Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

I offer our clients the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

I work as a presales representative and a product manager for Forcepoint. I'm working on product demonstration demos and proofs-of-concept. I give customers sessions and show them firewall demos. Even if it's on-premises, cloud-based, or virtualized.

It's all about the firewalls, how to deploy them, what the main features of the firewall are, what it is best suited for, the advantages, the pros, and the cons.

I would like to see more sizing in the next release, and the roadmap should be clear. More models are needed to compete in terms of firewall sizing.

I have been dealing with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three months.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a stable solution.

The Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall is a scalable product.

I work with various types of users and organizations. We have maybe, starting with 20,000 users to 100 users.

Technical support is not within my scope because I work as a pre-sales representative for one of Forcepoint's partners.

The installation is straightforward.

It is easy to install. It can take less than 20 minutes to install the firewall.

Depending on the number of firewalls, one engineer will be required to implement one solution.

It requires a yearly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall an eight out of ten.

We use it for a government network, here in Fiji.

Forcepoint is a complete package because it has network and systems applications. Other firewalls are only for the network. 

At the moment we are in a test phase. It's a demo for us. After the trial finishes, we may decide what packages to pay for. We haven't used all the packages.

It's very robust. It's very strong compared to every other firewall I've used.

It can handle a lot.

They should have a local vendor who can provide support. Most of the support is overseas, so the time zones can be a problem.

When we do contact them they are very easy to work with and very helpful.

The initial setup was straightforward because we did it with someone who came to us with the product. It took us a couple of days and then we tested it before we put it in production.

It is expensive.

Forcepoint is easier to use than Fortinet. We are also looking at Cisco ASA. But Fortinet and Cisco don't have all the packages that Forcepoint has. It's not comparing like things.

It's a nice product. I haven't come across anything that needs to be improved. It is very capable, very reliable, and easy to deploy. It covers all your networking needs for a big enterprise network. If you have a small business you should go with FortiGate or Cisco.

Our customer uses this solution as a standard next-generation firewall and VPN.

The VPN is great.

It lacks something called a change of authority. It also lacks more integration with other VPN clients. Also, the ability to dynamically change policies could be improved. 

We installed this solution for one of our customers one year ago.

This solution is very reliable. 

Adding users is very straightforward. 

I would give their technical support a rating of seven or eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It only takes a matter of minutes. 

The licensing is perpetual. The cost is fair, but it could be improved.

If you have Cisco integration, then I wouldn't recommend this solution — it won't integrate. It depends upon the endpoint security. If you have Cisco endpoints, you'll lack certain protections, especially in this multi-vendor environment.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a rating of eight. 

I provide Forcepoint services to my clients.

The blocking, based on the signal provided, is the solution's most valuable aspect.

From my perspective, the user interface is decent.

Decryption needs improvement. It could be better in terms of the bandwidth and in terms of the speed of the tasks.

The solution needs to build upon its network functionality. It needs to be a bit smarter.

Communication with the cloud will be integral to the future of this solution. It needs to be easily deployed with the cloud going forward. 

The solution would also benefit from working within a multi-cloud environment. It should work with everything from Google to Azure to Salesforce. They need to have a more complex API to be able to successfully connect with other clouds and stations.

I've been using the solution for about one year now.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. We have no issues there. We don't see any bugs or glitches. The solution doesn't crash.

A company would have absolutely no problem scaling this solution. If a team needs to build it out, they can do so quite easily.

We've contacted technical support in the past. They are decent. They provide enough support services to cover our needs. We are satisfied with the level of service they've provided us so far.

The initial setup is easy to get started and the deployment itself is pretty simple.

The customer's infrastructure can really be diverse, however, and that will affect deployment. There are different complexities involved in the setup from the client's side. That's where complexity can really come in. The infrastructure, routines, and network traffic all vary and bring in their own unique challenges.

Typically, deployment takes about a week to complete.

We're a developing company that works with a lot of legacy suppliers that offer clients security solutions. From my perspective, such legacy supplier companies such as McAfee, Checkpoint, and Forcepoint. We help our clients implement certain solutions.

I would absolutely recommend the solution. When it comes to the ease of deployment of the functionality, I would strongly recommend it. Forcepoint has great security functionality. 

However, one downside that is I see is that they need to improve some network functionality. This is very important due to the fact that network functionality is very crucial when it comes to deploying the solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten overall.

Forcepoint makes up part of our security solution.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the support.

Making this solution easier to use would be an improvement.

The implementation could be made easier.

I have been using the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for one year.

Scaling this solution is difficult. We have approximately 100 users.

We are satisfied with technical support.

I also have experience with FortiGate.

The installation and initial setup are difficult.

We had a consultant assist us with the deployment.

I like this product and it is one that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The simplicity of the solution is its most valuable asset. It's very user-friendly.

The solution's support could use improvement. 

I'm in the MENA region so most of the time we were getting support from Europe.

They should include a license watch solution on their back-end.

The solution is stable. We haven't been worried about a lack of stability affecting us in the latest version or in the patches.

The solution isn't scalable. We have about 5,000 users, but they are never on it at the same time. Traffic just passes through.

I'd rate technical support at eight out of ten, but they're response times are suddenly a bit longer because most of them are in Europe and some are in India. It there was someone in MENA it would be much quicker because the time differences affect reaction times.

If you are not familiar with the setup, the initial implementation can be complex. For me, because I'm comfortable with firewalls, it was straightforward.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend the solution, but it depends on the requirements of the user.

I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The solution has the ability to stop the latest malware threats and any exploits to computer systems.

It does well in security, for data security, and it ranks on the top of NSS Lab.

Forcepoint is a little difficult to configure compared to its competitors. 

The product could be more user friendly. Firewalls are getting better in graphical user interfaces. If there is an issue with the appliances then the engineering team can work on the command line controls. A cheaper way is a graphical user interface for any users to be able to quickly configuration and implement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a scalable product. I know a customer who has deployed more than 4,000 firewalls in a single deployment.

The technical support is good.

The installation can take a little while depending on the number of sites that someone has. Usually, for single deployment, it takes one or two days.

In our deployment team, we have over 2000 users.

The pricing of the solution is normally competitive with other products.

I would probably not recommend the product to customers because it is not top of the line. It depends on the customer though, their usage, budget, etc. If they have the budget I would probably recommend Palo Alto Networks, not Forcepoint.

I rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a six out of ten.

Integrated multi-layer filtering

McAfee NSP helps the organization by filtering most of the active inbound attacks that would otherwise compromise the users and servers. It's automated and fast response allow the organization to leave it as it is and apply automated updates to its signature.

Intel could ditch the Java-based GUI rendering and could use some serious revamp on the way they manage their GUI. A lot of bugs happen on their GUI but their system is working fine.