Imperva Data Security Fabric Reviews

We use Imperva SecureSphere Database Security to monitor user activities within databases. It includes detecting DDA activities, unauthorized queries, abnormal user behavior, and potential security breaches. It allows us to check and filter activities based on IP addresses, enabling us to track the sources of incoming requests. If any application uses SQL queries, SecureSphere can monitor these activities for unusual or unauthorized patterns. Additionally, we can set alerts for updates whenever a user profile is added to the database to ensure there is no malicious activity.

The product’s most valuable feature is real-time highlights. It helps with detecting natural weaknesses. The users can see the activity as soon as it is visible to administrators. It makes it easier to determine if some action has to be taken against malicious activity. The users can scan the data and check if it meets CIS standards.

Once we read the activity logs on the platform, we cannot open them anywhere else as they are stored in a proprietary format.

It is a stable platform.

The product’s on-premises version is not scalable. In contrast, it starts scaling once deployed on VMs.

We contact the technical support team while deploying resources. Sometimes, the team replies with the solutions already available online. It could be better.

The product generates a return on investment for a large database capacity.

The product’s price is reasonable compared to IBM and other products.

I rate Imperva SecureSphere Database Security a five out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is as a data lake for database activity, so it centralizes and normalizes all the data.

All the data in different databases and activities are centralized and normalized, making reporting easy. Additionally, it allows us to run models against it and do reports against it without understanding the different database technologies. We find all these features and capabilities valuable.

We have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable, but currently, we only have three people supporting the entire platform for maintenance which is not ideal.

I cannot comment on scalability as we are yet to scale and have not had issues with it. Approximately 100 different users on application teams are utilizing the solution for database activities, audit-related data and reports.

We have had a good experience with technical support, and we don't have any complaints. We have contacted them through IBM because they're the reseller and also directly. The technical support team is solid.

The initial setup is straightforward. I rate it a nine out of ten.

I cannot comment on the overall pricing of the solution because we purchased it through IBM, but IBM is quite expensive, so we are considering moving to another solution.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. It can be simplified as it is a little complicated. However, it has a lot of flexibility and capability. My advice to users considering the solution is to look at their requirements and see if they align with their needs. Ensure that some use cases are tested on the solution before purchasing because it is important to ensure the monitoring works.

The solution provides significant benefits such as compliance and security. Its data risk analytics tool helps reduce numerous events to more manageable incidents.

The product's most valuable features are PPA auditing and database assessments. It has an efficient real-time alert functionality as well.

The platform doesn’t support some newer databases, such as Oracle on Ubuntu or databases running on Gatsby. Coverage for certain banking databases, like T24, needs enhancement as well.

Additionally, its encryption capabilities need improvement. 

We have been using Imperva SecureSphere Database Security for four years. 

The technical support services could improve in terms of response times. It often takes too long to get issues resolved. They could provide live support sessions as well. 

Neutral

The pricing is reasonable and competitive. It is affordable for most enterprises, although costs can vary depending on the modules. There are additional costs for support services. 

The solution's data masking feature is excellent and works very well. It effectively supports compliance needs. It has improved visibility and real-time alerting, making it easier to identify and respond to malicious activity.

It uses database profiling to learn normal behavior and detect anomalies. It creates a baseline for detecting unusual activities.

The interface has remained the same for years, and an update would be beneficial.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Reporting is the most valuable aspect. It's very fast, even versus IBM. IBM could take three, or four days to get a report. In Imperva, everything is online, and you get the reports very fast. 

It is very easy to configure the new dashboards, and reporting is easy to do. It takes maybe an hour to do it. 

The solution is very stable. 

We'd like better compliance with cyber security and legal as well as other areas. 

I'd like to see some sort of solution for storage. For example, if someone in the company is doing some backup, I cannot reach that information in the discovery and in the protection. I only can protect the information, the databases that I use that are in developer or Q&A, and not those databases that are in the backups. It's a limitation.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

This is a stable, reliable product. It never fails. There are no bugs or glitches. 

There are six areas that are using the solution, and each area has maybe three or four users, at least. Risk, compliance, operations, and internal security, for example, are some areas that use it and get reports. 

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage. I am covering all the databases right now. I have no other space to do it. Of course, if we are going to grow and use more databases, I'm going to use this solution. That said, right now, all the databases are covered.

We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs or extra fees beyond the license itself. 

Have compared the solution to IBM. Previously, I was an IBM customer, and IBM would take maybe a week to have a good configuration. 

With Imperva, it's very easy to configure. It's very easy to get the reports. The reports are coming fast, and you are saving a lot of money if you send the logs to Splunk since Splunk charges per alert. In the Imperva solution, instead of sending tons of alerts, it is consolidating everything. It helps me save money with Splunk. 

I am a consultant. 

