Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

We use this solution for firewall rule management.

Using this solution has drastically cut down on our implementation time. A customer is able to submit a request for access and Tufin will automatically analyze the system to find out where the rule needs to go, and then design the rule for you. It was a very, very cumbersome process that has been cut from months to days. Some access requests used to take two months to get through the system, whereas now the average is eight days or less, and we even have a same-day turnaround in some cases.

Our engineers spend less time on manual processes. The improvement is drastic, from months to days.

Every single request that comes through, Tufin checks and does a risk assessment against our USP, the Unified Security Policy.

This solution has helped us from a compliance standpoint. During an audit, we were able to pull up the policy browser within the system and show the auditors where the rules actually live, and then show them in the firewall as well. Moreover, we could then show them the ticket and the request, along with the business justification and the entire history behind each individual rule that's in the firewall.

Tufin helps us ensure that the security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network. We have Palo Alto firewalls, Cisco firewalls, and VMware NSX firewalls as well. Tuffin sees all three of those. Every access request that comes through is checked against the USP to make sure that we're not violating any policies, and we're in compliance.

The most valuable feature is the ability to quickly identify where a rule needs to be put in place because right now we manage almost five hundred firewalls.

The visibility that this solution provides is great.

The workflow process is very customizable. I've played with it quite a bit in order to tailor it to our needs.

One of the big things that I want to see, based on feedback that I have received, is to give somebody read access to your ticket. In our previous, in-house system, this was called a "reader". Right now, Tufin's SecureChange ticketing system only allows you to see your tickets, and nobody else's unless you're a firewall administrator. That is by design. However, at our company, many people come and go and there are many large projects. We need multiple people to be able to see multiple tickets. The problem is that we can't open up the entire system to everybody because of compliance reasons. We want to have the ability for a ticket requester to add somebody, or to give somebody view rights to their ticket. A simple drop-down that would allow you to select the name would be sufficient.

This solution is very stable. Once we got to a certain release, somewhere in version R18, it was stable. Before that, it would slow down after about a week or two of running and would cause us to have to restart the system.

We've added more servers to process the load, and it's definitely helped speed up the system.

At this time, we manage almost five hundred firewalls.

Technical support for this solution has been helpful. We also have a Tufin RE (Resident Engineer) on staff, three days a week, so that helps too.

The previous system that we used was something that was homegrown, just built in-house. It was only a ticketing system. Everything else was done manually. My employees would spend days just trying to figure out where the rules needed to be applied, and how the rules needed to be designed. It was a very long, manual process.

We used a consultant from Tufin, itself, for our deployment.

Our ROI is realized through time savings, whether it's in the deployment or redeployment of something, or any other task that requires the creation of a firewall rule. The request would be made months in advance because they knew it would take months to get it place. Nowadays, sometimes they'll find out last minute they need some rules. They'll submit the ticket, contact us, and ask for a rush order on it. If we've got somebody available, which right now we can do because we're able to turn things around faster, we can do a last-minute large request and push it through within a day or two. The savings in time is something that I don't even know if I can calculate properly.

I believe that FireMon was considered before we chose this solution.

This solution works very well and it does the job. The product is pretty solid. At the same time, some of the small customizations would be very useful. It just needs little minor tweaks to really take it to the next step.

My advice to anybody who is researching this or a similar solution is to give it a look. Don't overlook this solution because you haven't heard of Tufin, because it's actually a really decent product. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use SecureChange for change management, and the SecureTrack component for reporting and the summary.

We use this solution to clean up firewall policy, although I do not personally do it very often.

The change workflow process is flexible and customizable. We have a couple of custom components, and my colleague was able to put them together in five minutes, so it seems pretty flexible to me.

The solution automatically checks to see if our change request will violate any of our security policy rules. This helps with general risk assessments, and when we transfer data between security zones over certain ports. It really benefits us, as well as the users who submit the rules, because they're not all familiar with all of the rules that are in place.

Implementing this solution has made everything faster. With the introduction of SecureChange, I think it has been easier for the average person to become a firewall rule setter.

