Positive

I am still working for Lotus. We work with Palo Alto three series, Panorama, and Firewall Banu, specifically Firewall three series and five series.

I find this solution valuable for full monitoring, centralized control for reporting, and centralized management. These features are instrumental in achieving effective results.

The solution requires more flexibility and quicker response times. High-speed replies are crucial. 

Additionally, the AI module should be on-premises, not in the cloud. It should support more flexibility and OpenShift Direct, not just the basics. 

The virtualization feature needs to be more advanced.

I have been using it for about one year.

It is very good in terms of scalability.

I would rate customer service as seven out of ten.

Neutral

The setup cost is too high.

Consider the environment, as it is very high priced. If you have money to spare, it's a good option. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I primarily use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the global administration of firewalls and managing the GlobalProtect services. It is used for logging and standard firewall activity, and opening firewall rules. Additionally, it centralizes various tasks on the platform.

The main value of Palo Alto Networks Panorama lies in its ability to centralize management, similar to FortiManager. It provides a single dashboard for all firewalls, allowing centralized control over different feeder systems based on Palo Alto. It's a comprehensive solution for managing firewalls globally.

There is room for improvement in the graphical user interface (GUI), which is becoming outdated, especially the NAT section. However, it still meets expectations and works well for our needs.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years.

Stability is rated highly at nine out of ten.

Scalability depends on whether it's a hardware or virtual machine model, and I rate it at eight out of ten.

I rate technical support at seven out of ten. It depends on the case, with room for improvement in both quality and response time.

Neutral

In comparison, I prefer Panorama over FortiManager because Panorama includes all the modules needed for troubleshooting, unlike FortiAnalyzer. From an operational perspective, Panorama is better.

The initial setup for Panorama is simple.

Overall, I rate Panorama an eight out of ten and would recommend it to other users.

Panorama is primarily a management solution to manage Palo Alto firewalls. Customers with a large number of firewalls need this solution for efficient management.

Panorama has the capacity for SD-WAN configuration, which is appreciated alongside its capabilities for firewall management and firmware upgrades. The SD-WAN capability is particularly valued because it allows for easy management of firewalls remotely. It also provides a single pane of glass to manage its entire portfolio, offering cost savings as less manpower is needed.

From a storage perspective, I would like to see an improvement where logs can be compressed to make some space available. Such a feature could enhance performance.

I have been working with Panorama for more than five years now.

The technical support from Palo Alto is rated around nine out of ten. The response time and quality are satisfying.

Positive

The initial setup of Panorama is pretty simple. The appliance itself is easy to set up, and it isn't complex to execute. It does require some experience for managing other firewalls.

For setup, the customer and engineer needed to collaborate, but for configuration, our help was definitely required. The setup involves downloading a Hyper V file and providing it to a virtualization expert. Management requires good experience.

Commercially, compared to Fortinet, Palo Alto is more expensive, however, it has remarkable features like SD-WAN capability that make it worth its price.

Overall, I rate Panorama a nine out of ten. I would recommend it for medium to enterprise-level companies, however, not for small businesses due to its cost and features.

The primary use case for this solution is the management of the entire firewall portfolio across various branches.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has simplified management by providing a unified interface for firewall management and configuration.

One of the key advantages of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its unified platform that is quite similar to the firewall interface, making it easier for tech consultants to manage.

The integration between Strata Cloud Manager and Panorama could be enhanced to allow customers to stay on Panorama for many years while still utilizing Strata Cloud Manager for deployment.

I have sold Panorama for four years.

To my knowledge, the solution is very stable. There are always some issues, however, I haven't heard any major complaints from the consultants.

Scalability is primarily enhanced by Strata Cloud Manager as it is much easier to scale in the cloud than in an on-premises installation.

The tech support I've encountered has been good, prompt, and fast. However, some consultants have mentioned it can be cumbersome, particularly if the issue is not well-documented before contacting support.

Positive

The installation process is pretty straightforward. It's possible to have one technician handle the setup.

In large installations, it can be expensive with hardware appliances, however, virtual Panorama is well-priced and is sold every time there's a solution.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama could benefit from some integration improvements with Strata Cloud Manager, to maintain customer efficiency without selecting between the two.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We deploy Prisma SD-WAN for our NetBackBot and sell Fortinet SD-WAN and Fortinet SRC solutions. We also provide both on-premises and account solutions. Our customers focus on security rather than DLP.

