Chief Information Security Officer at Packages Group
Real User
Top 10
2024-11-11T15:42:00Z
Nov 11, 2024
Improvement areas include enhancing integration capabilities and making policy creation less cumbersome. The process involves navigating multiple windows, which could be streamlined. Palo Alto Networks IoT Security's reporting capabilities are less comprehensive and robust than those provided by Cisco.
Technical Engineer - Technical Security at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
2024-10-14T15:26:00Z
Oct 14, 2024
It is not very comprehensive in terms of visibility. When we tested, multiple application signatures were not available with Palo Alto. Fortinet, Claroty, and Nozomi had more application signatures and visibility protocols. More application signatures are required. Claroty and Nozomi also have more automated solutions and more straightforward options to integrate through APIs, etc. Palo Alto should also look into level 0, level 1, and level 2 Purview models. Its risk assessment is okay. It is not bad or good. When it comes to risk assessment, we should get more intel in terms of device identification, the type of device, the operating systems, and the application traffic. With all these together, we get better information.
The primary problems are firewalls unable to reach the cloud or port issues between the Cortex Data Lake and the IoT servers. If these issues occur, IoT data collection will fail. If IoT data collection fails, automatic security pushes, and other intakes will also be impacted. It would be great to incorporate SD-WANs into our network infrastructure. This would enable us to maintain centralized coordination directly from the IoT devices. Essentially, this solution focuses on data analysis and cannot perform any physical actions.
Network Security Engineer - Palo Alto Networks TAC at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
MSP
Top 20
2024-06-03T13:45:00Z
Jun 3, 2024
The larger, data center-sized Palo Alto firewalls we're deploying are proving difficult to install and manage, highlighting an area for improvement. While Palo Alto Networks IoT Security offers a functional solution, there's room for improvement in user-friendliness. While not overly complex, its usability could be enhanced, making it a more intuitive experience for everyone.
It would be beneficial to have a more centralized and user-friendly platform that could consolidate all the necessary information, which proved challenging during the initial POC phase. We would rate the comprehensiveness and visibility as a four out of five because certain challenges need to be addressed and improved.
Backup and Storage specialist at Bosch Global Software Technologies
Real User
2022-04-05T10:57:00Z
Apr 5, 2022
The reporting for this solution could be improved. The logs we receive are only saved for one week. We would like to have the database timeframe increased to a month or two for historical reporting as well as increased storage capabilities to support this data and reporting.
Learn what your peers think about Palo Alto Networks IoT Security. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2024.
All the features are good here as compared to other Next-Generation firewalls, however, some steps of configuration are complex and require hiring experienced staff. The cost is still high and licensing is still complex. The current version Pan OS v10.0 is a more stable version now - most of the bugs and issues are fixed. There's no need to add any points from my side about this product. It's a very good Next-Generation Firewall in our current environment.
Introducing comprehensive IoT Security solutions tailored for enterprises, healthcare, and industrial operations. Safeguard every device, visible or unseen, with Zero Trust security protocols, ensuring protection against known and unknown threats. With rapid 15X faster deployment times, Enterprise IoT Security, Medical IoT Security, and Industrial OT Security streamline operations, allowing teams to prioritize security over setup. Seamlessly integrate with Palo Alto Networks ML-Powered NGFWs...
Improvement areas include enhancing integration capabilities and making policy creation less cumbersome. The process involves navigating multiple windows, which could be streamlined. Palo Alto Networks IoT Security's reporting capabilities are less comprehensive and robust than those provided by Cisco.
It is not very comprehensive in terms of visibility. When we tested, multiple application signatures were not available with Palo Alto. Fortinet, Claroty, and Nozomi had more application signatures and visibility protocols. More application signatures are required. Claroty and Nozomi also have more automated solutions and more straightforward options to integrate through APIs, etc. Palo Alto should also look into level 0, level 1, and level 2 Purview models. Its risk assessment is okay. It is not bad or good. When it comes to risk assessment, we should get more intel in terms of device identification, the type of device, the operating systems, and the application traffic. With all these together, we get better information.
The primary problems are firewalls unable to reach the cloud or port issues between the Cortex Data Lake and the IoT servers. If these issues occur, IoT data collection will fail. If IoT data collection fails, automatic security pushes, and other intakes will also be impacted. It would be great to incorporate SD-WANs into our network infrastructure. This would enable us to maintain centralized coordination directly from the IoT devices. Essentially, this solution focuses on data analysis and cannot perform any physical actions.
The larger, data center-sized Palo Alto firewalls we're deploying are proving difficult to install and manage, highlighting an area for improvement. While Palo Alto Networks IoT Security offers a functional solution, there's room for improvement in user-friendliness. While not overly complex, its usability could be enhanced, making it a more intuitive experience for everyone.
It would be beneficial to have a more centralized and user-friendly platform that could consolidate all the necessary information, which proved challenging during the initial POC phase. We would rate the comprehensiveness and visibility as a four out of five because certain challenges need to be addressed and improved.
The reporting for this solution could be improved. The logs we receive are only saved for one week. We would like to have the database timeframe increased to a month or two for historical reporting as well as increased storage capabilities to support this data and reporting.
All the features are good here as compared to other Next-Generation firewalls, however, some steps of configuration are complex and require hiring experienced staff. The cost is still high and licensing is still complex. The current version Pan OS v10.0 is a more stable version now - most of the bugs and issues are fixed. There's no need to add any points from my side about this product. It's a very good Next-Generation Firewall in our current environment.