Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

We use it for DNS security, URL filtering, and threat prevention.

The global product feature, the VPN, needs improvement, and we need some enhanced features.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks WildFire for three years now.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is definitely stable.

We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable.  We currently have six thousand users for the product.

Technical support is responsive when we have used their services.

Positive

We were using Cisco for the last ten years and we wanted to change the product.

We migrated from a Cisco firewall to Palo Alto, so it took some time to migrate all the services.

Our migration process was completed by a third-party consultant.

When purchasing the product there are subscription fees involved.

We made the conversion between Cisco and Palo Alto Networks WildFire without any other options being considered.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to identify whether an unknown file is managed or not. We also use it to identify any unknown file that is executable without reputation. We do this before releasing it to the end-user.

We release the email and the network traffic but also analyze the file. We can do it concurrently before we release the actual traffic to the end user when we have already completed the analysis.

The analysis is very fast. The intermittent is a millisecond and has a speedy response time.

There are some formats that the solution cannot support today, but they are mostly very rare formats. So that can be improved.

We have been using this solution for the past three years. We are using the latest version, and it is deployed on Google cloud. In addition, we do an integration with the Cortex XDR together with Palo Alto Networks WildFire.

It is a stable solution. 

Regarding scalability, 1000 to 5000 is not a problem, but anything more than that, I am unsure. However, it is scalable, and most of the people in our company that use the solution are from our group's information.

We have used the technical support for analysis purposes. They are sound, and the testing system and updates are good. They proactively give us updates, and they are doing a good job. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have used different solutions in the past but switched to Palo Alto Networks WildFire due to the fast analysis.

The installation was straightforward. It is a cloud and FaaS-based platform and took about one to two hours to deploy. We completed the deployment in-house, and very minimal maintenance is required.

We have about ten people on our team. We needed only one person to install and deploy and about three to maintain.

I am unsure about the specific ROI, but we have managed to quarantine and block multiple manages on the enterprise price, which is good. We have benefited from Wildfire.

Our licensing costs are annual, and I believe it is not that expensive. I rate the pricing a six out of ten, so it is on the cheaper side.

We evaluated getting proof of concept for another solution and end-user analyzer, but there were limitations to the integration, so we didn't proceed with it.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would recommend doing a proof of concept first before deciding on the solution.

The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow. 

I have been working with the product for four to five years. 

Palo Alto Networks WildFire is stable. 

My company has over 20 users for the product. 

We get support in the free version. 

We switched to the solution since it matches our requirements and helps to analyze threats with a free version. 

I use Palo Alto Networks WildFire's free version. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire an eight out of ten. 

We had two 800-Series Palo Alto Firewalls, but as they reached end-of-life, we began researching alternatives. Ultimately, we chose to switch to Cisco Firepower, so we no longer use WildFire.

The most valuable feature for us is the VPN. We used GlobalProtect for the VPN, as well as site-to-site.

It is very simple to use.

The support needs to be improved because it takes too long to resolve severity-one issues.

Better integration with third-party products and services is needed.

The need to implement their own multifactor authentication, rather than relying on third-party add-ons for it.

They have malware protection and web-filtering in place, although they are not as effective as Titan or Cisco Umbrella.

I began working with Palo Alto WildFire a year ago when I joined the company.

It is a solid, stable network solution.

In terms of scalability, Palo Alto is at the top of the market.

Managing this solution we had six network administrators, who are network analysts. In terms of end-users, the entire company was using the Palo Alto network.

When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing. Sometimes you are left on the phone for three or four hours before you can speak with an engineer, which is very, very poor. If you have an emergency situation or a network outage of severity-one, then you cannot wait for hours to support your clients.

Palo Alto was the first solution of this type that we used. However, we have recently purchased Cisco Firepower and no longer work with Palo Alto products.

Prior to Firepower being released, Palo Alto was very simple and better than Cisco ASA. Now, however, Firepower is simpler and the support is outstanding. With Cisco, if you have a severity-one outage then it will be less than ten minutes before you get an engineer on the phone to help you.

I have also worked with Check Point and Juniper solutions, and I feel that scalability-wise, Palo Alto is better than the rest, except for perhaps Cisco, where it is neck and neck.

The setup is not complex. When you come from a CLI background of Cisco ASA or any other platform, Palo Alto is much easier. As long as you are familiar with the general steps in the procedure, it is not difficult.

This solution is very pricey and it depends on the package that you implement. There are sometimes promotions on, which can save on costs.

The Palo Alto models that we were using are the PA800-500 and PA830. 

I have seen people in different organizations and different industries set their firewall solutions up in different ways. It depends on the level of support, in terms of who will be maintaining the network. It also includes the level of knowledge they have, as well as their management preference. Some people choose Palo Alto because they don't care about the costs, and it is an easy solution to use, especially if they are already familiar with it. I would say that if they have the budget then this is a good choice and I recommend it.

