[BrandoElFollito]

I am grateful to Palo Alto for the C&D. I had them on my radar screen for possible consideration next year on a large project.

Now I don't anymore. That's a bunch of money that will go to someone else.

This is the price when you have to defend the technical aspects of your solution with lawyers.

[quadrifoliate]

Yep, they just dropped out of consideration as a firewall vendor for me in the near future. The money for this superfluous legal stuff is coming from somewhere, probably from the overinflated margins. Also no one wants to be sued by a company whose products you paid good money for.

[FullyFunctional]

My first thought was I saw this thread was the Barbara Streisand effect. My employer uses GP, but at least I learned about mitigation from this thread, such as OpenConnect.

[unethical_ban]

This is such an absurd take that I clicked your account to ensure you were not a troll.

PAN, for all their true issues, puts out some impressive products. There is a reason they have eaten Checkpoint and Cisco FirePOWER's lunch.

Hilariously, my company blocks the article because it is a non-approved TLD. But I challenge you to defend the lawyers and ethics of other large infosec players.

[GartzenDeHaes]

I agree. If you have a full time security analyst(s) to tune and monitor it, PA's firewall is unbeatable for perimeter security AFAIK. Unfortunately, their other offerings don't measure up and tend to be a jumble of M&A.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> PAN, for all their true issues, puts out some impressive products. There is a reason they have eaten Checkpoint and Cisco FirePOWER's lunch.

"Better than Cisco" is some pretty strong damning with faint praise.