Palo Alto integrates the whole policy into the platform and deploys all policies to every end device, making it easy to manage and deploy policies for IT departments.

Panorama integrates security management by allowing easy modification of policy by account, IP, or application. This flexibility helps IT departments securely manage Internet security.

Palo Alto needs to improve deployment by making it easier to deploy an agent to a desktop. Currently, it's complex since the product cannot utilize the AD serving for deployment, which would be a desired improvement in the near future.

Panorama is capable of managing complex network environments. Its scalability is rated nine out of ten.

I am satisfied with their support and would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We used to work with Fortinet products. However, our focus has shifted, though Fortinet products remain an alternative for our customers who are familiar with its platform.

The initial setup can be complicated, specifically when deploying to desktops using batch files.

Palo Alto Panorama might appear expensive to some enterprises, but its powerful platform justifies the cost.

We evaluate solutions like Fortinet, which has advantages in pricing and functionalities such as user-friendly deployment.

I would recommend this solution to customers, though it can be very expensive. As an alternative, Fortinet solutions are also recommended.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have multiple firewalls in our infrastructure. Palo Alto Networks Panorama serves as the management interface for all our Palo Alto firewalls. As our organization has grown, there has been one company initially, but now three companies have merged into one, and we have increased the number of firewalls. For instance, we have a Palo Alto firewall in our Azure stack and a core firewall from another company that we’ve integrated into our data center. We use Palo Alto Panorama to manage all our Palo Alto firewalls across our infrastructure.

We have centralized management for all Palo Alto firewalls. With the merger of three companies, each previously operating their own Palo Alto firewalls, we can now manage them efficiently through our operations using Panorama. Our network has become more complex as we run various services, including SD-WAN, across three sites. While the SD-WAN operates through a separate firewall, our core firewall remains Palo Alto. Additionally, we use Palo Alto as a perimeter firewall for our Azure stack. In total, we manage four firewalls with Panorama. We monitor various traffic types, including FTP, browser traffic, applications, and unified threat management. We also have SSL inspection enabled and are actively managing and monitoring SSL tunnels and threat management.

Palo Alto Panorama offers robust logging and reporting capabilities, allowing us to extract reports in a user-friendly GUI format with graphical representations. For example, we can track bytes sent and received for specific applications and users since we use Palo Alto XDR for analysis, reporting, and forensics.

We benefit from a certain level of customization in our reports, utilizing predefined templates and tailored reports. This includes user activity reports, application reports, and SaaS platform reports. We forward logs to a separate SIEM solution, enabling us to monitor TCP and inspect SSL traffic.

The logs from our virtual appliances show potential for improvement, particularly regarding their deployment in hypervisors like VMware, Proxmox, or Azure Stack. Monitoring the internal traffic between hosts with these hypervisors could be enhanced. While predefined reports are available, we often require customized reports tailored to the specific areas involving hypervisors. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five years.

We use Palo Alto as a perimeter firewall for our public network, which can support nearly 40,000 users daily. About 7,000 to 10,000 users connect to the Internet through this firewall.

In addition, we utilize Palo Alto Global VPN for remote access. We have around 869 VPN users, primarily for remote work or when a government advisory requires the entire staff to connect. This solution integrates seamlessly with our Palo Alto firewall.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It's important to reference authoritative sources like Gartner. We selected the product based on their ratings and assessments. In terms of capability, Palo Alto remains one of the top solutions for on-premises security, XDRs, and cloud security posture management. 

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The support team is very knowledgeable. We only contact them when our partner support or integrated support cannot resolve an issue. They respond quickly, joining within an hour if there’s a critical situation.

Positive

We deployed our Palo Alto solution four years ago for the Azure Stack implementation. The complete deployment took around three months, as it's a comprehensive cloud solution similar to Azure or AWS.

If I were to replace my Palo Alto firewall today, I estimate it would take at least seven days to implement. Given our complex infrastructure, which includes SD-WANs and connections between three different data centers into one main center, this timeframe excludes the planning phase.

We are aligned with Palo Alto, as they are our partners. At times, we need to engage Palo Alto support directly due to our subscription with them, which was also established during the initial deployment.

