Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

Some of our customers has Tufin, and we manage it. We're also planning to have our own Tufin that we're going to use as a leveraged service for all of our customers.

Visibility is its largest and most valuable feature. You can see everything or all the devices on the network for each customer. It provides you a larger view of what might be wrong with the network and how you can improve it with firewall rules, etc. 

If you are talking about secure change, being able to automate the entire change process is pretty much the winner for us. It is going to really reduce the time that it takes for us to do changes, and we can just go out and get more customers.

They've got such a large number of APIs, and it is so easy to use their APIs. Effectively, they allow us to use it with anything. The only way to improve it more is by offering support for implementing their APIs into certain hardware or software that we might use. They can provide support for implementing APIs.

We have been using this solution for three months.

I have not contacted their technical support.

We didn't work with any similar product, but we are just going with secure track and secure change, not secure cloud and secure app. That's all that we really need at this time, and obviously, we will work with Tufin in the future if we need more.

A few of our clients have decided to implement Tufin themselves, whilst we just manage their firewalls. We were not involved in the setup of the management suite. However, after seeing the benefits of this, we have heavily considered the use of Tufin on a number of our other clients we manage.

We have identified that setup is a part of this and in our conversations with Tufin sought to address this. They offer a service for the full setup of the platform for use as an MSSP, and then providing a hand off service towards the end of this setup process which teaches engineers how to setup the remaining required devices.

For the full functionality, Tufin utilises all L3 devices on the network, so setup can be quite daunting. However, we identified that it would take ~30 minutes per L3 device, some of which can be done simultaneously. This is the biggest drawback to Tufin integration. However, Tufin can be used to some degree without this, meaning you can reap the benefits of it sooner rather than later.

What we found is that the return on investment will be pretty quick. This is because of the time saving that Tufin offers in FW changes, we can implement more changes at a faster rate. This has huge savings for employee's workload and the cost of their work. We have freed up a large majority of our FW engineer's time. The huge ROI we witnessed has resulted in us identifying that we can go to market to gain more customers and really broaden our customer base without the 'con' of hiring more people.

Because we're quite a large company, the initial price wasn't too much of a factor for us. This is because the ROI was so significant for us.

We identified others, like Firemon and Skybox, however we found that they were not as mature as Tufin, not offering the same range of Firewall Vendors, e.g. Palo Alto, Check Point, etc., and the same level of automation.

I would advise others to definitely work with Tufin and work out the best costs. Work out how soon you'll realize your return on investment. That has been a major kind of help. They've been brilliant in trying to help us develop a business case for using it, and then internally, I am sure there will be a massive help for implementing it in the future.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten based on the whole experience that we've had with it and the real kind of capabilities of the product.

It is an important application for controlling and monitoring firewall rules. It is useful for making and monitoring the changes.

Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. 

It could have a more effective approach for creating and changing rules. It could provide advice or suggestions for a better understanding of rules and changing the rules. There should be suggestions for the rules that need to be changed to make them less risky.

I have been using this solution for eight months. We have recently done an upgrade, and we are using the latest version.

It is stable.

We have not been using it for a long time. So far, it is scalable for us. We have more or less ten people.

Their technical support is good.

We have worked with AlgoSec but in a restricted topology of the network. Both of these solutions are useful. It mainly comes down to the price. Even though Tufin is more costly, it has been more cost-effective for us, but it is not the same for all companies. It also depends on the integrator.

Its initial setup has medium complexity. It was not complex, but it was also not easy. We had some problems because it was a fresh installation.

Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It has been cost-effective for us. We have a contract for three years.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten. 

We're using this solution mainly to get some audit reports regarding the policy installations on our firewalls. We aren't using any changes or other features, and we're not installing policies automatically. We're just using it to collect some log data like who installed something and what they did.

It's user-friendly. It's easy to understand menus on the web GUI. That's a good feature for us. I can say that it's doing what it's supposed to do. It also integrates well with other products like Check Point.

It would be better if they modernized the web GUI. The web interface GUI is simple and not complicated, but it's also too old. It would also be better if they had an SMS gateway integration. I would like to have some integrations with other products like Jira for change management and incident management.

I have been using Tufin for about three years.

Tufin is a stable product. We're not having any issues. Sometimes we do have problems with the product, but it wasn't related to Tufin. Sometimes when we had an upgrade on the firewall product itself, we encountered some problems.

It's a scalable product. We have about 50 gateways, and Tufin collects data from all of them. We also have a management server, and we've integrated two important classes of databases. We're only using three instances, and we're not having any issues.