I have been working with the previous version of the product. Right now, the latest one is the Data Security Fabric.

It is very easy to use, and it helps us to discover the databases. In some cases, the shadow IP or the business areas are not reporting that they are using other databases. With the Imperva solution, I can find the other databases that are not reported to IT, and it's very easy to know where they are, where the information is, and what kind of information it is, if we are talking about the personal data or if we are talking about a financial data, et cetera. It's very easy to find the databases, and to know what kind of information is in each one of those databases. It's so helpful.

It helps a lot to have a consultant as they have the knowledge and experience a company can use. Even if a solution is very easy to implement, it helps to have the knowledge and experience of partners. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We are using Imperva SecureSphere Database Security for database protection.

The most valuable features of Imperva SecureSphere Database Security are vulnerability assessment, enrichment security policy, and security

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security can improve something in all the versions I have used.

In an upcoming release, there should be a more simplistic way to learn the policy. The security policies can be complex, you need to know the attacks in order to give the portal a security policy. They should be more user-friendly to a level you do not need an expert.

I have been using Imperva SecureSphere Database Security for approximately 10 years.

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is stable.

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is suitable for small, medium, and enterprise companies.

The support of Imperva SecureSphere Database Security has good support.

The initial setup of Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is straightforward if you have the experience. If you are able to configure the solution well it can be implemented in one day.

The price of the solution is reasonable. The cost of the solution depends on the customer, they have the flex protect licensing which can vary in price.

My advice to others is before they go and implement a database security device, you need to know exactly what you need. You need to do the right review on your network and see what is the case study that you will need in order to protect the database in the best way. 

I rate Imperva SecureSphere Database Security a nine out of ten.

I use SecureSphere to monitor our core databases and privilege operations by administrators, and to provide compliance reports.

In terms of regulatory compliance, one of the key requirements is to ensure that our core databases are monitored. SecureSphere allows us to generate details to prove that we're compliant with all requirements.

The most valuable feature is the automatic reports on new databases, which gives us up-to-date inventory management.

Sometimes the reports are cumbersome, and you have to drill down to get more information. SecureSphere also sometimes needs a lot of maintenance to keep the agents running on the database. In the next release, Imperva should include a preventative solution that will stop an attack before it happens or read the behavior of particular accounts and act on it. They should also make SecureSphere available on mobile so that if an administrator isn't on-prem, he can access the solution via the internet wherever he may be.

I've been using this solution for almost three years.

SecureSphere has been very stable until recently, due to the addition of new source databases causing performance issues.

SecureSphere is very scalable.

Imperva's technical support has been good. In the past, it sometimes took a long time to resolve an issue, but more recently, the responsiveness has been very impressive.

Neutral

Previously, we used Oracle Audit Vault, but its reports were a little complex, and their support was not so impressive.

The initial setup was straightforward, and the deployment took between one and two weeks.

Our deployment was done in-house.

SecureSphere has resulted in us receiving audit exceptions, especially from the final details, which is a big deal to my organization since we have to be compliant.

I would recommend SecureSphere to other users and advise making a dedicated team available to work on the solution and configure the correct set of policies so they can get value for their money. I'd give SecureSphere a rating of eight out of ten.

The use case is for database services, security purposes, and access capabilities. In DAM, we cannot use inline mode due to the blocking that is there. Details can be shared and accessed to see, for example, information about the DB, who's using it, its applications, et cetera. There are all kinds of reporting that can be accessed. We submit reports to the customer.

The audit feature is great. It is totally encrypted. Nobody can tamper with the details. For example, a DB admin can change the audit, however, if they are using the DAM product, that is totally different infrastructure so that the log, since it is an agent-based solution, whatever the activity will be done in the server regarding the database audit will be captured by the audit and that agent. The communication is totally encrypted and nobody can tamper with that data.

The initial setup is not overly complex.  

Some cloud versions are not supported by the agent. For example, we had a client that wanted to move to the cloud and wanted to use AWS, however, it was not possible. Imperva should have every kind of agent.

I've used the solution for around three years. I've used it for a while now. 

The solution is stable. It's very reliable and the performance is good.

It's a scalable solution. It's good. If we can just change the gateway or if it is a VM right now, we can upgrade the resources, or we can install many more agents in the server, in other servers, and we can take more servers behind it so that we can capture all the data for any of the server.

Technical support is good. Sometimes we have to raise a ticket and we get good, proper support. There's no issue.

The the setup itself is not too complex, it's conceptual. You have to understand at least the basics of the database. That's it. You don't have to be a DB admin, however, as a security engineer, you just need some small knowledge of a database, for example, what the database is, what the table is, et cetera.

We are partners. 

I'd recommend the solution. If a company has a plan for the Imperva DAM solution, it can, while still not using the Imperva WAF solution. The WAF solution is also good. We can use the WAF as well as DAM. We have a box, a gateway, or management that is used for both cases.