However, if they are looking to consolidate all of their services, then the option to choose is definitely Cisco. It's a cloud-based solution with malware protection, filtering, and everything you need all in one box. It makes a lot of difference.

Finally, some people prefer FortiGate because the pricing is good and it is simple to use, whereas some people prefer Check Point for other reasons. It's an individual choice, but it should be well researched before the final choice is made.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'm a reseller.

WildFire analyzes the malware in the network such as SSDB and can help analyze the files transmitted over the network, and can detect if the file contains malware.

There are features such as sandboxing in cloud. It submits malware to Palo Alto on the cloud, verifies the reputation file, and analyzes the malware in the files.

The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure.

Palo Alto limits the files submitted per day. There are limitations with the boxes for the Palo Alto module. In the future, I think Palo Alto will reduce the sandboxing in the on-prem version because the box cannot operate.

In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file. Sometimes it takes 10 minutes.

I've been using this solution for three years.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support is very good. In Vietnam, we work directly with Palo Alto engineers.

I also have experience with Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco.

Configuration is easy.

For the last three years, the price of Palo Alto in Vietnam has been very high.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for threat protection. 

I found the solution easy to deploy.

It has a nice IP set.

The VPN technologies are very good. 

It's largely very feature-rich.

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is generally helpful.

It is stable and reliable. 

I don't have any real problems with the solution. 

High availability features are lacking. It's a bit too standard as a solution. It needs high availability. 

We'd like the solution to be a bit cheaper. It's quite pricey. 

I've been working with the solution for three or four years. 

The solution is pretty stable. I'd rate it eight or nine out of ten in terms of reliability. It has limitations for high-availability features. It's more traditional. 

It's a good solution if you need to scale. 

We have three or four customers using the solution right now. 

Technical support is fine. We haven't had issues with them when we need help. 

The solution is straightforward to set up. Since it is so easy, it takes one or two months for a migration. An initial setup might take one or two weeks. 

We need Panorama. We give the IP to the team and Panorama as well. Then we have to ensure the firewall has internet access. 

There are a lot of licensing options. It can be a bit complicated for users. They could work to simplify the options. The product is also a very expensive firewall. 

I'm an integrator. We do use a variety of versions of the solution. We have a few clients using the product. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. It improves protection and is a good firewall. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. I'm happy with its capabilities.

WildFire is being deployed based on vendor and security best practices and recommendations from our Managed Service Provider. leveraging their inherent knowledge it allows us to think outside the box. 

When  a security Intel threat talks about an IOC. We can then go to our MSP and ask, "Is there a signature for this particular type of malware?" The response is generally  yes, it is applied almost in real time. 

It's not a problem specific to the technology, it's a problem across the board. All the encrypted traffic can be a challenge. Becoming a man in the middle requires CPU cycles, causing additional  overhead.

The stability's great as long as its sized correctly. no huge hits from a CPU or RAM from a performance perspective. It would be prudent to monitor performance statistics. 

The way it's delivered, I don't see scalability being an issue.

We're a managed service, so we've got to fill in the middle that's running interference for us.

The initial setup is really straightforward. Turn the WildFire service on within firewalls and then apply that service to the security policies you want.

Some services require additional licensing. WildFire was one of the services we definitely wanted out of the gate. Suggestion is to determine your requirements of services and map back to the cost of turning on the service.

Install the solution set it up the service in alert mode. Run reports and determine how you want it tuned, them move into block mode. You may want to go to  block mode right away with known out of the box threats. 

My primary use case of this solution is on-frame and in-cloud security of the infrastructure.

We use this with different clients in the financial sphere, the health sector, and the insurance sector. Across all of these different verticals, we use this product.

Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides.

As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity. And, the industry is currently moving towards automation and orchestration. I would like to see more of this in the product. They are part of the future roadmap to AI (Artificial Intelligence).

It is stable, and we are also trying to integrate this with the Palo Alto MIME shell. We did that, and also I have inquired recently about Evident, which is a recent acquisition. So I have requested for demos, and still I did not see any response from Palo Alto yet. This is something that we would like to explore.

It's pretty much scalable. We were able to manage both the cloud, and also the on-frame devices or appliances from centralized management station. So, we just implemented in the  migration onto the cloud.

We used tech support to help us implement the product initially. 

I have prior experience with Cisco Firepower. But, they are very expensive in comparison to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was complex because we were switching from traditional firewalls to application-based firewalls. We needed Palo Alto's help insetting up initially. From there, we tried to understand, and followed suit with implementation.

It is a reasonable price compared to other solutions on the market.

Some of our clients used to have the traditional firewalls so where we do have enabled the application control but being it's a pretty small firewall. At the end of the day, even in spite of them demanding the application controls, it's on top of the firewall functionality (especially in terms of controlling the applications). So, after implementing the Palo Alto firewalls, they have achieved more than what is expected, and we are able to control the number of applications; who gets to have access, and what is flowing inside the network. Anything that is traversing the firewall, is available right now.