewalls really protect against. According to NSS Labs, Forcepoint firewall has been on top for the last consecutive four or so years because of the detection rate of evasion techniques that other firewalls failed to detect. The clustering of our ISP links is a nice feature that other firewalls also should have. It is a helpful feature, but it is not a user-friendly solution as a whole. I would rate the solution five out of ten. User-friendliness is the most important reason I've rated it so low. After Cisco firewalls, no next-gen firewalls have come to the market. So if they want to compete with these firewalls, they need to enhance the overall user-friendliness of the solution.