Using this solution helps us to meet our compliance mandate. It does this by making everything quicker, which makes it easier to meet our SLAs.

This solution helps to ensure that the security policy is followed across our entire network. It leaves less wiggle room for people to venture out and make exceptions because it does the thinking for us. We follow it's recommendations, so there is less compromise.

The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting.

This solution has helped to reduce the time it takes to make changes. I don't think that we were ever slow, but we can now say that changes are completed within twenty-four hours.

I think that the interface could be cleaner, and easier to use. There are some things that I think are varied. Some of the reports, when you try pulling them out, I think that you've got to jump through too many hoops to get the results that you want to find.

I would like to have the ability to view multiple "handled by" names. Right now, it's either one, or we and the customer see nothing. I would like to clean that up because I am part of those phone calls.

I think that with respect to end-user operation, the whole-space users, the communication is lacking.

For the most part, stability is alright. It works well until we do an update and it breaks everything. But, it gets fixed, and it's good again until the next update. 

We have not tested scalability because we're set at where we are right now, although that is not to say that we won't be expanding in the future.

Technical support for this solution is really good. They are pretty quick at responding to our tickets. When the update breaks everything, they're pretty quick at sending someone to fix it and bring us back up within a couple of days.

Prior to implementing this solution, we used a home-grown, internal request process. It was very frustrating, across the board.

We used a consultant to assist with our deployment, and we had no problems.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to take the time to learn the product, in and out, right away.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for Change automation. We do not use USP, yet.

This solution has somewhat helped us with meeting our compliance mandates. We’re still working on it, and it’s a work in progress, but we’re better than we were.

Using this solution has helped to reduce the time it takes us to make changes. Our average was about five business days, and we’re down to same-day delivery. For some of our environments like QA and non-production, where we allow changes during the day, they can be done right away. 

Our engineers are spending significantly less time on manual processes.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it reduces both the time required and the number of errors when making changes. We reduced the time it takes to make a change from a week down to a few hours. It means that the business gets a faster turnaround time, and our group is not as much of an obstacle for getting things done. It reduced the change error, so there is a lot less manual work being done.

The automation provided by this solution has mostly eliminated the human error element.

The most powerful thing in Tufin is the ability to use the SecureChange API, where we can supplement our own functionality in addition to what is built-in.

There are some limitations in the product and we were unable to use the Clean Up reports. 

We haven't been able to use the unified security policy and a lot of the violations and stuff like that. So, we're not getting a whole lot of visibility. Again, there are limitations there, so we haven't been able to deploy that yet.

USP does not support VPNs, which is a big thing for us, so we haven't been able to utilize it.

One thing that could be improved is the moving of data from one step to the next. As it is now, we have to manually do that via the API, but there should be a way to carry over data between the different steps without us having to code that.

It could definitely use some refinements and utilize fewer resources. It uses a lot of hardware to do not a whole lot of tasks.

This solution is stable. We don't have any issues with it, but it's a resource hog.

This solution is not entirely scalable, although we have a very small footprint, so we don't really need it to be. For our use case, it's okay. I think that the distributed architecture, which we don't use, would allow it to be a lot more scalable, but I haven't had any experience with that.

Technical support for this solution is good. We have a technical account manager and he's been right on point with most of our stuff. It's a fairly complex thing that went to R&D. It took some time, but that's to be expected.

The initial setup was completed before I was there, but I have heard that they had a lot of issues with setting up high availability. Other than that, it was pretty straightforward.

We used a G2 reseller for our deployment and it was a good experience.

Our licensing fees are approximately $250,000 USD.

This solution checks a lot of the checkboxes, but it seems to be quite limited in some of the more advanced features that the firewalls do. This can be quite restrictive in terms of what you can and can't accomplish with it.

I have indeed referred two former co-workers at another company to look at this solution. I think that it would help them significantly.

