Positive

We mostly work with finance, specifically with banks most of the time. We use Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for these applications.

Today, the Next Generation Firewall from all companies are pretty similar, but the difference lies in the accuracy of setting up the risks. Another valuable aspect is the features and how friendly they are for cross setup. Cross setup refers to using multiple features from the same firewall simultaneously within the same environment. With Forcepoint, this process is simplified compared to others like Fortinet.

There is a lot of technical stuff that could be improved. We've encountered scenarios that were really hard to set up and required support. It would be beneficial if the support and contact with the development team were enhanced. Fast response and efficient handling of issues, similar to how Fortinet responds, would be great.

I have been using Next Generation Firewall from Forcepoint for more than seven years and the Data Loss Prevention for just a couple of projects, no more than a year.

It is really hard to work with their customer support. For example, unlike Fortinet where you can escalate an issue and quickly get responses from the development team, Forcepoint's process seems slow and challenging.

Neutral

I moved from Oracle to use security vendors like Fortinet, Kaspersky, and Forcepoint.

The initial setup can be quite complex. When trying to apply content filters with different network setups in the same machine, even with good planning and reference manuals, issues can arise. Combining different functionalities on the same box often results in problems.

I don't believe in ROI when talking about cybersecurity because there's no real way to measure it. Cybersecurity ROI could be $1 or $100 million, depending on the risk of data behind it. I've seen ROI analyses from many cybersecurity companies, but I find it hard to trust the numbers.

In terms of pricing, I would place Forcepoint in the middle when compared to other firewalls like Fortinet and Palo Alto.

Overall, I would rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall a seven. I believe a 6.5 would be more accurate though. Also, my name can be used for the review, but not my company name. I am no longer working with Consulting Services; I'm with a different company now.

Educational institutions are the main users. We planned to use it as an all-in-one solution, primarily as an edge solution and Internet-facing firewall.

We're trying to use all the firewall's features. Most of the features were effective, but the usability is a huge concern. 

My experience with this Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall wasn't very pleasant due to its complexity. For example, the firewall loses some features when working in a cluster, which is a huge challenge. It caused me several weeks to solve an issue to make the VPN work, even after opening several cases with support. Also, the debug, which should provide essential knowledge about everything going on, the flow of traffic, and how the engine works, wasn't very informative in identifying the issue.

The problem was eventually solved by chance, thanks to an idea from an expert in the market. We had to refer to a freelancer engineer with huge experience with the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall, and he noticed something that solved the issue by luck. We had no evidence or logs that showed this was the issue.

It's the most complicated firewall I've ever faced. You have to know what you're doing to achieve the plan and take action. It would be best to be an expert, take a course, or at least read the full documentation carefully. The interface isn't organized in the same way as other competitors.

You have to be an expert in it. You need to watch training videos or read the full documentation to understand how it works, even to implement a minor firewall change. Working with this firewall requires a lot of knowledge.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

The tool's stability, policy enforcement, and management are magnificent. I rate it a nine out of ten. It depends on the resources available. In my experience, I encountered a situation where the switch collapsed before the firewall did due to huge traffic. The switch crashed before the firewall crashed because of the enormous data transfer and network traffic.

We contacted support three times, opened three cases for the same issue, and didn't find out what the issue was for two months.

Negative

We need to rethink the usability and the availability of training and resources. These should make administration and operating this solution as easy as other competitors. For example, competitors like Fortinet and Palo Alto have easier management, especially Fortinet.

It has some documents if you can reach them. That's one of the other things they need to improve badly - the documentation is inaccessible. But when we reach the right information for what we're trying to do, it is mostly informative and easy. I'd say it's seven out of ten for ease of use if you follow the instructions. It would work. It's deployed on-premises. I wasn't involved in the implementation phase. It was implemented before I joined the company.

If you're not an expert and you haven't taken a course or have the correct materials to run the solution, I don't recommend it. You have to be an expert in this specific solution before using it. Overall, I'd rate Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall six out of ten.

The product's most valuable features are its extensive policy features, especially the S7 Pro features, and its DNS security feature, which provides an additional layer of protection not found in other firewalls.