Tufin support is good, and we managed to implement this solution by ourselves. But it would be better if some engineers from Tufin joined a session and did stuff together with us. That would have been much appreciated. I would expect them to organize the session and provide some support, at least in the beginning.

I also have AlgoSec, and it seems to be much more complicated. I would say that Tufin is much more compatible with Check Point firewalls. That was the main reason for choosing Tufin over AlgoSec.

The initial setup is complex. I didn't have any Linux knowledge in my past, but I could say Tufin support is good at it. When we need to get some support, they respond quickly. They explained everything to finalize issues regarding the installation.

We implemented this solution by ourselves. It took us one or two hours to install and deploy this solution.

The price is on the cheaper side. I'm not planning on adding additional resources, and I don't expect any additional costs.

Not before but after using tufin actively about a year, we have evaluated algosec as an alternative solution. It was also well designed alternative but it was not well integrated as tufin did with Checkpoint

There aren't many products like Tufin and AlgoSec. I think both products are good, but when people are using Check Point applications, we recommend Tufin.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Tufin a ten.

The solution is predominantly used for managing firewall changes, policy changes, and understanding those aspects.

Most people use it for the basics, even though they could use it for a lot more.

The most valuable feature is being able to customize your own clarity to that aspect of change management.

Having better visibility of what is going on. If it gets out of control, you can keep it in your head no matter how smart your administrators are.

From what I have seen, it's user-friendly.

It's a bit clunky, but that may be because of different environments, and it is struggling to get the information. It's possible that the performance issue is because of the network and not the right architecture.

I would like to see anything that is graphical, as much graphical representation of things. Modeling, and what-ifs. It becomes more intuitive and allows you to close some of the gaps between drawing stakeholders in, for example. If they ask "Why are you spending so much money on this tool?"  or "Why are you doing this?", you can show them examples and it becomes more obvious.

I would like to see AI elements included with this solution. There is quite a lot of human element in understanding the consequences of change within the firewall environment, but they might benefit from more of an AI element as well.

I am a security architect and I have been involved with it periodically for approximately five years.

It's a reliable solution.

It's a scalable product. I have dealt with companies that are pretty sizeable, and it seems to handle it.

I personally have not contacted technical support, but the information that is available on their website is pretty useful, it's pretty good.

You need to allow a fair amount of time. That is the case for all firewall management tools.

It gives the appearance of being straightforward to get going but they need a bit of time particularly to do the sorting of the matrices for example.

When planning, people should estimate it then double it, just to make sure they get things right.

Price could always be better, but there are always consequences. Normally, there are other issues that come into play. For example, you pay more and expect to lean on the vendor more for the services and support.

I have recommended this solution from time to time and I would definitely recommend it to others.

I would rate Tufin a seven out of ten.

Our customers use Tufin to manage multiple firewall access rules through a single console. We have done on-prem, public, and private deployments of this solution.

It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. 

We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall.

Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin.

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

It is very stable. It has good stability.

It has very good scalability.

Their technical support is good.

Its initial deployment is not very easy. It is a little bit complex. After the deployment, it is easy to work with it in the GUI. Its deployment takes at least two or three days.

Customers usually evaluate AlgoSec. 

I would advise others to go for it to manage firewalls from multiple brands in a single console.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten.

We have a lot of ASA firewalls. We primarily use the product in order to lay down the rules and try to find out if there are any duplicate rules that need to be cleaned up, et cetera. It is mostly tasks like that.

The solution is very straightforward to use. It makes doing our work easy. The product is very good at helping us clean up rules.

We've found the stability to be quite good.

The solution is quite scalable.

The older version that we have doesn't support some newer firewall vendors. I'm not sure what the status of integration is right now on the latest version, however, it would be nice if they updated the older versions to allow for better integrations with firewalls. 

Sometimes the solution does take a bit of time to load. That said, it is a pretty old version, and that may be the main reason this is the case. It's possible that if we just upgraded to the latest version everything would go faster. 

Everybody wants to implement some kind of standard rules, however, it's difficult to standardize everything due to the fact that each company is unique. That said, if there was some sort of universal guide to ensuring firewall rules were compliant, that would be helpful. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half to two years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely used it over the last 12 months or so.

The stability has been good. I haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The stability has been reliable in terms of performance.

I find the product to be easy to scale. Adding new firewalls is pretty straightforward and it handles the process well. If a company needs to expand and add more firewalls it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I would say six or seven people are using it and they're network operation people who have to deal with day-to-day firewall management, putting in new firewall rules, et cetera.

I've never had an opportunity to reach out to technical support. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are. I have no experience.

