Palo Alto Networks K2-Series Review

Reliable, easy to use, and offers strong security feaures


What is our primary use case?

The solution was a firewall that bridged the internal systems with their DMC equipment and/or restricted systems access that wasn't generally available to anyone outside of the organization.

How has it helped my organization?

The solution gets the access controls down to an even more precise part of the network traffic. It's not just any user going to an IP address or going to a port to get on the network. It's very thorough.

What is most valuable?

Our organization liked the fact that it wasn't just firewalls that handled addresses and ports. It also handles actual URL inspections. 

The solution is at the cutting edge of technology. 

The solution has good at controlling restricted access.

Palo Alto has better and finer controls than, say, Cisco or Check Point.

The solution is very strong from a security standpoint.

What needs improvement?

It's like anything else. What's good today might not be in a day, a week, a month, etc. The solution needs to constantly be adapting and updating.

The solution needs a series of OS changes.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the solution for five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is rather excellent. It is really stable unless somebody messes up a configuration. We didn't face any bugs or crashes or have any issues with glitches.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution was scalable for our purposes. We distributed it to three or four different locations and these were all internal edge firewalls. It wasn't more than a half a day to get any new location up, once the network equipment was in place. (For example, switch hardware, cables, etc.). We would just bring in the hardware, set it up, connect to it, and finish turning it on.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is excellent. There haven't been problems that they couldn't resolve quickly. Pretty much are all cases that we had were dealt with to our satisfaction.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to Palo Alto, we had been using Check Point. There wasn't a technical reason that we switched. As an organization, we just periodically switch technologies.

How was the initial setup?

I can't really answer any questions related to the initial setup as there was another person who handled it. However, I do believe it was straightforward for them. My understanding was that deployment only took a day. It wasn't a long process.

What about the implementation team?

For the initial deployment, I'm pretty sure they used a subject matter expert. After that, the organization did not need outside assistance. One of our own team members ended up becoming the subject matter expert for a lot of the implementation strategy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't have an idea of what the licensing costs are.

What other advice do I have?

I'd advise companies considering setting up the solution to make sure they have a trained team. If the team doesn't have any expertise with this type of firewall, then they've got to take some training. The training's pretty good and once you understand the concepts, it's pretty quick to put together. 

At the time we implemented it, it was easier than Check Point and the Check Point had a lot of similar capabilities. It also offered finer filtering on what was going to be allowed through various parts of the firewall ports. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten due to its reliability and ease, and the consistency of configuration.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
More Palo Alto Networks K2-Series reviews from users
...who compared it with Cisco ASA NGFW
Add a Comment
Guest