Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks WildFire.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall.
The system performance degrades after the solution has been deployed for some time. The data that it gives us becomes a little bit slow. When you try to get some data for troubleshooting, it seems like it's working hard to extract that data.
The solution needs more third-party integration. The automation and responsiveness need improvement. They need to be able to escalate technical support issues in a more effective way. The solution is a bit too expensive.
The cost of the solution is excessively high.
Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering.
The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes. In a future release, they could make the solution be a stand-alone deployment, one that does not need another Palo Alto solution and can integrate with any other solution from another company. For example, we could use this solution together with other solutions, such as Fortinet firewalls or endpoint solutions.
The support is good but they could be faster.
Our main concern is that everything has to be synced with the WildFire Cloud and has to be checked through the subscription. In the next release, I would like to see some integration with other products, with endpoints and management. Also, there are too many features for the client to research.
In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting.
The only complaint that we receive from our customers is in regards to the price. Our clients are happy with the technical aspects, but the cost is expensive. Some customers complain that it takes a long time to make changes to the configuration, but this depends on the customer and the environment. It may not be a problem that is directly related to the product. There are a lot of changes that need to be made for the security of a big company. The technical support team in Poland should be larger. Palo Alto needs to invest more in marketing because there is not enough awareness for the brand in Poland.
The price of WildFire should be reduced in order to make it more affordable for our customers. Deployment to mobile devices should be easier.
I think they should lower the price of this solution. They are losing customers because the price is too high. The deployment model could be better. WildFire is quite unknown in my country. They should develop a better system for teaching their customers how to use this solution and its features.
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 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.
In terms of threat prevention capabilities, the solution doesn't need any improvements that I can see. We've been quite satisfied. The size of Palo Alto's cloud is big but it could be easier to use from a product management perspective.
Palo Alto is very tech-heavy, and the average user can't just go and deploy one. You really need to know what you're doing. I've been doing IT for more than 25 years and I sometimes have to double-check things or ask for help. The reason is that there is so much included in the solution. It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards. Having a more complex product generally means that you need more technical expertise, although if very experienced people are still having trouble then it is probably worth revisiting and trying to improve. It would be nice to have some sort of remote management tool. As far as I'm aware, they don't have a tool that runs on a mobile device, so you need to be in front of a workstation in order to get it up and running. If I had a remote tool that allowed me to access it then it would be very helpful. Even if I have to VPN into the network, that's fine, because being able to remotely do stuff on my phone would be useful. Everything is going that way.
I would like to see them continue their developmental roadmap for the product.
There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. Their database has good Information over threats because of Unit42 however there is a serious competition to the product from Cisco ThreatGrid and Umbrella I don't think there are any major features that are different from Palo Alto versus their competitors but with time the PA needs to improvise on products and threat feed if it needs to be the leader
Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that. If there was anything extra for the endpoint security and VNC that would be good, but again it's coming with Palo Alto and must come with some additional cost.
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).
I do not find it as secure as other solutions. Furthermore, the cloud-based solutions are still not legally available in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia. Some countries do not allow the service according to country obligations. They can not use the cloud services for government offices. So, Wildfire is not allowed in several locations. I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power.
They should make their user interface a little more user-friendly.
Which is better and why?