We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story
2018-12-12T10:13:00Z

What needs improvement with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks?

702

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

ITCS user
Guest
3232 Answers

author avatar
Top 20Reseller

It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now.

2021-09-03T16:10:43Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others.

2021-07-30T09:54:52Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms.

2021-07-23T05:07:37Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution.

2021-07-06T18:47:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue. So, making exceptions would be easier and would probably be better for logging. It would be nice if it were easier to use and if there were some free training hours. As for additional features, I would suggest having mobile access to the console, perhaps through a mobile app for the console.

2021-06-30T17:51:45Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

For working with the solution, you only really need a web browser, however, we've found that working on Chrome, for example, is horrible. Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well.

2021-04-05T18:32:14Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

The installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales should teams have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling. They don't know the features of the products they sell. For example, Cortex XDR includes Cortex XDR Prevent, Cortex XDR Pro, and Cortex XDR Pro per TB. They don't know the real differences between Cortex XDR Pro and Cortex XDR Pro per TB. Sometimes, they will tell you about features for one edition that belong to another edition. They don't seem to know what features belong to what edition.

2021-03-24T11:04:37Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

I would like to see some sort of attachment scanning included. Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access. I want a plugin for email attachment scanning and email body scanning.

2021-02-22T21:12:58Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReseller

It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI. Like in SentinelOne, you can search for an arbitrary file, and in Cortex XDR, you can't. You can do it with an addendum license, but I think we could all benefit from getting it with the standard license. Because if you want to do threat hunting with this product, you have to search for files now and not wait to get a license.

2021-01-27T06:34:21Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

It'll help if customization was easier. It would be better than how it's now if it came out of the box using their stock set up to get it up-and-running. Then you go in, and you add more restrictive things to make it better.

2021-01-23T07:10:12Z
author avatar
Top 10Reseller

A little bit more automation would be nice.

2021-01-07T19:20:58Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

There are a lot of logs generated and an engineer has to go through all of the events to find out exactly what the bottleneck is. We do need to collect the events but this can be time-consuming. Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer. A better pricing plan would make this product more competitive.

2020-12-08T16:15:48Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReseller

It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc. this is good as an endpoint protection to prevent malware, exploits, zero days, ransomware, botnet etc. For features like Host DLP or encryption or patch management, or any such features which are available in basic anti-virus, you cannot expect it in Palo Alto Network's Cortex XDR solution. rest, all features work as expected, without any lagg or slowness observed in the system.

2020-11-24T00:53:45Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting. As of right now, they are giving reports, which are okay, however, there are other ways to get better reporting. That is an area where I already requested that Palo Alto work on. In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations. They should extend the solution for URL filtering, as other endpoint security products are doing that already. Nowadays, users are working from home and therefore we have plenty of traffic back through the data center just for URL filtering security. If that functionality could be there in the endpoint, then we would be happy. It would ensure users working from home couldn't access malicious websites.

2020-10-22T14:34:13Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want.

2020-10-19T09:33:32Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response). Then it would work well with SIEM Response. Also, if they could make an on-premises version we would definitely go with Cortes. At this time, they are not offering an on-premises solution.

2020-10-13T07:21:37Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

As an improvement, I would like to see enhanced connection speeds. On China's side, we need to set up a local server for the definition updates, and the performance has not been very good for the company when directly connected to the internet. We are a little disappointed with that.

2020-08-30T08:33:28Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

It's my understanding that this solution is at end-of-life. It's hard to use as a product. It's not easy or straightforward. Especially when I deal with a government sector or other sensitive industries. They do not accept that it's so easy to share metadata outside their organization. They prefer on-prem even if it is not as powerful due to the fact that they perceive it as being more secure. The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements. The deployment is pretty hard. Competitors like Trend Micro or Symantec have features on their console that make them easier to use. This solution does not offer items that would increase its usability. Before I moved to technical sales, I handled implementation, and I remember it being very difficult. They need to improve this aspect. The solution provides a lot of false positives. The average amount of false positives you get is 5%. It would be great if this could be lowered.

