<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Recent 0-Days (Watch Towr Labs findings) in Next-Generation Firewall Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/recent-0-days-watch-towr-labs-findings/m-p/995648#M5113</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;We have been a client of Palo Alto's for years, but given this report and the recent 0 days are not as committed to staying with the company in the upcoming refresh.&amp;nbsp; Has their been any guidance from Palo Alto on how they intend to address, what appears to be, poor software architecture in the underlying code of their firewalls?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 17:48:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>dkaliel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-11-28T17:48:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Recent 0-Days (Watch Towr Labs findings)</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/recent-0-days-watch-towr-labs-findings/m-p/995648#M5113</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have been a client of Palo Alto's for years, but given this report and the recent 0 days are not as committed to staying with the company in the upcoming refresh.&amp;nbsp; Has their been any guidance from Palo Alto on how they intend to address, what appears to be, poor software architecture in the underlying code of their firewalls?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 17:48:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/recent-0-days-watch-towr-labs-findings/m-p/995648#M5113</guid>
      <dc:creator>dkaliel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-11-28T17:48:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

