What needs improvement with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks?

Improvements are required in Cortex XDR agent whenever they are releasing the latest version. Whenever the tool releases a new version when deploying the product across the organization, I feel like there are some disturbances in the CPU usage after upgrading the tool to the latest version. Whenever Palo Alto releases the latest version and when you are deploying the package into the server, we see some disturbances in the CPU usage, like the RAM utilization is more. Generally, the CPU utilization is higher. Disabling one by one component from the profile manager, we are unable to find the exact cause of the issue. When we go to Palo Alto, even after sharing the logs and mentioning the issue, the solution team comes back and gives us some more versions of the tool. If Cortex XDR Agent 8.4.0 is having issues, then the tool's team offers us Cortex XDR Agent 8.4.1. Some updates can update the tool to the latest version.

Some feature requests are coming up from the customers. I feel like there should be a quick improvement. There is a little gap in implementing the tool's features as the team needs to do an investigation, which would take more time than expected, leaving the customers frustrated. The product team's investigation to decide on the features to be introduced in the solution should be a little quick. When it comes to malware files, it should be a little quick because, at times, it would give a wrong result in the sense of what it might be on malware, even if it still might be a normal one. At that point in time, we need to change the tool's version, and it generally needs to be changed from our end with Java and Jira. Maybe it should be a little improved in that case.

They could improve the product's reporting and customization options. Additionally, there should be better integration with niche cloud platforms. In the next release, I would like to see enhancements in automated response capabilities and integrations with emerging technologies, such as container security solutions and serverless architectures.

Product might have some bugs. But these will be fixed in the next version. They'll try to work on that and fix those issues. They won't let it go easily.

It takes time to scan the servers and devices. Scanning the server sometimes takes two to three days. If the device is offline, the scan gets disconnected.

The solution lags to the real-time scenarios here and there.

The licensing model is complex to understand. It requires expertise to explain how the licensing works. You need expertise to guide you through the subscription plan. Everything is fine. However, if there are any security suggestions, they should be addressed promptly. For instance, configuring the tool and setting up email configurations are essential. Additionally, web filtering is crucial; if there are any high-risk URLs or logs, they should be filtered. Palo Alto Networks already has a robust database for this purpose, which they utilize in their perimeter-level devices by leveraging this database and integrating it into Cortex XDR, enhancing the security posture. Automatic security suggestions are also provided for individual devices, further enhancing security. Adding URLs and addressing the mentioned points are essential steps. They're aggregating all the logs from various devices.

The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced.

It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive.

It is a complex solution to implement.

We have implemented a product that blocks USB usage and also provides device control for our company. Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities. Although we are using this feature, we allow specific systems and USB devices. For example, we enable certain users to use external hard drives but we may disable them if necessary. However, due to the nature of our organization, we do not have a dedicated department for this task.

There are many areas that could use improvement. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that times change, and we need to be adaptable to what happens. Ultimately, we want to see positive results and improvements. In the next release, I would add dashboards that allow everyone to see what's happening, not just the security team. Users can view the data and see what's happening. Also, I think the Data Lake from Cortex XDR should be public, not private.

The playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions.

I don't like that they have different types of licenses. For example, if users select a license, they think they will have all the platforms they need to improve their network or security. But after some time, Palo Alto Networks changed their licensing, and some of the features that, for example, were free at the beginning now have a cost. I think the integration can be improved. For example, a lot of tools are just integrated through APIs.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by adding a sandbox feature to better compete with their competitors which have it.

The price could be a little lower.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console.

I'd like the solution to provide URL filtering and web-based prevention. We'd like to block web pages at a high level. We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning.

I have run into some detection issues with Cortex XDR. If they had pulse rate detection, it would be better. The whole state IPS should be better. It needs to be better at detection of internal attacks.

