What advice do you have for others considering Palo Alto Networks VM-Series?

For straightforward firewall inspection and basic IPS, IDS requirements, native firewalls might suffice. For more advanced needs, using VM-Series or Palo Alto Firewalls is recommended. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

For software application firewalls, this is the best solution. If you are using it in a cloud or as an application firewall, then Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is the best one for you. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We had deployed the solution in 2018. We used a different product before, but my organization switched to Palo Alto. It was the management’s decision. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The solution easily integrates with the client's cloud security architecture. If in our company, we get a customer who's depending on the container, then security is required for the container from OpenShift or any other vendor, I use Prisma to secure the environment instead of traditional firewalls. The solution's sizing and architecture are highly expensive. It's an effective and stable firewall that detects all attacks. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series can adapt quickly to an organization's changing security or policy needs. Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten. I will definitely recommend Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to other users.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series as an eight overall. My recommendation for others considering this tool would be to ensure they have the budget for it, as it can be expensive compared to alternatives like FortiGate. Also, they should be prepared to understand and document their application metrics thoroughly to implement the firewall correctly.

I can't elaborate on how the product was deployed in our company's existing infrastructure since the product was not deployed by our company, as the vendor handled it. The product can be deployed on the cloud platform you want to use. If you are using Azure's cloud services, then we select VM-Series, take care of the configurations, and upload the required details to get the product. In terms of the product's ability to improve our company's network security posture, I see that the tool keeps our systems protected since all the network traffic is routed through the tool. The tool provides protection against any malicious traffic that attempts to get into the company network as such networks get blocked and quarantined by the firewall. Been blocked on the firewall network. Malicious components in the network don't enter our company's internal network, so the users are protecting the systems attached to the internal traffic. My company has not integrated the product with any third-party software. Speaking about the benefits of dynamic scalability, I would say that my company has not used the product's scalability features. I don't think there is anything wrong with the tool's scalability functionalities. The tool is good for enterprise-level organizations because it has many options for users in its office. The product also comes with a lot of add-ons. If you can leverage the benefits of everything the product offers, then it can be useful. It is easy if you want to integrate the tool or connect it with other applications or third-party software, and you can do cloud monitoring and SIEM. The tool also works with XDR products. In general, the tool has its pros and is good software. I have not encountered any issues with policy management in the product. The product helps find vulnerabilities in the system, especially opened ports and unwanted ports that are open. If there are any issues, you can explore your system further with Nmap and with the help of a given IP address. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We cannot say that we have achieved 100% security by deploying the solution, but we have added one more security layer to protect us from security threats or attackers. For deployment, we have more than 400 engineers handling our SOC, including the MSS part, the security of business center implementation, and manageability. Deploying the solution does not provide a 100% data safeguard, but it adds another security layer. The solution provides single-pass parallel processing (SP3) architecture, which is more effective than other firewall vendors. From the hardware and architecture perspective, the solution is good compared to Check Point or Fortinet firewalls. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The cloud service providers are also coming up with similar features. It can get really competitive for Palo Alto. People who want to use the solution must engage the system engineer for the deployment, vetting process, and initial implementation. Overall, I rate the product a nine to ten out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users because it is a good firewall. Overall, I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

I rate the product a ten out of ten.

People considering implementing the product must consider investing in the on-premise solution instead. If someone has a good experience with VMs, I suggest they choose VM, as it is cheaper than on-premises. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

I am more comfortable with the physical device firewall. I am actually trying to figure out things since I am not very familiar with the VM side of Palo Alto. I would recommend Palo Alto Networks VM-Series since it is a cheaper product compared to the other tools available in the market. Apart from Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, I usually recommend Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is an enterprise product because it is costly. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series an eight out of ten.