If an organization wants to do both the cases like I have a database, I have a web server, I want to secure both the infrastructures, I know I can strictly go for the Imperva, and Imperva will give management of two gateways for two different solutions, and that's it. It can be a complete package.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use it for database activity monitoring. We use it to monitor all the traffic that comes to the database to know about the operations that are happening on the database. 

At the moment, it is on-premises, but we eventually would like to go to the cloud.

It serves as a way and means to see if any unauthorized person is trying to access the database. It helps to implement specific rules to ensure that only authenticated people have access to the database.

The beauty of it is that it provides segregation of duties. Typically, in the traditional environment, DBAs administer the database, and they have too much access. We are in the process of implementing other Oracle solutions, and it brings some kind of segregation. Just because someone is a DBA does not mean that he or she should have access to all of the data. Some of the data can be masked so that privacy and security are enhanced, especially when it is customer data for an institution like a bank.

It is quite expensive. I would prefer a lower price. 

In terms of features, I started using it this month. I need more time to explore it.

It has not been long. We implemented it this month. 

We are currently doing a PoC, and there are a few issues that we are trying to resolve. When all of those issues are sorted out, we can start measuring the stability of the solution.

We haven't scaled it yet.

We are working with their technical support. They have been good so far.

It is straightforward, but it depends on the organizational policies and rules in terms of the infrastructure. For example, when you deploy it in an environment like Oracle, it is probably fine, but in other environments like Cisco, there could be some issues that you have to troubleshoot. It is more of an infrastructural or environmental issue.

We started with the PoC. It was implemented within two days. We are now doing monitoring to ensure everything is still fine.

It is quite expensive. We wanted it in my former organization, but the price was very high. So, we couldn't purchase it. I moved to a different organization, and this organization has purchased it.

It is a fantastic solution. It is very good, but the only issue is that if you don't have enough money, you cannot use this solution.

I would rate it an eight out of 10 for now. After exploring it more, I might rate it higher.

We primarily use the solution for auditing purposes so collecting and archiving of logs.

The solution is very good for auditing purposes, including collecting and archiving logs. 

We appreciate that we can use it on the DB server without harming the performance of the database is fantastic. It doesn't feel like it's lagging.

The initial setup is very simple. 

Overall it's a solid product.

The pricing is okay.

The support could be improved.

The product needs to perform better in extremely busy databases. It does not do really well where the DB is extremely, extremely busy. 

The updates could be better.

The UI can be improved. 

The ability to narrow down to the right environment could be helpful. They need to allow users to find an easy way to drill down to what's important.

I've been using the solution for three years now. 

The solution is solid. The stability is good.

The scalability is okay. However, if you're going to set up a redundancy, it needs to be in the same data center, as the manager that manages the entire system needs to share the data, and therefore they need to basically work in the area where they have direct connectivity between the sites. In our case, we have multiple data centers, and we distribute the connectivity and we can't achieve that. 

The solution's scalability isn't based on users. Even if you have one person using it, you might have 300 databases. It's not about the number of users, it's the number of databases.

The support isn't as good as it could be. We are not quite satisfied with it.

We previously used Oracle.

The solution is very simple and straightforward. It's not too difficult or complex. 

The solution isn't crazy-expensive. It's reasonable. 

We pay for the solution on a monthly basis.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's a very solid product. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use jSonar for DBA activities like database activity monitoring and privileged database activity monitoring.

The centralization of the data is probably the most useful feature because we span multiple database technologies. We also find the GBDI portion of it very helpful. 

It would be better if it were more user-friendly. Right now, it's a little bit of a complicated product to use. Another problem that we have is with encrypted traffic on Oracle. This is because it requires a database outage. That's a pain in the butt because you're monitoring critical systems, and they don't like outages.

I have been dealing with jSonar for about two years.

jSonar has been very stable for us.

From a manageability and scalability perspective, supporting model databases and different databases in a cloud, on-prem, and so on just seems to be easier. It's a viable solution to move forward.

We did use their technical support through IBM. It's kind of weird, and they're just a reseller, but jSonar's support has been very good.

The initial setup was pretty complex. 

We had IBM Professional Services set it up just to get us started properly. We're still in the process of deploying it because it does take a while. It's not necessarily the tool's fault. We're very lean with staff, and that's probably a bigger problem.

I know it's not cheap.

When you compare jSonar and Guardium, they both look similar. They're collecting database activity, centralizing, reporting, and applying machine analytics and AI to it. I think jSonar is a little more mature as a product because it's been out a little longer. IBM is starting from scratch or relatively recently for the Insights product. We're going to look at it because we have to pick a direction, but we haven't done that yet.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give jSonar an eight.