The newer, more advanced features that we would like to use are just not supported by Tufin yet. I think that it's in their roadmap, but they just aren't there yet. Specifically, we are doing things like URL filtering, user identification, decryption, and inspection, which are typically done by devices other than firewalls. Palo Alto supports it, and we're using it, but it creates some complexity with the automation.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the SecureTrack component for several things including the maintenance of firewall rules. Examples of this are identifying rules that are no longer in use and identifying shadowed rules that can be consolidated. We also use this solution to look for violation policies, as well as unused rules.

We use this solution in AWS and in our on-prem firewall.

The number one benefit this solution provides is time savings. Both I and another engineer save hours upon hours of work spent creating reports, which Tufin now does for us. This is reclaimed time now well spent on other things.

Tufin has done a very good job in improving upon the USP policy for violations.

Our engineers save quite a bit of time that was previously spent on manual processes.

The most valuable feature is the ability to gather all of the firewall information without having to do it manually. It makes it much easier and saves time.

We use Tufin to clean up our firewall policies. By doing so, we don’t have a bloated firewall policy that can, in the end, cost more in terms of processor overhead.

The GUI needs more visibility in terms of licensing because it is hard to tell which products and licensed and which are not.

The USP can be improved, as far as I can tell.

I would like to see better integration and compatibility with the Azure cloud. We are not using Azure today, but I've asked questions about it and there are limitations.

This solution is solid, as far as I can tell.

We haven't pushed this product to the point where we have to scale out.

I haven't had the opportunity to use technical support.

The driving force behind implementing this solution was to obtain reports that help us get to the heart of the matter, ultimately saving time.

I have worked with Tufin before, so I found it to be straightforward, out of the box.

We used a reseller and an integrator, and we are working with an integrator right now. They are G2 Deployment Advisors LLC.

I am not aware of any other solutions that were evaluated before choosing this one.

The visibility provided by this solution is invaluable. It's easy to gather this information to share within our group and also outside of our group, with for examples security compliance individuals.

We do not have mandated compliance in our environment. However, we impose it upon ourselves and this solution helps us to gauge where we are.

In terms of the cloud-native security, there are some limitations because you can only pull from it what they’re willing to give you. Overall, it’s the same as whatever we do on-premise.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to ask a lot of questions. Use this solution to the hilt during the POC, making use of anything and everything. Every place is different, so use it for what you need to and beyond, so that you get an assessment as to what it can do for you.

This solution saves us a lot of time that we don't have, but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are an integrator, and we implement this solution for our clients. Most of them use USP extensively. It is also commonly used for firewall rule clean up, automation, and change control.

We have a whole range of use cases in different fields. We've got energy companies, banks, and healthcare is a big one. The vast majority of them use both SecureTrack and SecureChange and almost all of their features, rule cleanups, risk avoidance, and change automation.

I, myself, typically lean a little bit heavier to the integration and coding side, and interacting with the APIs. But I also do plenty of installations and initial configurations and also some first-level support and maintenance.

I have seen our customers benefit by taking out massive amounts of duplicate objects, and overly permissive rules. Tufin helps to clean up their firewall policies. A common scenario we see is one where clients have a whole lot of shadowed rules, duplicate rules, in their firewall policies. Tufin's Policy Browser allows them to filter them and search for them. They can also search for those rules that violate certain Unified Security Policies that they've defined.

Every single one of our SecureChange customers has seen significant improvement in the time it takes to make a change.

The APIs are the most valuable feature of this solution, as they facilitate integration with ServiceNow and other solutions. I'm a little biased because that's what I work with the most, but I have found, especially in comparison to other products I've interacted with, that the Tufin APIs are very well-documented. And the big thing about them is you can do pretty much anything with them that you can do in the UI. From what I've seen, the big focus of SecureChange, in particular, is automation. And you can't have automation - or complete automation - without the ability to interconnect with other systems. The APIs really assist with that.

All of the customers I have worked with who have the SecureChange product use the change request violation risk analysis in the workflows. It is usually the third step of every workflow that I configure. For example, we have an energy customer that has a particular team of people which deals with a given workflow if it has risks. They have Tufin set up to automatically run the risk reports and, in the next step, if the risk is considered low, it goes to one team; if it's considered medium, it goes to a different team. That really allows them to move their changes along without too much human intervention or too much delay.

