The primary use case of this solution is a traditional firewall.
We use Juniper SRX for the site-to-site VPN.
The primary use case of this solution is a traditional firewall.
We use Juniper SRX for the site-to-site VPN.
The IPSec configuration is going well.
We are experiencing some issues with the clustering. It needs to be simplified and more stable.
Some of the features included in SRX need improvement. For example, if you want to change your SSH port number, you cannot go into the application layer. You will have to go to the shell command to change the port. This is a problem because when you show the configuration, you cannot see what was put in the shell. It should easier.
Also, the user interface is a bit slow.
In the future, I would like to see the UI more responsive. The new generation doesn't use SSH anymore. One-click would be better.
I have been using Juniper SRX for approximately six years.
A few years ago, we were using the SRX240 now we are using a more recent version.
We deploy on SRX to handle 500 sites.
We will continue to use this solution in the future. We have no plans to change.
The technical support is a lot better because when we log a case, they respond.
We also use Fortinet FortiGate and I have some experience and knowledge of Cisco ASA.
It's not too complicated. It's plug and play.
The most challenging is when you upload the ISO. Deployment is less than one hour.
The installation is completed in-house.
We are not a large company, we have a team of less than five for deployment and maintenance.
I would recommend this solution for those who are interesting in using it for a VPN.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We use it as a perimeter firewall, data center firewall, and as VPN concentrators for some companies. It protects the data behind our switches. Our company provides the switches, like the EX-Series.
We are an elite partners for Juniper. We use the firewall for data protection.
It has a high security implementation.
It integrates well with Fortinet and Palo Alto.
It uses many applications, like antivirus blocking and web filtering. Also, defining routing on it is very easy along with netting. The high availability of the application is good. We use the IDS and IPsec VPN features.
I would like to see endpoint control and endpoint testing security.
The GUI needs to be easier to handle.
The stability is good.
The scalability is good.
When we face problems, it is a firmware or software update. We call Juniper for support and they have a very good team for technical support. They help us a lot, then we will find the solution in the upgraded version of software of unit.
I think there was a problem before I came to the company with Cisco and their firewall, so they decided to switch to Juniper.
It is more complex than other vendors, but we have gotten used to it. So, we find it easy to implement and deploy.
It has a low price.
We are also using Fortinet and have a partnership with Palo Alto. In addition, we are looking into a partnership with Citrix.
Cisco and FortiGate were on original shortlist.
They can use the Juniper SRX as a data center firewall. Juniper needs to focus more on their perimeter firewalls.
Our most important criteria is to look for 24-hour support, prices, partnerships, and what they offer to partners. Also, we want to know if the product can function with Juniper.
One valuable feature is the reliability of the Junos OS. However, we did not make full use of the UTM functionality.
We have experienced more dependability.
Management: Junos Space Security Director is not great and there is no global database of objects.
We have been using the product for about six years.
We did not encounter any issues with stability.
The clustering of a maximum of two nodes limited some architectural options.
Support is what the end customer buys. Unfortunately, it's not always from Juniper.
We migrated from Juniper Screen OS to Junos. We are leaving Juniper now as their focus on security seems to have dropped.
The setup was no more difficult than switching to any other firewall implementation.
Be wary of Juniper's stake in the security realm. If they are ramping up again and are again competing with Check Point, Palo Alto, and FortiGate, then they are worthy of consideration. It is also worth your consideration if your network is Juniper based and you have a secondary firewall vendor.
Stateful inspection , IPSEC and NAT as per our customers' design. The boxes are used as SecGW, Gi and SGi Firewall, those are the features usually needed in 3G/4G context.
It improved in term of security.
Clustering fab interface doesn't support bandwidth aggregation. This limitation caused a huge design change in our network.
I've used the solution for eight years.
Yes, some bugs in module restart and cluster failover, but without outage.
Yes, fab interface doesn't support bandwidth aggregation
9 out of 10.
No, we didn't.
Not complex.
We didn’t use any other solutions so I can’t compare this to others.
No.
We are satisfied with its stability , but we don’t advise others to implement a cluster design other than Active/Passive.
We’ve connected this product on a GSM core network for a 3G deployment project.
The GUI.
I've used it for one year.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
It's good.
Technical Support:It's good.
Our customer decided to switch from Cisco to Juniper for their security deployment.
It was an in-house implementation.
We are system integrators and Juniper SRX is one of the products that we deploy for our clients. We have new projects every year, and we generally use the latest version when we implement a new project.
What I like most about Juniper is that it is a complete configuration.
The user interface is good.
The setup process should be improved.
I have been using Juniper SRX for three years.
It is generally a stable platform.
I don't know how scalable the platform is because we have not needed to scale beyond a certain point. Our clients are enterprise-level businesses.
Initially, it doesn't take too much of your time to deploy. However, by the time it is fully configured, it is time-consuming.
This is a product that I can recommend to others.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
It is a basic firewall that we have been using for six years. It is a good solution.
The most valuable feature is the brand itself. From a protection perspective, it provides a network perimeter security function for our company.
We are finding that the UTM features which is required (like an antivirus or URL filtering) are not available. We are now looking for the "Next Generation" of firewall protection. We need to be less vulnerable to attacks.
In addition, we would really like to see an automated policy feature added.