The initial setup happened before my tenure with the company. I was not present when it was set up, and therefore I can't directly speak to my experiences with any implementation. I do not have a sense of if it was difficult or straightforward, and I can't say how long the deployment took. 

There is a bit of maintenance required, in terms of adding new rules, et cetera. We have individuals on staff that can handle that.

I don't have any issue with the pricing, however, I was not the purchaser. I can't speak to the exact cost for our company.

While I was using Tuffin, I did want to evaluate AlgoSec. I wanted to compare the two to see which was better. In the end, I've decided I would stick with this product.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

We are not using the most up-to-date version of the product. We are using one of the previous versions. I cannot at this time remember the version number, however, it was pretty old. We had a plan to upgrade, and then unfortunately ended up not doing that.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten as it helps us do our work. We're mostly quite happy with its capabilities.

We were primarily using the solution in order to grade the firewall rules.

How the solution benefits the organization is something that is currently being tested. We're considering doing something different, as we just used this product as a POC.

The compliance aspect of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The stability is very good.

You can easily scale the solution if you need to.

The number of features is very robust - and there are a large number of features. That's a huge selling point, which is why its popularity is where it is.

I have heard many people complain that there is a high level of complexity. It may make it difficult to work with for some people. That said, I don't have those issues with the product.

The initial setup can be tough.

The product could use better integration with the cloud.

I've been using the solution for years at this point, It's been a long time.

The stability is very, very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is good.

The scalability of the product is excellent. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.

In our case, while I don't have an exact user count, I can say that there were quite a lot of people on the product.

We're talking about shifting potentially away from Tufin, however, if we had kept it would have been used extensively.

While other people have the opinion that it could be better, I've mostly been satisfied with the level of support we've received. They've been okay. I've had three or four run-ins with them and they were all positive experiences.

I also work with AlgoSec. We use both solutions currently.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's a little difficult, a little tough. New users need to expect this before they get started.

Often, a consultant is involved in the process, as there is a large learning curve, and many companies don't have the bandwidth to ramp up the staff. Bringing on a consultant can speed up the processes a bit.

The deployment took about a month or so.

We're still working on how many people we actually require to handle the maintenance aspect of the product.

Typically, we get a consultant for everything, however, this last deployment, in particular, seemed to be more challenging for the consultant and for the staff.

That said, our experience with the consultant was very good overall.

While we are getting what we need out of the solution in terms of functionality, I haven't really looked into an exact ROI. We got what we were looking to get out of it. 

The billing and licensing aspect of the product is not something I'm a part of. I don't have any insights into the costs involved in using the solution. I cannot see if there's just a flat licensing fee or if there are other costs needed on top of that.

We are considering moving away from the solution currently. We're looking for other options. We might shift towards FireMon, however, nothing is set in stone.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're likely not using the latest version of the solution. Currently, there is a team that directly supports it. I can't remember the exact version number off-hand.

I'd advise organizations considering the solution to do their homework first and see if they can find out from industry associations and professionals what their experience has been.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for monitoring, automation, policy orchestration, and security.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring. I quite enjoy the monitoring this solution provides. It allows administrators to visualize the traffic flow, and troubleshoot when necessary. It's a useful tool.

The interface is quite user-friendly and intuitive.

The cost of this solution should be improved.

They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint.

They have an API, but it needs more service on this.

While technical support is good, they could still improve.

I have been working with Tufin for one year.

It's a stable solution. There are some bugs that they are working on but that is common with any vendor.

They do mention that they don't support specific features from Nexus for some automation but it does actually work, although it is not listed as working.

Technical support is relatively good. They are not the best but they are good.

They could improve but they do respond with accurate responses.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was deployed in less than an hour.

The first time without training, it took an hour or so, but it was quite easy.

It's quite an expensive solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.
I have not worked with any other vendors with this type of solution, for example, FireMon. I haven't worked with it. 

I would recommend it specifically to start with a secure track, which is a monitoring tool. Once the customer sees it, they want the solution. Afterward, for automation and secure change.

I would rate Tufin an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is fo the security of our medical facility. We have a lot of holes in the firewall and we wanted to see the details. For example, we see a lot of traffic between the different zones that we needed to reduce. So we use the solution to eliminate this traffic. It also allows us to have a lot of optimization rules for a good switching policy in the firewall. 

It can quantify and reduce a lot of risks.

I like the deployment and management of this solution. I don't have much experience in that kind of security solution, but I have three years of experience in similar solutions, like AlgoSec. I do some scripts to optimize the solution, such as configuring the API.