The solution allows for the creation of custom policies, which is helpful for rule cleanup and USP.

The visibility is as good as I’ve seen in any network product. It also has its own firewall stuff for Cisco routers.

The support for cloud-native security is pretty good. We have a large customer that uses AWS and AssumeRole, and they have 200 or 300 AWS accounts. They are pretty satisfied with the solution.

Tufin also supports all sorts of devices, cloud or otherwise. I've definitely seen unified security policies applied to both cloud and regular devices. Cisco, Palo Alto, you name it.

Support for Firepower is still ramping up, but meanwhile, some things are missing.

I would really like to see a new UI for SecureChange. SecureTrack 2.0 has quite an improvement in the UI and it flows more smoothly. The current SecureTrack and SecureChange are a little blocky, and sometimes loading a tab or a page is required to refresh information. Whereas in SecureTrack 2.0, they're starting to improve on that.

This solution would benefit from the inclusion of support for Service Groups and their Group object change workflow.

There are also some edge-case devices that aren't supported for certain features. For example, there is no provisioning for zone-based firewalls on Cisco routers, yet. That's something that I don't see very often but, every once in a while, someone asks if we can provision these. Unfortunately, the answer is, "Not without Professional Services."

I haven't run into very many issues with stability. HA is the only weak point that I've seen. In the past, a lot of the HA upgrades had to be done separately. Recently, I had an HA upgrade that failed during the process, and we had to restore from a backup.

This solution is extremely scalable. I've seen customers with multiple hundreds of firewalls and there are no issues. The specs that they post on their Knowledge Base are pretty accurate as far as performance goes.

Technical support for this solution is very good. Every time I run into an issue that I can't resolve with a customer, I reach out. There has not been one that was not resolved.

Clients typically choose Tufin for a feature that it supports which other solutions don't have: a certain firewall or perhaps provisionings on a certain firewall. Tufin tends to release new versions very quickly with changes that are high-value. Also, as mentioned, the SecureChange workflow solution is very flexible.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, as all you need to install it are IPs and credentials for your firewalls. However, once you go beyond that, the effort you put in is what you get out. In terms of creating zones and Unified Security Policy, those are things that you work on for years.

We handle the installation and configuration of this solution for our clients.

There are certainly clients that consider FireMon and AlgoSec.

The change workflow process is very flexible and customizable. Most of what I do is integrate SecureChange with ServiceNow. I've done a couple with HPE SM and RSA Archer. It’s great that they not only have an API to push changes to SecureChange, but also triggers for advancing and canceling workflows. It's a fairly standard REST API that is easy to work with and scripts can be triggered at any step, at any point in the step. It really provides a great environment for automation.

The benefit that our customers have realized in terms of time savings has largely depended on how willing they are to automate. Some have automated more fully and even made certain processes completely automatic.

This is a great product and we are doing very well with it. There are a ton of features and they have very few issues. They are very responsive as a company and they correct errors pretty quickly. That said, the UI needs to be updated and there is always room for improvement in features for firewalls and workflows.

The only advice I have for anybody who is considering this solution is to find a good reseller. Tufin is a very large product and it has a lot of configuration items. So you should find a value-added reseller or get Professional Services. There is a lot that can be sped up in Tufin if you have someone to help you through it; someone to help configure Unified Security Policies, reporting, and help configure the workflow. Tufin really is quite a large, extensive product.

I would rate this product a nine out of ten. There is a lot that can be sped up in Tufin if you have someone to help you through it.

We are a reseller and solution provider. We have this product running in our lab, and what differentiates us is that we are able to take our client's use cases and execute them in our environment. 

This solution has helped our clients because it allows them to leverage the tools so that they can actually reduce their overall expenses for the environment. The push is operational, and they've been able to eliminate a number of contractors, thus saving quite a bit of money by using the automation capabilities of Orchestration.

The full Orchestration Suite is what we've been primarily driving because many of our customers want to move into automation, or at least some aspects of it.

