Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with SonicWall SMA.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
There are some features that are available on Palo Alto or Cisco that don't exist. There isn't a depth of information on SonicWall. The solution could integrate better with other platforms. The solution should include SOS (Security Operations Systems) features for detection purposes. There should also be SEIM integrated with big players like IBM, etc. It would be great if there could be a single appliance that can take care of all the security requirements of the organization.
I don't really think that there are many ways that this product can get much better for my purposes. Everything is working fine. I cannot find anything here that really needs to be fixed for my needs and really it is perfect as it is. As a user, you have to decide to use whichever solution is comfortable and that solves your problem — whatever that problem may be. That said, there are some things which can help promote the product and its use. Every customer is influenced by price. They are looking for something to be a lower price as if there is a big competition over only the price and features don't matter because every product is the same. The Dell SSL-VPN product needs to be set at a competitive price or it will lose out to other solutions. Price may be something Dell needs to consider to be competitive in the market. Recommending the right solution all depends on business needs on a client to client basis. But it is not always the best solution that influences a client's choice. Some of the clients want SonicWall because they see it is a Dell product and they are familiar with the brand or they know someone else who uses it. Then there are decision-makers from other companies who see another product advertised and — for whatever attracted them to the product — they want that product and nothing else. Other people might also say they don't want SonicWall because they don't want Dell. The public opinions all depends on how Dell is doing with pitching itself and SonicWall, and how much they are pushing it in the marketing campaigns they are doing. Depending upon that publicity, they are in competition with other products. If there is an actual comparison one-to-one, people will see there are lots of wizards, all those things that make the product easy to use, it looks okay, and that may be an advantage. But the company needs to promote the product to make the comparison desirable. On the client end, whether it is a global VPN client or SSL-VPN client, it does not matter because it can be made to perform okay. The only thing that matters, in the end, is if it is performing well. But creating a positive face for the business community is something to be improved and maintained by Dell so the product is desirable. One problem I saw which happens with the product in some cases is where a client uses a mobile device to connect to the VPN. The connection might be coming from a private address because of the local ISP. In that case, the client can face problems when they try to connect. If they are connecting directly, no problem. But if the network is sitting behind a 3G or 4G network and we have the safety measure for remote connections which requires inserting the SSL-VPN, then the client may face a connection problem. Browsing is not a problem, but the SSL-VPN connection can be. They will blame the services for being unstable or unpredictable instead of the networks they are connecting through. That is maybe not a very common problem, but handling this type of situation might be addressed in the product to provide better general connectivity. An enhancement for the product would be saving configurations to add by drag-and-drop. I don't want it personally but that could be the easiest way to help some kinds of users to deploy the product. For example, there are vendors who specialize in VPN. They install the box, put on the basic API and do the same thing first with all their installations. If they could somehow save this configuration as an object that they can reuse, it would be good for them. They just install the box, drag-and-drop their usual configuration for the box, and it becomes very easy to do deployments. When the vendor says it will take a lot of configuration, it becomes a big pain. Either they or the client may not want a product that is difficult to install and maintain. Implementation improvements would help that perception. There are still areas that are gray in the area of security. If you ask them, most vendors are not able to tell how security threats are coming exactly and where the weak points are. They give a solution like RDP or this thing or that thing. It may work but they still don't know how it is getting done. I also feel like most companies providing security measures are still researching the topic. In my case, I'm looking for how the ransomware made its attack so we can resolve the actual issue. Everybody has a vague idea but still, nobody knows for sure how that particular infection came into the systems. If they did it would have been stopped. It would be good to know more about what is effective in threat protection. When you install too much security, people will start complaining. They won't complain about the security maybe, but they could complain about performance depending on the solution. Complicated security introduces performance issues and other issues like files are not being delivered properly. When it takes time, people don't want to wait. That means creating better security without compromising the performance — whatever it takes. Even a small percentage like 2%, 3%, or five percentage in performance enhancement is welcomed. At the same time, you must not compromise on security. If Dell can enhance performance by just a little, it matters. The last thing is that the knowledge base for the product could be improved for technical users. Again it is not the product that is the problem and it is more like something to do with the technical support and support services.
This solution is very slow, and the competitors have much higher speeds. We are now running at gigabyte-speed and SonicWall just can't handle it. For a user, doing the setup alone is hopeless because the menu structure is not very clear and many of the features are hidden. They are very difficult to access. The overall menu is not very user-friendly and it could be easier.
This is an expensive solution and I think that the price could be improved.