Additionally, when we export the report, you can see a lot of logs of all the equipment in the company and we can identify some of the machines or some log station in the network. Also, the user can create some requests to implement the flow and push the rules in the firewall. You can analyze the log and the traffic, you can have a lot of API's, and do some reporting.

In the next release I would like to see better migration in the Cloud because that will allow more visibility in the network.

I have been working with Tufin Orca for one year.

This solution was already deployed and we just manage it.

It is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

I have tons of contact with support. If you have some problems or issues you can contact support and manage the problem together. I did that with a lot of competitors, like Palo Alto on our network. If we have an issue in production, my production team will try to solve it or you can contact support to manage the issue.

I am satisfied with the support.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easy for me because I have some experience and training on it. Now I can do a whole production on the application.

We used an integrator for implementation because I have a colleague who has a lot more experience than me and we worked together to manage that solution.

I would recommend this solution. I think it's a good solution to have. It is good to know what this solution does in the network. You can have a lot of training on it and see a lot of questions from different users in the company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it an eight.

I'm using the Fortinet firewalls, so I need the firewall manager tool to manage those files, together with the FortiManager. The Tufin guys provided a solution for our data center where we have a box server, which was specifically developed for Tufin. It would run the scan on the network, get to the firewall, or go to the router, run the scan and give me the compliance, and then send it to me. Then I get a report from there.

The features I have found most valuable are its capability to check on the firewall and the routers. Afterward, it checks out all the configs, checks the vulnerabilities, checks the risks - it checks everything that may end up causing our router to be compromised. In the end, it recommendations what we should do.

Then, if we apply the recommendations, it will scan again and give us a percentage. Sometimes we find out that at first that we didn't meet the compliance, getting a 46% maybe. Then, when after I apply the recommendations, after discussing with my team, and approving the recommendations, it is all remedied. After that, it goes to 80-something percent. And that is what we are looking for.

One area in which I need it to improve is that I need it to accommodate all the files and all the tools. For example, when I buy the firewall management tool, I want it to manage the firewall of every firewall I use across my organization. If I'm going to depend on only one vendor, and it looks likes a vendor or a catered tool, it can't help on any vendor to scan the technology and give the auditing compliance. This is something they can improve from their side.

The second thing I need is that if Tufin comes and deploys their solutions on my premises, I would like to have full support from them. Unfortunately, I didn't have their full support. So what worried me is that whenever the box is no longer working, then I'm no longer going to be able to see my compliance. I know I'm not going to charge whoever is not complying on my premises.

To sum up, the two main negative points with Tufin Orca are the absence of full support and that accommodation of files and tools is not provided in a good way.

Additionally, what Tufin should include in the next release is the ability to see the logical bullets points. In my case, I wanted to see the physical report because when things tripped and went wrong we needed to start fixing it on the physical side. So I would like to have the physical tool policy before we can have the looks side.

But on the looks side it was very good. We need to filter up to it regarding the beneficiaries in the policies. So it was very good on that side of the data, but when I'm using it as a firewall manager, and then find the firewall is down, I need to see it on the Tufin. Also, I need the capability for Tufin to start alerting me whenever there is a change on the firewall.

I can say that we didn't know about that function on Tufin and when we try to communicate with the Tufin guys, they are not able to assist us on that. So we end up having someone go to our firewall and start to make a change, and we end up not having the right thing and not being able to manage our firewall accordingly. The main point of using the same tool as a firewall manager is to have the daily health check of the box.

I have used Tufin for the last two years and then I left it when Skybox was introduced to me. Unfortunately, I didn't have the capacity to use Skybox because I didn't have the skills on my team, so I decided to leave it. But I am looking forward to getting the new tool which will help me to do what I need.

The initial setup was very complex. What worried us at first was that we didn't know how to integrate it with the network. We had to call the Tufin guys to help with that and they physically brought it to us for the integration to the network. So that was challenging.

When you ship the product to our country, to my organization, it is quite expensive. It's not cost-effective. It's quite expensive because we end up paying extra for accommodation, the transport, everything for that person to come and assist us on the integration to the network. 

Generally, you need to pay for everything -  for the support and the implementation with the integrator.

We can also add this to the areas for the improvement, that implementation is difficult and it would be great if they could simplify the way the person can implement the products.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Tufin Orca a five. I would recommend it only if the organization has the skills and enough requirements so that they are able to run it. It is a very good tool when you use it because it basically gives you what you want. It is just hard in terms of support, patching, and upgrading. Overall, it's challenging if you don't have the skills or resources.

This product will work for those organizations that have the knowledge of how to install the solution.