- Join Our Company
- Email: sales@pjnetworks.com
- Phone: +91-9818361787
From my desk in an Indian services firm, I’ve watched AI be a loud buzzword, then slowly drift toward real deployments in security fabrics. In practice, AI/ML in firewalling means more than a fancy name; it means models trained on telemetry—I/O characteristics, flow behavior, known bad IoCs—and implemented where decisions happen: inline, close to the data. When vendors claim AI-powered, I test the maturity: what datasets, what feedback loops, what human oversight. For CIOs and CISOs, the question isn’t do we have AI but where in the stack does AI add measurable risk reduction: reduce mean time to detect, reduce dwell time, or reduce rule churn? In Indian enterprises, we often see a mix of legacy VPN access, multi-vendor stacks, and on-prem servers with remote branches. AI in this space has to be interoperable and explainable. Zero-trust isn’t a feature, it’s a design principle that should be supported by firewall telemetry and policy driving. I’m Sanjay Seth, a consultant with P J Networks, active since the early 2000s. I’ve seen a lot of hype around “AI-powered” claims, and I’ve learned to separate what is practically achievable from what is sold as a badge.
And a sentence: We can’t ignore the data path: from the user’s device to the data center to the cloud, every hop benefits from risk scoring if you design it well.
Palo Alto’s approach centers on inline ML integrated into the firewall’s processing path. They push inference into every decision—SSL decryption policy, threat prevention, and URL filtering—so a suspicious flow doesn’t have to traverse a separate analytics queue. In practice, their ML models learn from a broad set of signals: wildfire sample verdicts, threat intel, user behavior, and network patterns across branches. The result is lower marginal latency for inline blocks, with inference happening at line rate on most models. But here’s the caveat I always test: what happens when a model misclassifies a legitimate new application as malicious? How fast does it retrain, how transparent are the alerts, and can we roll back quickly? In real deployments, we rely on Panorama as the management plane to enforce consistent ML-driven policies across distributed firewalls. We also pay attention to how these devices handle encrypted traffic—TLS inspection is a must in India due to regulatory and privacy constraints, yet it creates processing overhead. Palo Alto tends to shine where you already embrace their integrated stack, because you get tighter policy alignment between next-gen firewall, secure web gateway, and threat analytics. That kind of integration matters in managed SOC projects where we want fewer silos and faster MTTD. I’ve witnessed large manufacturing and financial services clients endorse this approach when they want a tighter policy loop between edge devices and centralized analytics.
Fortinet takes a different tack. FortiAI is positioned as an AI assistant that sits next to the FortiGate lineup, often with a dedicated AI Processing Unit (SPU) to accelerate ML inference, packet inspection, and even sandbox-like capabilities. In practice, FortiAI speeds up SSL/TLS inspection, helps prioritize which streams to send to FortiSandbox, and tunes threat signatures against live traffic without waiting for off-device analysis. The AI-driven SPU is meant to offload heavy teaching tasks from general-purpose CPUs, so you keep line-rate firewall performance while improving classification accuracy on zero-day-like events. In Indian environments with constrained bandwidth and many remote sites, that acceleration translates into fewer bottlenecks during peak hours. Fortinet’s model also leans on a broad FortiGuard feed and its own telemetry loop to continuously refine inference, while keeping management centralized through FortiManager and FortiGuard. However, I watch for over-fitted models or dependence on cloud-reliant feeds in disaster scenarios. You want threat intelligence that remains available even if some cloud link is down. Fortinet gives you options to tune risk scoring, apply sandboxing selectively, and maintain visibility into encrypted traffic with appropriate policy gating. In practice, the SPU approach helps smaller teams keep up with busy WAN cores and campus networks without forcing a huge SOC upgrade.
The benefits we see in practice include higher threat coverage with lower manual tuning, better performance under TLS inspection load, and more deterministic behavior for SOC analysts. Inline ML lets operators enforce policy at the edge, rather than relying solely on periodic risk scoring from a backend server. In managed NOC/SOC engagements, this translates into more consistent triage workflows and more reliable dashboards for CIOs and IT heads in Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore, and Jaipur. If you are evaluating vendors, you should measure detector precision, dwell time before containment, and the ability to explain decisions to auditors. Another benefit is safer zero-trust enactment—when ML flags suspicious behavior, it can trigger micro-segmentation rules, enforce MFA prompts on sensitive resources, or require step-up authentication before access to critical servers. We also appreciate the way both platforms support integration with security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR). The better your data collection, the stronger your anomaly detection becomes across on-prem firewalls, routers, and VPN gateways. In practical terms, a well-tuned inline ML strategy reduces alert fatigue for Indian NOCs and gives security teams a reliable baseline of behavior for branch offices and data centers alike.
The future belongs to more intelligent, auditable, and privacy-conscious AI in network security. I expect to see tighter hardware-software co-design that moves inference closer to the network edge—branch routers with tiny, local inference or appliance-level SPUs, not just centralized data centers. Zero-trust architectures will push us to map application segments to firewall policies with intent-based rules, and AI will help translate risk scores into concrete access decisions. As cloud adoption grows in India, hybrid models will proliferate: on-prem FortiGate or Palo Alto devices feeding cloud sandbox verdicts, with local policy enforcement that remains resilient during connectivity outages. Still, I remain skeptical of marketing slogans. AI is not a silver bullet; it’s a force multiplier. The real tests are governance, auditability, and measured improvements in MTTD (mean time to detect) and MTTR (mean time to respond). We should demand explainable models, versioned policy baselines, and clear rollback paths. And yes, we need robust patch cadences, regular firewall hardening checks, and a strong Managed NOC/SOC posture to prevent the gap between policy and reality from widening. Here’s the pragmatic takeaway, drawn from years of field tests and a dozen Indian deployments: align your AI/ML firewall strategy with a disciplined patch cadence, harden the perimeter with strict policy scoping, and couple it with a mature Managed NOC/SOC posture. Use inline ML judiciously—validate a sample of decisions against a gold standard for at least two quarters. Maintain clear rollback paths for ML-driven rules, and ensure encrypted traffic is logged and inspected under compliant thresholds. In short, treat AI as an optimizer, not a substitute for governance, people, and process. Stay curious, stay compliant, and keep your teams trained for resilience ahead.