The audit portion of this solution has made a really big difference for us. Also, the flexibility of change has allowed us to really drive the product into the marketplace for a large clientele.

This solution provides great visibility, for both our customers from a primary firewall perspective, as well as for the other solutions that they tie into. For example, it gives us an ability to view what’s going on with full plant environments in various parts of the world.

The change workflow process is extremely customizable. We really like it from the standpoint that we can push it from department to department for approvals. It’s not contained within a single solution set, but rather, it moves across the silos of an organization for the approval process.

This solution has helped our clients to meet compliance mandates across the globe, including, for example, GDPR and SOX requirements.

We would like to see more in terms of integration with other application types within the context, such as next-generation firewalls or next-generation threat devices that are out there. It's not just about firewalls anymore. A lot of convergence is happening at that enforcement point, so we'd like to see a little bit more attention on that. Examples would be integration with IPS, Application Control, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Malware.

We have found that this solution is quite stable. We do have some RFPs in to increase performance capabilities, but from our perspective, it's quite stable. If this were not true then our largest companies would not be buying the product.

This solution is extremely scalable, globally across thousands of firewalls, switches, and proxy devices. We look for scalability in a product. We have a small portfolio of solution providers, Tufin being one of them, and we choose them based on their scalability. There are other factors, but scalability is critical for us.

Technical support for this solution is good. We don't really use it too much because of our strong engineering team, but it's always been very responsive. We are sending two more engineers to the Cleveland area office next month.

We chose this solution a long time ago. We've been a partner for almost nine years. Because they spun off and many of the individuals who were part of the envelopment of products within the security space, like Ruby, came out of the Check Point environment. We're a very, very strong Check Point enterprise player, so we feel that anybody who understands product development and product distribution across large environments has to be a key for us.

We really weren't interested in products from other resellers, or we weren't interested in products from auditors. We were interested in products from people who knew how to develop products for the marketplace. So that's been a key for us. The other piece is the ability to scale, and then finally, the ability to automate with that scalability. We just don't find others as scalable as Tufin is.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. Obviously, with its flexibility, you really have to know what you're doing. In order to be able to leverage the product, it requires some expertise.

ROI is a little bit hard to measure in the security space, so our focus is on reducing TCO. For example, one of our clients was able to eliminate fifteen contractors that they had on an annual basis. This was a cost savings of $1,200,000 USD for the first year. Ultimately, we want to reduce TCO as much as possible.

Licensing is available in both perpetual and subscription models, and it appears to be good for our scalable environments. We have also needed to work with what we call small enforcement point pricing, which we'll probably get more into as people expand.

We do not yet have a great deal of experience with the cloud side of this solution. However, we're actually moving into our first contract around that and we'll be digging in deep. We find it, at least from our lab environment, highly successful, whether it's AWS or Azure, and we're looking at the Kubernetes side of things as well. So far, so good, from a lab perspective, but we will be rolling out our first, into a full Cloud environment for one of our global clientele.

For our clientele, this solution has, without question, saved them time when it comes to making changes. The whole idea is to be able to initiate a change and have it proliferate across thousands of devices. It's critical. So, just in that alone, we can save six months' worth of man-hours just in making a single change for some of the environments that we work with.

Tufin is really a leader in the space for taking manual processes and eliminating them as much as possible.

My advice to anybody researching this or a similar solution is to look for longevity in the field. Also, look for product development expertise and a legacy of that. Finally, look for scalability, stability, and growth within the marketplace across device sets.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We deployed a proof of concept. We added most of our firewall base to Tufin, although not all. We checked and tested Check Point, Palo Alto, Juniper, Cisco routers, Juniper routers, and F5 load balancers. Mostly we grabbed one instance of each of our technology devices, added it to Tufin, and tried different things. We tried SecureTrack and some basic SecureChange to try to automate our firewall partitions, the firewall "tickets." We presented a form to users to enter the source, destination, service, etc. This was our PoC.

Right now, we're in the process of purchasing Tufin.

