Earlier, we were using many vendors' firewalls, per their suitability for our clients. Apart from Palo Alto, we were using Cisco ASA, Check Point, and Juniper. The network grew over the years and each site had its own set of firewalls. The issue was that we had to standardize things across the network. There was also a gradual change in the technology and features available. Our security team thought we needed a better implementation, for optimization and troubleshooting, and something that was friendly for daily operations.

Previously, we utilized Azure Firewall, but we found it to be less mature compared to Palo Alto, prompting us to switch to the latter.

I used Azure Firewall for a while, but then I removed it and installed Palo Alto.

Prior to using Palo Alto, we were using an on-premises solution by Juniper. When we switched from onsite to the cloud, we changed products.

We made the switch because Juniper became unbearable regarding complexity and performance. It was getting very bad; we couldn't manage it well, and the performance was quite poor. 

We have used Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) before. Compared to Palo Alto, Cisco devices are not feasible regarding hardware. They are very slow and complicated to find the granular level of results. Sometimes, even a technical expert is unable to fetch a proper report.

Prior to using Palo Alto, we used a Sophos firewall.

No, the same brand is deployed, but in this case the change was a high availability architecture under Azure VM Scale Set mode.

In my experience, Palo Alto and Fortinet offer similar quality and high-level security compared to other vendors like Cisco and Forcepoint. They stand out in terms of reliability and security features. Other vendors may not match their level of performance and security.

I have used Cisco's Next-Generation Firewall before. It works better than Palo Alto.

We did not use another firewall product before this one.

We used to have Cisco ASA and Firepower, and we had some issues with those firewalls. Once they were replaced by Palo Alto, we didn't have any problems after that. 

Compared to the previous devices that we have used from other vendors, Palo Alto is very user-friendly, and we are comfortable with the features and capabilities that it offers.

I have clients whose architecture is configured in a lot of different ways and combinations. I use a lot of different products and make recommendations based on specific situations. For example:  

• I have one client that actually uses multiple VM-series and then at each one of their physical sites that have the K2-series — or the physical counterpart of the VM-series.  
• I have other clients that use Fortinet AlarmNet. As a matter of fact, almost all my healthcare providers use Fortinet products.  
• I have another customer that used to be on F5s and they had had some issues so switched to Fortinet.  
• I have a couple of holdouts out there that are still using the old Cisco firewalls who refuse to change.  
• I have a new client that is using a Nokia firewall which is a somewhat unique choice.  

I have a customer that used to be on F5s and they had had some issues. The result of the issue was that they came to me and we did an evaluation of what they really needed. They came in and they said, "We need you to do an evaluation and when you are done with the evaluation, you need to tell us that we need Palo Alto firewalls." I said that was great and I sat down and got to work building the side-by-side comparison of the four firewalls that they wanted to look at. When I was done, just like they wanted the Palo Alto firewall was right there as the first one on the list. They selected the Fortinet firewall instead.  

Nokia is specifically designed to address the LTE (Long Term Evolution, wireless data transmission) threats with faster networks and such. So it is probably not considered to be a mainstream firewall. The client who uses Nokia is a service provider using it on a cellular network. They are a utility and they are using Nokia on a cellular network to protect all their cellular systems and their automated cellular operations. The old Nokia firewalls — the one on frames — was called NetGuard. This client originally had the Palo Alto K-series and they switched over to the Nokia solution. That is my brand new Nokia account. They were not happy with the K-series and I am not sure why.  

The thing about Cisco is nobody is ever going to fire you for buying a Cisco product. It is like the old IBM adage. They just say that it is a Cisco product and that automatically makes it good. What they do not seem to acknowledge is that just because their solution is a Cisco product does not necessarily make it the right solution for them. It is really difficult to tell a customer that they are wrong. I do not want to say that it is difficult to tell them in a polite way — because I am always polite with my customers and I am always pretty straightforward with them. But I have to tell them in a way that is convincing. Sometimes it can be hard to change their mind or it might just be impossible.  

When I refer to Cisco, I mean real Cisco firewalls, not Meraki. Meraki is the biggest problem I think that I deal with. I do not have the network folks manage the Meraki firewalls differently than they manage their physical firewalls. I do not want there to be a difference, or there should be as little difference as possible in how the firewalls are handled. They do have some inherent differences. I try not to let them do stuff on the virtual firewalls that they can not do in the physical firewalls. The reason for that is because in defense-related installations it matters. Anytime you are dealing with defense, the closer I can get to maintaining one configuration, the better off I am. Unless something unique pops up in Panorama, I will not differentiate the setups.  

I say that there are differences because there is a little bit of configuration that inherently has to be different when you are talking about physical and virtual firewalls, but not much. I can sanitize the virtual machine and show the cloud provider that since I was going into a .gov environment or a .gov cloud, that it met all the requirements as stated in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. That is huge for our situation. Of course with a cloud provider, you are not going to have a physical firewall. Had we had a physical firewall, that becomes a bit of a chore because you have got to download the configuration file, then you have got to sanitize the configuration. Things like that become a bit of a burden. Having a VM-Series for that purpose makes it much easier.  

I did not mention Sophos in the list. Sophos does a semi-decent job with that too, by the way. The only problem with Sophos is that they are not enterprise-ready, no matter what they say. I have deployed Sophos in enterprises before, and the old Sophos models did very well. The new ones do very poorly. The SG-Series — Sierra Golf — they are rock solid. As long as we keep going with them, our customers love it. It works. I have one client with 15,000 seats. They are running 11 or 12 of them and they have nothing but great things to say about the product. The second you go to the X-Series, they are not up to the task.  

I was using Cisco, but I was using the old Cisco. The firewall was the only working protocol. The Palo Alto Network Firewall is a Next-Generation Firewall, so it is a lot different. 

This is the first and only Next-Generation Firewall that I have used. I have put in several Sophos Firewalls, but they are not the same as Palo Alto.

We chose to purchase Palo Alto through the AWS Marketplace because we needed an easy to use firewall and a way to protect our public applications and services.

We were using a lot of Cisco firewalls before. We switched because we wanted what works best in the cloud.

I have experience with Check Point and Cisco, who both started improving their management interface after Panorama.

We have the VM-Series as well as the physical appliance.

In my previous work, I dealt with both physical and virtual systems. However, currently, I am only working on virtual solutions.

We did have a previous solution that we used. We switched due to scalability and the other solution had too many issues.

We were previously Cisco partners. It is different since it is a network company.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched to Palo Alto because it can do a lot more. They are called Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFW). They can do a lot of threat detection and things that the Cisco firewalls could not, or could only do with plugins, and the firewalls were not really built for that purpose. Palo Alto can handle a lot more and give us more insight into our network. 

I only have experience with Palo Alto; I don't know much about other VM firewall solutions.