They need to do definition updates. Instead of the version, they just put an update on the portal, and each time we need to upgrade it. Sometimes it's hard to upgrade the offsite clients. Sometimes the internet that they are using is not that stable. It gives us a hard time. Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded. It would be ideal if the updates would happen like Symantec updates or other antivirus solutions. The upgrade needs to deploy directly to the users.

There are still a few gaps with this solution. For example, real-time, on-demand antivirus is not there. If you're looking for compliance XDR is somewhat lacking. There is also no recovery feature; if some endpoint is under attack there must be the possibility of recovering it or restoring it to a normal state. That is currently lacking in XDR.

In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex. In terms of new features, we don't have any functions or features that we would like to add at the moment.

In general, the price could be more competitive.

This product could be simpler to use. For example, the onboarding process and getting it started could be improved. The technical support is in need of improvement.

It is not easy to sell Cortex XDR, not because it isn't a good tool. Its marketing needs to be improved.

We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky. The tool should have the ability to test an environment to see what percentage it is secure against threats, such as ransomware. This would allow for adjustments to be made to the network for more security. We don't have the capability to test the networks daily there should be a parameter in order to report on the healthy of the network for security vulnerabilities.

The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized. The case number of items should be addressed. I have found the interface of Azure to be more simple and customizable than that of the solution.

The product's impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users.

It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now.

The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others.

Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms.

In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution.

It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue. So, making exceptions would be easier and would probably be better for logging. It would be nice if it were easier to use and if there were some free training hours. As for additional features, I would suggest having mobile access to the console, perhaps through a mobile app for the console.

For working with the solution, you only really need a web browser, however, we've found that working on Chrome, for example, is horrible. Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well.

The installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales should teams have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling. They don't know the features of the products they sell. For example, Cortex XDR includes Cortex XDR Prevent, Cortex XDR Pro, and Cortex XDR Pro per TB. They don't know the real differences between Cortex XDR Pro and Cortex XDR Pro per TB. Sometimes, they will tell you about features for one edition that belong to another edition. They don't seem to know what features belong to what edition.

I would like to see some sort of attachment scanning included. Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access. I want a plugin for email attachment scanning and email body scanning.

It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI. Like in SentinelOne, you can search for an arbitrary file, and in Cortex XDR, you can't. You can do it with an addendum license, but I think we could all benefit from getting it with the standard license. Because if you want to do threat hunting with this product, you have to search for files now and not wait to get a license.

It'll help if customization was easier. It would be better than how it's now if it came out of the box using their stock set up to get it up-and-running. Then you go in, and you add more restrictive things to make it better.

A little bit more automation would be nice.

There are a lot of logs generated and an engineer has to go through all of the events to find out exactly what the bottleneck is. We do need to collect the events but this can be time-consuming. Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer. A better pricing plan would make this product more competitive.

It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc. this is good as an endpoint protection to prevent malware, exploits, zero days, ransomware, botnet etc. For features like Host DLP or encryption or patch management, or any such features which are available in basic anti-virus, you cannot expect it in Palo Alto Network's Cortex XDR solution. rest, all features work as expected, without any lagg or slowness observed in the system.

The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting. As of right now, they are giving reports, which are okay, however, there are other ways to get better reporting. That is an area where I already requested that Palo Alto work on. In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations. They should extend the solution for URL filtering, as other endpoint security products are doing that already. Nowadays, users are working from home and therefore we have plenty of traffic back through the data center just for URL filtering security. If that functionality could be there in the endpoint, then we would be happy. It would ensure users working from home couldn't access malicious websites.

Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want.

I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response). Then it would work well with SIEM Response. Also, if they could make an on-premises version we would definitely go with Cortes. At this time, they are not offering an on-premises solution.

As an improvement, I would like to see enhanced connection speeds. On China's side, we need to set up a local server for the definition updates, and the performance has not been very good for the company when directly connected to the internet. We are a little disappointed with that.