A VPN client feature is missing in our region, which we hope Forcepoint will address in future updates.

We have been using Forcepoint's Next Generation Firewall for the past year.

We find the product to be stable and reliable in terms of performance.

Forcepoint's firewall is highly scalable, which helps our organization handle increased traffic and services. Approximately 35,00 user networks are protected by the product. 

Our decision to utilize the product was based on competitive analysis, and it emerged as the preferred solution.

The setup process is more complex than other solutions but provides satisfactory results. We began the migration process one month before deploying the device and involved two people in it. Maintenance is relatively easy, and we usually contact our partners for assistance when needed.

The platform has significantly enhanced the security of our public services. However, with the rise in IoT devices, it is unclear if Forcepoint addresses this challenge.

I advise ensuring you have experienced personnel to handle the device effectively after installation.

I recommend Forcepoint's firewall and rate it a nine out of ten.

I use the Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall in my company for the protection of the Layer-2 networking area, which consists of Wi-Fi connections used in the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of the solution I like stems from the fact that the installation and configuration can be done locally. It is also easy to set up security capabilities. Forcepoint acts as a multi-service provider.

The endpoint protection capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have experience with Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

There is a need to make payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. The product is not expensive.

The tool's SD-WAN capabilities are supported by the tool.

It is a nice product to use. The product can be used in the data center as a firewall.

The product does provide reporting and visibility features. There are many features provided by the product, especially the area of availability.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The platform is a firewall and Unified Threat Management (UTM) solution. We have implemented it in our production environment, particularly with VPN configurations. It proves to be an excellent tool for safeguarding our perimeter network. One of its standout features is its centralized management server, allowing us to manage multiple devices using a single console efficiently.

The platform's most valuable features are perimeter network security and URL filtering. These functionalities are crucial for us, particularly because we operate in a highly restrictive environment regarding internet access.

While they offer a comprehensive bundled solution, some users may prefer on-premise deployments for certain features, such as URL filtering. Currently, Forcepoint offers WebSense for URL filtering in the cloud, but users who prefer on-premise solutions may find this lacking. They could improve these particular areas.

We have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for 15 years.

In terms of stability, the solution is quite robust. We haven't encountered any major issues, and like any other firewall, it operates reliably 24/7 without significant disruptions. However, there have been occasions when units required replacement, especially if covered under warranty. Additionally, we've implemented high-availability configurations to minimize downtime.

In terms of scalability, it depends on the specific model being utilized. Basic models may have limitations and may need to be more scalable. However, mid to high-range firewall models, such as the Next Generation ones, are stackable and scalable. It means multiple branches can seamlessly run the same solution without encountering any issues.

In our organization, approximately 200 users utilize the solution. It is extensively and regularly used as our users rely heavily on URL filtering.

Although they offer a premium technical support option, which is costly, we have yet to opt for it during our years of using the product. There can sometimes be a delay in receiving support, but typically, they respond within 24 to 48 hours. Despite this, the quality of support provided has been excellent.

The initial setup of Forcepoint is straightforward for trained engineers, but it may appear complex for those without specific training. The deployment process typically involves mounting the firewall and booting it up with an initial setup from a USB boot device. From there, the installation process continues according to the specific requirements and configurations.

In our case, it took more than 15 to 20 days to refine policies and access configurations to meet our specific needs. However, it typically takes less than one to two hours for the firewall to be functional and up and running.

Once you have clarity on what needs to be deployed and what is best for their operations, it typically only requires the support of one or two Forcepoint engineers to assist in deploying the solution.

We took assistance from integrators to implement the product.

The product generates a return on investment.

It is an affordable product. We purchase its yearly license.

Initially, we used Symantec Firewall, which was many years ago. About eight years ago, we transitioned to Stonesoft, the parent company of Forcepoint. We decided to use Forcepoint primarily due to its reputation as a top-notch firewall solution for security.

We utilize Forcepoint to manage secure remote access primarily through VPN terminals and VPN clients.