It's good to work with Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. I recommend it to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

I can't make a suggestion because it depends on the specific needs they have. They can consider using the entry-level version or opt for the expert lab, depending on their workload. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Everything is moving to the cloud and we need a solution that can support all the multi-vendor platforms and the new technologies as well. That is quite important for any enterprise organization or service provider nowadays. If we talk about moving existing loads from our own data centers or enterprise sites to the cloud, we need a solution that can take care of everything, such as security compliance, and that is easy to use. Palo Alto is good in those terms. With the introduction of Prisma Cloud, Palo Alto is encouraging clients to migrate their infrastructure, such as VPN and security solutions to Prisma Cloud. It has been highly optimized compared to Panorama. Palo Alto is promoting it and asking their clients to use Prisma Cloud to improve their security infrastructure. I would advise, when you deploy a new site, to manage it from the centralized Panorama solution. With Panorama, you have a local login, so even if the internet is down you have access to the firewall management. We had a situation, when performing patching, where the firewall lost the remote connection via the internet and it had not been onboarded to Panorama. That mean we lost connectivity and we had to involve the onsite technicians. To avoid that scenario, all firewalls should be centrally managed by Panorama. And for troubleshooting, each firewall should have syslog profiles activated.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series eight out of 10. Palo Alto is easy to use, and the price is fair compared to the other solutions on the market. I recommend Palo Alto, but you should also consider the other solutions out there. Some solutions have lots of bugs like FirePOWER. Also, the price for FirePOWER is quite high. That is not the case with Palo Alto. It has fewer bugs, requires minimum effort, and the price is fair. Everything is accessible within the same portal.

We have not yet implemented the DNS security features. However, we will likely be doing so next year. If one of my colleagues at another company were to say that they were just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would suggest that they be careful. Palo Alto has a great balance. It's not super expensive compared to other options on the market, and it's quite quick when it comes to throughput and performance. In summary, this is a good product but I do suggest that people shop around a little bit. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are happy with their features for how we are using it and what we have deployed. I would recommend giving the solution a try and see the difference between it and your existing firewalls. Give it a shot and see the difference. In the firewall market, it is the number one product right now. I would rate it as 10 out of 10.

We have not yet used Panorama for centralized management but in the future, we may do so for other projects. My advice for anybody who is looking into purchasing a firewall is to carefully consider what their requirements are. I have seen that when a customer procures a firewall, they initially choose products like Sophos. Over time, they engage in trials with the majority of the vendors and finally end up with Palo Alto. This is only after spending a lot of time and money on other products. If instead, a client is aware of the requirements including how much traffic there is and what throughput is needed, it's better to invest in Palo Alto than to try all of the cheaper alternatives. Then, evaluate everything afterward and finally select Palo Alto. This, of course, is providing the client doesn't have limitations on the investment that they're going to make. I say this because generally, in my practice, what I've seen is that when choosing a firewall, the clients first choose a cheaper alternative. Then, after some time they think that it may not be what they wanted. This could be brought about by a throughput issue or maybe some threats were not blocked or they have had some security incidents. After trying these firewalls, they replace them with another, and yet another, until finally, they settle on Palo Alto. Essentially, my advice is to skip the cheaper vendors and go straight to Palo Alto. In summary, this is a very good product and my only real complaint is about the cost. If it were more competitive then more customers would choose it, and those people suffering losses as a result of security incidents would be saved. I find the real reason that people don't choose the right product is due to the cost factor. Even when they know that the product is the best choice, because of the limitation that they have on the investment they can make, they're not able to choose it. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We deploy the solution on-premises for customers and organizations, although we also do so via AWS. There are around 16 users connected to the VMP firewall. The security feature is really good, although there would be a bit of a learning curve when it comes to the cloud. I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series as a nine out of ten.

