Talk:Next-generation firewall

Don't remove 'expert' tag.
This is a complex subject and is easy to misinterpret things. I say that you should leave the tag. Ging287 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove non-cited opinion-based content
This page was clearly written by someone working for an enterprise security company—the last two paragraphs SPECIFICALLY contain [fear-mongering] opinion-based text aimed at informing the reader what is secure and what is not. 209.118.158.253 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) mgreen

I absolutely agree. This is one of the most biased Wikipedia articles I've read for a long time. To sum it up, Next Gen Firewalls are nothing more than combining other network device functionality (firewall, routing/NAT/..., IPS, WAF, SSL interception) into one and add a lot of marketing buzz words. Ozwon (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - this article has been edited to a shadow of what it was. Anti-virus was never part of the NGFW definition as per the original definition from 2009. Also, context-based discussion really has no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogger (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

is this legit information?
Sorry I'm not used to contributing. Why does this article sound like an ad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.86.223.66 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion...?
I'm not really enough of an expert on Wikipedia, but after removing a specifically questionable section in my previous edit, I looked over some of the rest of the text, and it triggered all of the usual red flags for poor commercial and inaccurate content, and I'm not sure how to rescue the article. Looking at google scholar, for example, the term 'next generation firewall' apparently refers to something different depending on when articles were published; older work tends to refer to BYOD settings as requiring next-generation firewalls, newer work tends to talk about features such as WAF. Some articles also point out that this is basically a marketing term, e.g., this article writes: "In recent years, a variety of integrated network security solutions have emerged with the focus of protecting corporate networks. Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, Barracuda Networks, and other companies now sell products marketed as next-generation firewalls (NGFW) and unified threat management (UTM) appliances. In addition to basic packet filtering, these security products integrate network monitoring, user/application awareness, intrusion prevention, anti-virus, SSL interception, captive portals, spam detection, etc. These features, along with attractive UIs and remote management capabilities, come at high premium; a next-generation firewall can cost upwards of US$1000 and require per-user licensing fees and support contracts." As such I'd conclude that this article should, if at all, be merged with this section of the firewall article. Namnatulco (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, What happens when Next-Generation-Thingy becomes the previous generation :)? It is just used as a synonym for "modern", "current" or "State of the art". Arved (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)