With path analysis, you can specify a source, a destination, and a port and it will tell you whether it's blocked or not, and where; which firewall is doing the blocking or the allowing, or whatever. That part is very useful. When you have feedback from the user and you have your source, destination, and port, instead of trying to search on the Check Point console or the Panorama console or the Juniper console to figure out where that packet being dropped, you go to Tufin, put it in and, in 30 seconds, you have your answer. 

It saves time on each ticket. Instead of playing around for 15 or 20 minutes, it's down to 30 seconds. Any first-line of support can go to Tufin, put in the source, destination, and port and they can at least know what to look for, who to involve to further troubleshoot the issue. It's a first-step investigation that saves time.

It also helps us ensure that our security policies are followed across our entire hybrid network.

SecureChange is the most interesting part. It all comes down to having the user request firewall access and SecureChange, based on workflows, takes care of it, sending two or three emails to the business approvers. With one click, you can automate a firewall rule. We have many problems like, I imagine, the whole industry, with delays in implementing firewall rules.

SecureTrack provides all these regulations, PCI kinds of things, so you can try to match all your security policies and firewall configuration to the standard. 

There is also a feature to optimize firewall policies that will delete duplicate objects and rearrange the rules so the machine will function faster.

In addition, the change impact analysis capabilities allow you to do automatic checks of whatever rules you are implementing.

Finally, the change workflow process is flexible and customizable. I was really impressed with it. It's pretty easy. You can add automatic validation steps. Depending on the security matrix, you can pre-allow whatever flow you want. You can do your change analysis automatically or risk analysis automatically; whichever steps you want. It's pretty cool.

The visibility that Tufin provides us with is improvable. The interface is like a 1990s kind of thing. It's a little ugly. There are many things that you cannot tweak, little things like the column width and how you display the information. You end up exporting everything to an Excel file and doing your work there. They tried to put too much stuff on the screen. It's a little difficult to find what we want. It's a design issue, it's not a functionality issue.

The web interface is really like going back in time 20 years. You have to move columns back and forth and make them big to see the whole text in them. If you hover over a name, it won't show the content. You have to click on it and open it. It's a bit cumbersome.

The documentation site is horrible as well. It has a tree structure, and you really get lost quite easily. If you have the patience to browse through that hell of documentation, you will find what you need, but it is hell to browse and search. The information is there, it's just difficult to filter and search it. Documentation is one thing they can improve on.

I haven't found any issues with the stability. In the beginning, it was our problem, our mistake, because we configured the box with eight gigs of RAM. Then we checked and, obviously, we needed 16. After enlarging it to 16, there was no issue whatsoever. It was pretty responsive. Obviously, it was only one user, me, doing things, but I didn't find any issues performance-wise or stability-wise.

We don't have that big of an environment. We added some 20 pairs of firewalls and another 20 or 30 routers, and one F5. I don't think we have scaled Tufin sufficiently to put it under some stress. Our DC is pretty small, we don't have many devices.

Tufin's technical support is excellent. In my old job, I also implemented Tufin, and I was in touch with their Israeli people, the technicians; they're really good. They really know their stuff. In Spain, for southern Europe, they have a couple of people. The technician there is excellent, and the commercial guy is fun. It's the perfect combination.

The setup was straightforward, absolutely. The only problem we had was with Check Point, but I think it's a Check Point problem, not a Tufin problem. Check Point is horribly configured. Managing it is hell. You have to define the OPSEC server with a user name and password, and you have to create the same thing on the provider one. They have to be same user but have different passwords. It's a little difficult. You have to pay close attention so you don't make a mistake. But I think that's a Check Point issue, not a Tufin issue.

The whole Tufin deployment took us about four months, with SecureChange, etc.

Up to the point with Check Point, it was easy. We created a read-only user for our infrastructure, and once we had connectivity from the Tufin box to all the devices, it was pretty simple. It was just IP address of the device, username, password, and go. Except Check Point. We needed to spend a day or two on that.