The SD-WAN capability of Forcepoint did not directly support our network performance, as we did not proceed with its implementation. We were in discussions about enabling SD-WAN but needed help executing the plan. Eventually, due to the end-of-life status of our product, we transitioned to Fortinet as our vendor for SD-WAN solutions.

Deploying and managing the platform was not particularly straightforward. It necessitated experienced engineers trained in Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall. Once set up, there were no significant issues or challenges in day-to-day management.

They offer templates that provide detailed reports categorized by user, device, and internal network access.

The value and impact of using this solution lie in the assurance of protection and security. Ultimately, the greatest return on investment (ROI) comes from safeguarding the business from potential attacks and vulnerabilities.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use it internally. We use it as a firewall.  We use it just as a gateway. 

We have several frontline firewalls. We use a VMware platform to manage traffic between internal and external networks. Products like CheckPoint, Symantec, or Forcepoint aren't highly rated by Gartner. That's why we're planning to migrate our traffic management to a different technology like FortiGate or Palo Alto, which have better ratings.

It provides decent protection for the LAN, especially in run mode. However, from an administrator or engineer's perspective, Forcepoint isn't very clear to use. There are too many menus, and management can be problematic—it's not user-friendly. Also, it's not a cost-effective solution.

We had some licensing issues with its web filtering capabilities. That's why we migrated our web filtering to Cisco Umbrella.

Moreover, the interface is complicated. It's difficult to locate all the necessary menus and functions.

For example, one of the many issues is with SSH. Even now, we haven't successfully opened the port to connect using SSH mode when we want to change the configuration. It's like a black box—not very open to changes and customization. It's simply not easy to configure.

There are other problems, too. For example regarding Forcepoint's Websense component. We had a lot of problems managing the web settings within Websense. That's why we migrated to Cisco Umbrella for cloud-based web filtering.

It's not that Forcepoint is inherently bad. The issue is that it's not user-friendly. It is not easy to use. The developers need to redesign the interface (GUI) for better management. It is very difficult to manage. For example, simple actions require too many clicks compared to FortiGate or Palo Alto. That's the main problem. 

I have been using it for two years now. 

It's a stable product. We're a large company with more than 500 users, both on-site and remote.

It's not a useful tool if your goal is to expand your architecture or platform. 

We didn't have a support contract with Forcepoint because we were planning to move to a different technology.

I work with firewalls like Symantec Data Loss Prevention (DLP), firewalls like Palo Alto, FortiGate, and Check Point, along with routers and switches. I've also worked with Juniper, Cisco Fabric, Cisco Nexus (NX-OS), HPE Aruba.

I switched positions, and my new job doesn't use Check Point. So, the last time I used Check Point was in 2022. 

Now, I use FortiGate, Palo Alto, and Forcepoint. 

We also use different solutions based on use cases or specific functions. For example, we don't use Forcepoint for VPN. We use Pulse on-premises to connect remote users to the local network.

While deployment itself isn't complex, we migrated from Forcepoint to a different environment, such as FortiGate and Palo Alto, in VM mode.

The initial setup might be straightforward, but when working with traffic metrics, adding rules, or expanding the configuration, it's not user-friendly. Troubleshooting stable routing is also difficult. 

Unlike Palo Alto, which has many troubleshooting tools (especially within its security modules), Forcepoint lacks tools that would simplify configuration.

It's not very good, but it's not bad either. My main issue is with the interface, not the heart of the technology itself. Forcepoint's developers need to make it more user-friendly, like FortiGate or Palo Alto. I want it to be easier to manager, use and configure. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. We only use a small amount of Forcepoint's functionality now and will soon migrate away from Forcepoint entirely.

The solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall could change its interface, allowing standard or direct connect modes to be configured. While group design and configuration generally function well, there are issues related to OSSL. These issues may necessitate troubleshooting that involves accessing hidden features by adjusting product routes. This level of troubleshooting is currently restricted to technical personnel, not partners or customers.

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for a few years.

Technical support is good outside Egypt.

Neutral

I have tried FortiGate, Palo Alto, and Symantec. We switched to Forcepoint because it is easy to manage and troubleshoot.

The product is expensive but cheaper than Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.