2020-07-19T08:15:00Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen. It eats more memory than Chrome. I have a lot of users that are eating my memory each hour every day and it's causing us problems. We have to go and buy more memory for each computer. When you have a lot of computers like we do, is not a very good situation. Some of the computers are only using 4 GB of memory, so if you put aside the differences, most only have some Chrome, some internet, and Office and that's it. And yet, the memory is getting eaten. If someone catches something like malware, or something else, I want to know if the file was spread to other machines and what the target was. I want to be able to get ahead of the spread. This solution doesn't do enough to protect us against these types of vulnerabilities or to give us much information about the spread. The tool really does need some more reverse engineering features. There's an overall lack of features. The initial setup could use improvement. Currently, I must go to each machine and deploy everything manually. We are in 2020, not in 1980. It seems like such a dated way of doing large deployments.

2020-07-09T06:27:01Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved.

2020-06-21T08:08:11Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results.

2019-11-12T20:23:00Z
author avatar
Reseller

I started using it from 4.1, but it didn't change that much. Some features and some fixes have been added to 4.2, but not that much. They need to improve reporting, the end-point reporting. They could also enhance their notification statuses. In the current version, you will see some threat alerts, or if anything is executable, but you will not see behavioral analysis. You will see what was being blocked, and that's it. If Traps logs something, you will get a notification. Otherwise, you have to generate the dump file and investigate on your own. In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are a big company, so they can surely improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved. But overall, when we speak about security and protection, they are one of the top providers.

2019-07-16T05:40:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports. It could also use better graphics and more information.

2019-07-09T05:26:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

The one area which should improve is not on the user side but on the product itself. Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats. For example, if you had something that was not detected by the former solution, and you install Palo Alto, you will have some difficulty removing the virus with the Palo Alto tool. It would be helpful if they had a tool for removing a virus or threat in these cases.

2019-06-24T12:13:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version. I need to control USB ports on MAC laptops and cannot. This is a MUST so I opened a case with Palo Alto and requested this feature for an upcoming update. I would like to see more automation and self-healing for incidents that can be easily classified as malware.

2019-04-17T08:37:00Z
author avatar
Real User

There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, was not user-friendly.

2019-02-11T08:11:00Z
author avatar
Real User

There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results. Originally, we wanted to uninstall Traps because we could not run our operations because Traps, by default, had blocked applications and files. This is still a thing, as we still have to give flexibility to certain policies which are pre-defined in the Traps application.

2019-02-07T12:28:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Managing the product should be easier.

2019-02-07T12:28:00Z
author avatar
Top 20LeaderboardConsultant

There are some limitations on the Traps agents. Traps for Windows has limitations and Traps for Linux too. Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere. With Windows 7 and Windows 8 64-bit, when you want to install Traps, because its Windows, it will crash. They need a little more flexibility with antivirus engines.

2019-02-07T12:28:00Z
author avatar
Real User

With cloud integration, there were several improvements made: * Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis. With the cloud implementation, we now have connectivity to the server at any moment, as long as we have an internet connection. * A new user interface, which is a lot easier to use. Making it similar to managing a firewall. * Additional OS support.

2019-01-17T10:53:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Going from version 4 to version 5, they had a major change in their user interface. Version 5 is now all cloud managed, while it has a very intuitive, useful interface, it doesn't have all the features that were in the version 4 interface. For example, we lost being able to automatically trigger upgrades, like creating manual groups to upgrade with. It doesn't currently have the ability to use the Active Directory to create groups.

2019-01-10T08:22:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The application whitelisting/blacklisting feature is based purely on path and filenames. Changing a filename can bypass it easily. The uninstall admin password for the client is passed in clear text during install. There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration. This is ridiculous for an enterprise product. Traps 5.0 does not integrate with Palo Alto's Panorama product, which was a big selling point of Traps 4.0. Traps 5.0 has no ability to send an email to alert of detections. Instead customers have to jump through hoops to use Palo Alto's log management service to forward logs into a 3rd party SIEM and then build your alerts from there. No EDR functionality, though this is supposedly coming.

2018-12-12T10:13:00Z
Learn what your peers think about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2021.
540,984 professionals have used our research since 2012.