Managing multiple firewalls across three large identities was becoming quite challenging. To address this, we implemented Palo Alto Panorama, which allows us to manage all our firewalls from a single interface. This has significantly improved our efficiency and manageability. It also helps us better use our current human resources; otherwise, we would need to hire several experts in Palo Alto to oversee the three data centers, which would be a cumbersome task.

Palo Alto solutions are more expensive than other products, but this often depends on an organization’s specific requirements. The level of security and features needed will influence the decision. For example, VPN access is essential for our corporate users and consultants, as company policy mandates that they connect via VPN to access the corporate network. When purchasing bulk licenses, we receive discounts, which makes the cost comparison with other solutions more favorable.

When it comes to security, complexity often accompanies it. With advancements over time and the integration of AI and new technologies, we're seeing improved features in the GUI compared to some online solutions. 

The ongoing improvements with the latest firmware updates are a positive sign. Still, virtual firewalls or appliances face a challenge: They could provide more comprehensive information than what is currently available in the reports.

We also use the VPN functionality, which became crucial during COVID-19. Initially, we had around 610 users, and now that number has risen to about 890 users who connect remotely through Palo Alto GlobalProtect VPN. We've never considered switching to another solution because it is stable and reliable for our needs.

You encounter news about zero-day vulnerabilities and firewall firmware updates when browsing the internet. We've been using our Palo Alto solution for the past four years, and during this time, some devices were procured five years ago, while others, including our Palo Alto firewall, were acquired around three years ago. Each identity had IT staff coordinating individual updates, which was inefficient. Now, with a unified approach through Panorama, we can monitor and manage zero-day vulnerabilities more effectively. Panorama plays a crucial role in ensuring timely updates. The features we utilize depend on the complexity of our network and the number of applications hosted in our environment.

Suppose your infrastructure is extensive, and you need a reliable, secure SDR, UTM, and firewall solution. In that case, choosing a product with comprehensive capabilities that you can rely on for at least the next five years is crucial. Proper planning is essential; if you purchase something that isn’t reliable or only plan for six months to a year, it may not be appropriate for your needs. Palo Alto is one of the best secure solutions for organizations with complex infrastructures, such as multiple sites in different regions.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine-point five out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for firewall management. It is required for clients who want to manage a large number of firewalls in multiple locations. Otherwise, it is not too useful. It makes sense to use the product when the clients want to manage several branches.

Managing the firewalls in the branch locations from a central management console is easier. We can schedule tasks like firmware updates and send rules or policies to all the firewalls in a single stretch. Palo Alto is one of the best firewalls we can have in our environment. It has one of the best back-end databases for signatures and behavior-based analysis. Recently, the vendors integrated it with a lot of AI for threat prevention. Palo Alto is a leader in the market.

If we implement Cisco or Fortinet's firewall for the first time, anybody with a basic knowledge of firewalls can set the policies and rules. The implementation is not that easy. Though Palo Alto is much better and more efficient than many other products in the market, we need some skilled resources to manage the initial installation and configuration. It leads to an increase in service costs.

The tool is relatively stable. It has a good security portfolio in the market.

The support charges are pretty high. The subscription renewals are relatively much higher than those of the peers. However, the vendor is working on the pricing. They are also getting competitive because Fortinet is taking over many Palo Alto clients due to the cost.

Initial implementation is challenging to an extent. The setup takes time. Once it is implemented, then it's very straightforward. Once the person managing the setup gets a good experience with the product, it's pretty easy to manage and relatively smooth.

The high price gets compensated with the piece of mind of having Palo Alto in the environment.

Palo Alto is costly compared to Fortinet and Sophos. However, the vendor is working on cost-effective models. They are working on the back end to make it more attractive for SMBs.

Palo Alto and Check Point are the top products in the market. Fortinet and Cisco also have some good solutions.

Palo Alto has one of the best portfolios in the market if we need a very stable environment to manage the information security space for our organization or our client's organization in firewalling, application-level firewalling, and contextual-based firewalling. We can also look at Check Point as an option.

The vendor has AI incorporated into their new offerings. Generally, behavior analysis has to be more automated rather than manual. With AI incorporated, the back-end OS can understand and easily detect certain vectors, like the zero-day attack. It's in a very early stage. It'll take quite some time for Palo Alto to scale AI to the level where the entire thing can be automated.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.