Good support from the brand and local partner in Chile.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I don't have too many complaints as I compare the virtualized version to the physical one. Perhaps I haven't noticed any issues because we use the proper hardware, and it was strong enough to carry the workload and remain quite responsive. My advice for anybody who is implementing the VM-Series is to be very well prepared and test it in advance. Make sure to scope it and understand the performance implications. Also, be sure that the core features are understood and are supported on the VM. Then, test it before implementation or migration. This is a very good product but I can't rate it as perfect because there are these little issues that are pretty common and you expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. I think there was also some limitation on how you can do the high availability on virtualized power, in Azure in particular. If these common features were consistently working on both physical and virtual deployments then I would probably rate it a ten out of ten. As it is now, I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would advise getting very well prepared by defining the scope and testing it in advance. Make sure that you understand the performance implications and that the core features are supported on the VM, and they are tested before the implementation or migration. I would rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It comes under the top industry leaders and is comparable to other top products in this category. I would rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My first lesson when it comes to advice is a rule that I follow. When a new version comes out, we wait a month. If in that month we are not seeing any major complaints or issues with the Palo Alto firewall customer base, then we consider it safe. The client base is usually a pretty good barometer for announcing to the world that Palo Alto upgrades are not ready. When that happens, making the upgrade goes off our list until we hear better news. If we do not see any of those bad experiences, then we do the upgrade. That is the way we treat major revisions. It usually takes about a month, or a month-and-a-half before we commit. Minor revisions, we apply within two weeks. I am of the opinion right now that there are some features missing on Palo Alto that may or may not be important to particular organizations. What they have is what you have to look at. Sit down and be sure it is the right solution for what you need to do. I mean, if the organization is a PCI (Payment Card Industry) type service — in other words, they need to follow PCI regulations — Palo Alto works great. It is solid, and you do not have remote users. If you are a Department of Defense type organization, then there are some really strong arguments to look elsewhere. That is one of the few times where Cisco is kind of strong choice and I could make an argument for using them as a solution. That is really bad for me to say because I do not like Cisco firewalls. On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the Palo Alto Networks VM-series as an eight-out-of-ten.

This is definitely a product that I can recommend. Overall, it is a good product, although it would be better if they offered a cloud proxy. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We're partners with Palo Alto. We're using the latest version of the solution. We have a VM-Series via Palo Alto and K2K and the hardware Series. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I highly recommend this service compared to other vendors. It has everything included in one platform including IPS, IDS, and antivirus. By using the Palo Alto initial configuration, it is going to block many threats from day one and it is pretty easy to do. You don't have to have an in-house technical team that is capable of doing that. You don't require that kind of knowledge, which is important because many people don't understand IDS, IPS, or file blocking. They need experience. With Palo Alto, a normal person with perhaps a year of technical experience will understand how to configure the firewall and generate reports. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have been using Palo Alto since version 6.0, and I am currently evaluating the latest one, version 9.1. My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to try the trial version first. It is good for 30 days and it can actually be used because it is the full product. You can test all of the scenarios and try the next-generation features. You can use features like the VPN GlobalProtect and actually see it work. The same with URL filtering and antivirus. Overall, this is a great next-generation firewall. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Everything from Palo Alto is good and I recommend that people implement this firewall. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It is one of the best solutions as far as firewalls go. I would rate Palo Alto as a nine out of ten. In the next release, I would like for them to develop an anti-malware functionality in which it checks for malicious files like Cisco has.

It is a good product, but there is room for improvement. We use this with Microsoft AD, N2WS, IIS, MySQL, MS SQL, and a number of proprietary applications.

It solves several challenges protecting your AWS workloads with good security features, delivering superior visibility, control, and threat prevention at the application level when compared to other cloud-oriented security solutions. I have not tried integrating Palo Alto with other products.

Identify a use case first of all. If the use case is a match, then use the product. We use it in the cloud for both AWS and non-AWS versions. The AWS version is far better. It works seamlessly and integrates very well with some other services. We have integrated it with Splunk for the security aspects and with identity and access management for configuration purposes.

They are the leading next-generation firewall. I would recommend deploying a next-generation firewall. I am using the on-premise and AWS version. They are exactly the same.

I would recommend to try it out.

I would recommend the product, and tell people, "Go for it." It has not disappointed us for the purpose that we use it. It is really matured in the networking area. Because of our use case, we didn't have to integrate the product with anything else. The AWS side of the product is a seven out of ten rating. The on-premise side of the product is a ten out of ten for a rating.

Talk to their technical services to make sure you are getting the right size solution for what you want to do. The product is easy use. I don't have to think twice when I am using it. I know it is doing its job. Customer support has been great. We are using both the AWS and on-premise versions. Both versions are about the same. The interface is nice and easy to configure. I like that it seems like it is one platform to manage.

Do a demo. Set one up and try it. We have used both the physical and AWS versions. The physical version is a good product. However, in an AWS environment, the ability to automate and scale pieces of it are critical. We integrated a couple other products with it, which seems to be working well.