In terms of our implementation strategy, we wanted to test each of our technology manufacturers: F5, Check Point, Palo Alto, etc. We left our main public-facing networks out of the equation for the PoC. Whenever we implement the whole thing, we will include those. We made SecureTrack work well. We will define our security matrix correctly with all our networks, as granular as we would like it to be. Once we have that, we will go to SecureChange. So it's SecureTrack, do a good security matrix and, once we're confident with that, we'll go to SecureChange.

For deployment, it was just myself and the people who deployed the VM, with the help of Tufin's team. I'm the only one who was involved in maintaining it.

Tufin's team helped us mainly with the Check Point stuff when we ran into some problems.

In a PoC it's difficult to see ROI. Seeing how the tool performs, I think we will see a return on investment, of course.

It's not that expensive, except for Security Groups. For us, just the Security Groups were about half of the total price. The total was about €500,000 a year, of which €200,000 was for Security Groups. For the rest, it's not that expensive, given all the benefits we will get and all the time we will save.

We could only test AlgoSec for a little while. Our group is part of a larger group of products. When we were doing our PoC for AlgoSec, we were told to stop. The decision was made to move to Tufin because it has group-wise technology, chosen for the acclimation of firewall policies.

AlgoSec is much prettier, it's much simpler, and has a cleaner interface. Functionality-wise, it's pretty similar, from what I read in the AlgoSec documentation. Tufin has a few extra features, but AlgoSec is much cleaner, it's prettier.

Going with Tufin was not a technical decision, it was "politics." The largest group uses Tufin, so other group members have to use Tufin as well. It's mandatory.

Don't bother with the web interface, calm down, don't worry, everything will be fine. They will improve it. The rest of it, I don't have any issues. They're technically prepared, the tool does its thing. The only two things I would be patient with are the web interface and that documentation which is not really well organized. Besides that, it's pretty easy. It's pretty easy to configure and, once you start using it, you will see the potential. AlgoSec, Skybox, and all those tools probably have the potential as well. But Tufin is easy enough for everybody.

What we don't use, and what we are not planning to use, is the third module, the SecureApp. We haven't played with it and we're not planning on using it, for the moment.

In terms of using Tufin to automatically check if change requests will violate any security policy rules, we would love to do that. What we didn't do is build the security matrix. That part is the one that takes a lot of time to build. You have to work with the security team and all the players involved. Because we did not design the security matrix, we couldn't match a firewall rule with the security matrix and say, "Okay", or "Not okay," and do some automation there.

What we did is prepare a form for a firewall petition, and some automatic steps. For instance, in the first step, you enter the request and it sends an email to a business approver. Depending on whether that firewall or that flow is predefined as allowed or not, you can skip that step and go to the next step. We did a little bit of logic with the change-request form. It worked pretty well for us.

The purchasing process takes a little bit of time because of all the different groups involved. But we're planning on implementing it and to finish around next summer, 2020; to have both SecureTrack and SecureChange up and running.

As for compliance, we don't have many requirements. Of course, we are bound to some ISO certifications, because it's the car industry, but we don't have any specific PCI. We don't sell cars over the internet, so we don't have to do that.

When it comes to Tufin's cloud-native security features, what we have is our landing zone in AWS - a VPN tunnel from on-premise to Amazon, with Transit VPC. We have a couple of Palo Altos, securing the track from on-premise to the cloud. And we added those Palo Altos to Tufin. We needed to tweak and include some virtual devices in Tufin so the routing would be okay. But that was quite easy. It was well-documented as well.

The only problem is that we got our quotation from our supplier, and the Security Groups are extremely expensive. They bill you $1,200 dollars per Security Group per year, which is really high. We're not that big, we may have 100 or 150 Security Groups. That's would be about $200,000 just to manage Security Groups. We were put off by that. From the start, we won't have the Security Group feature. We think it's too expensive.

As for increasing our usage of Tufin, we'll go day by day and see how it responds to our requirements. SecureTrack at the beginning, then SecureChange. Maybe, if everything goes well, we will think about SecureApp. It's not in the scope at the moment, but maybe we will implement it.

I would rate Tufin a seven out of ten. It will get better once they get their act together with the documentation and the interface.

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.