It's my understanding that this solution is at end-of-life. It's hard to use as a product. It's not easy or straightforward. Especially when I deal with a government sector or other sensitive industries. They do not accept that it's so easy to share metadata outside their organization. They prefer on-prem even if it is not as powerful due to the fact that they perceive it as being more secure. The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements. The deployment is pretty hard. Competitors like Trend Micro or Symantec have features on their console that make them easier to use. This solution does not offer items that would increase its usability. Before I moved to technical sales, I handled implementation, and I remember it being very difficult. They need to improve this aspect. The solution provides a lot of false positives. The average amount of false positives you get is 5%. It would be great if this could be lowered.

The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen. It eats more memory than Chrome. I have a lot of users that are eating my memory each hour every day and it's causing us problems. We have to go and buy more memory for each computer. When you have a lot of computers like we do, is not a very good situation. Some of the computers are only using 4 GB of memory, so if you put aside the differences, most only have some Chrome, some internet, and Office and that's it. And yet, the memory is getting eaten. If someone catches something like malware, or something else, I want to know if the file was spread to other machines and what the target was. I want to be able to get ahead of the spread. This solution doesn't do enough to protect us against these types of vulnerabilities or to give us much information about the spread. The tool really does need some more reverse engineering features. There's an overall lack of features. The initial setup could use improvement. Currently, I must go to each machine and deploy everything manually. We are in 2020, not in 1980. It seems like such a dated way of doing large deployments.

There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved.

The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results.

I started using it from 4.1, but it didn't change that much. Some features and some fixes have been added to 4.2, but not that much. They need to improve reporting, the end-point reporting. They could also enhance their notification statuses. In the current version, you will see some threat alerts, or if anything is executable, but you will not see behavioral analysis. You will see what was being blocked, and that's it. If Traps logs something, you will get a notification. Otherwise, you have to generate the dump file and investigate on your own. In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are a big company, so they can surely improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved. But overall, when we speak about security and protection, they are one of the top providers.

The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports. It could also use better graphics and more information.

The one area which should improve is not on the user side but on the product itself. Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats. For example, if you had something that was not detected by the former solution, and you install Palo Alto, you will have some difficulty removing the virus with the Palo Alto tool. It would be helpful if they had a tool for removing a virus or threat in these cases.

The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version. I need to control USB ports on MAC laptops and cannot. This is a MUST so I opened a case with Palo Alto and requested this feature for an upcoming update. I would like to see more automation and self-healing for incidents that can be easily classified as malware.

There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, was not user-friendly.

There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results. Originally, we wanted to uninstall Traps because we could not run our operations because Traps, by default, had blocked applications and files. This is still a thing, as we still have to give flexibility to certain policies which are pre-defined in the Traps application.

Managing the product should be easier.

There are some limitations on the Traps agents. Traps for Windows has limitations and Traps for Linux too. Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere. With Windows 7 and Windows 8 64-bit, when you want to install Traps, because its Windows, it will crash. They need a little more flexibility with antivirus engines.

With cloud integration, there were several improvements made: * Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis. With the cloud implementation, we now have connectivity to the server at any moment, as long as we have an internet connection. * A new user interface, which is a lot easier to use. Making it similar to managing a firewall. * Additional OS support.

Going from version 4 to version 5, they had a major change in their user interface. Version 5 is now all cloud managed, while it has a very intuitive, useful interface, it doesn't have all the features that were in the version 4 interface. For example, we lost being able to automatically trigger upgrades, like creating manual groups to upgrade with. It doesn't currently have the ability to use the Active Directory to create groups.

The application whitelisting/blacklisting feature is based purely on path and filenames. Changing a filename can bypass it easily. The uninstall admin password for the client is passed in clear text during install. There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration. This is ridiculous for an enterprise product. Traps 5.0 does not integrate with Palo Alto's Panorama product, which was a big selling point of Traps 4.0. Traps 5.0 has no ability to send an email to alert of detections. Instead customers have to jump through hoops to use Palo Alto's log management service to forward logs into a 3rd party SIEM and then build your alerts from there. No EDR functionality, though this is supposedly coming.