FireMon Security Manager Reviews

We are using FireMon Policy Planner because we have a lot of tickets every day, and we are trying to automate the resolution for each ticket. This is our primary use case.

We are not specifically using FireMon for compliance management at this point. However, we will be looking at using more of the features within the next year.

Using FireMon means that we can quickly implement new firewall rules.

FireMon provides the capability for automating firewall policy changes. This helps to reduce errors and overall expense, which are the most important things for our company right now.

Prior to using FireMon, we had to use another procedure that would check every rule that we created. Now, we don't need to do this anymore. Everything is done automatically.

By using the Policy Planner when we are going to create a new rule, it will stop us if there is a similar one that has already been created. Often, we don't have to create new objects because we can reuse the ones that are already in place for the firewall.

FireMon helps us to reduce our policy rule set by cleaning up unused and redundant rules. Prior to using FireMon, our firewall had approximately 10,000 rules. After the cleanup,  that was cut in half to approximately 5,000 rules.

Because we are using automation, FireMon has reduced the time it takes to create new rules in our firewalls. It used to take approximately 15 minutes to create a rule, whereas now, with FireMon, it takes about 7 minutes.

FireMon saves us time when it comes to changing firewall policy rules. On average, we receive 16 tickets per day that relate to changing policy. All of these are now handled by FireMon, which means that we can spend more time on other activities or different operations.

This solution has improved our security posture because before implementing it, we had firewall rules with many sources and destinations. As it is now, our ruleset is very fine-tuned. We have only the source or destination defined that we need.

The GUI is easy to use and makes it very easy to manage the platform.

The automation that the platform provides to create tickets reduces human error and more generally, reduces the operational overhead.

We have had some stability issues that are affecting operations. We rely heavily on this solution and if it isn't working then we have to create rules manually.

We have had some stability issues where the solution could not be used.

The technical support team is very good. When I have to call or create a support ticket, the response is very fast and they are always very helpful.

Prior to FireMon, we were using Tufin. We switched to FireMon because the support for Tufin is not good. When I created a ticket, their response time was very poor.

FireMon is working to integrate with different vendors and different solutions like Palo Alto and Check Point. Tufin does not have many options when it comes to working with other vendors.

It is very easy to set up and deploy this solution. It took perhaps one hour to complete.

I didn't have to use a professional service to create the environment. I received a couple of files and then deployed the product myself.

If I were explaining to a friend of mine at another company what the benefits of FireMon are, I would tell them that it integrates well with other vendors. It is easy to use, help is available by looking through the menus, and the support team is good. You don't need to hire a professional service to set it up and use it. Rather, management of this solution is very easy.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for firewall management and security management, firewall health, and processing firewall change requests.

Firewalls are very complex, and FireMon allows us to identify a firewall rule that may have a lot of sources, destinations, and paths, and identify various high-risk ports and high-risk situations that either shouldn't be implemented or need to be rectified prior to implementation.

It has not really saved us time yet because there is still some pretty significant manual intervention involved. We haven't implemented it on all firewall types yet because we have hundreds and hundreds of firewalls that do different things and because different firewalls have different risk conditions. But for the ones we have implemented it on, while it doesn't really save time, per se, it does provide higher visibility into high-risk situations, which were very difficult to identify before. As a result, it has decreased risk.

The most valuable features are the security assessments and the ability to identify unused rules or objects. 

The real-time compliance management, in general, is also pretty good, as is the cleanup of firewall rules in a large, enterprise environment.

It doesn't yet handle our firewall brand very well and some of the complexities that exist in a very large organization like ours. For example, it doesn't handle network address translation very well for cleanup and it doesn't handle nested objects very well for cleanup. It does unused-firewall-rule cleanup pretty well, but we have had to do some extensive modification because it sometimes gave us false positives. It would identify a firewall rule as unused when it really wasn't unused, due to the nature of how Palo Alto works and how FireMon works. That has required some manual workarounds.

I also wouldn't say the solution automatically warns before new firewall rules, or changes to existing ones, violate compliance policies. Not totally. When a change request comes through, it runs through the FireMon process and if it is a high-risk situation, FireMon will flag it. It then requires manual intervention or manual evaluation or correction. Other than that, we work from a monthly audit report that runs to flag any rules that are high-risk. We want to streamline our operations and make them more effective and automated so that high-risk requests are filtered out and validated automatically or semi-automatically, prior to implementation.

We're working on automating the request process, but we're at a standstill right now because FireMon doesn't handle Palo Alto attributes very well yet. It's very Check Point-centric. We've had limited success with automating, as a result. They need to be able to handle Palo Alto firewalls better. For example, they don't do App-ID very well.

I have been using FireMon for almost two years.

We've had some stability issues in the past with FireMon. We still have a few that they say are fixed in version 9.5. But we can't run version 9.5 yet because they took out the SNMP management and our ability to remotely monitor our FireMon instance. As a result, we can't put that version into production yet. They're putting that ability back. That's a feature that we absolutely require. We're not the only ones that require It. In talking with them, a number of customers have complained about that.

We've had some issues with file systems filling up because it identifies unused or unlicensed firewalls and it adds them to the list. It's trying to pull unused firewalls and that is filling up the file system and crashing the system. It still does that on version 9.3, but they say it's fixed in version 9.5.

It's hard to scale FireMon. You have to add a lot more appliances or virtual machines to run the software and scale it appropriately. Because we're a worldwide organization, we've had to do a lot of that. We've had to split out our application servers and databases. We have three instances around the world and we're probably going to need to add more as we go forward, because it does have some limitations in how much it can process at any point in time.

It's also, in part, a Palo Alto issue because Palo Alto processing is very slow. So in the handoff between Palo Alto and FireMon, we've had some issues where FireMon doesn't always retrieve the configurations in a timely manner. When we run a report that is not necessarily running on the current data for all firewall rules, a firewall rule will suddenly be flagged as "not used," for example, when it really is used.

In general, their tech support is pretty good. 

I do have a concern with them, and I did express it to them already: Sometimes, it seems that when a new release comes out and changes take place, their development team doesn't always let the field support people know what the changes are. We have run into something on several occasions that caught the technical account manager off guard because he wasn't aware of it. It was only when we surfaced it that he realized it and said, "Oh yeah, that has changed and they never told me."

But generally, their technical support has been able to resolve issues. They're good, but I don't think they have enough expertise yet in Palo Alto.

Some of our requests are feature requests. We're working with them on a lot of those and they take more time. Some have to be put into a future release, and some are on their roadmap but haven't been pushed out yet. 

Positive

Before FireMon everything was manual.

Our initial setup of FireMon was pretty complex, but we're trying to simplify things by choosing where we start. We're starting with some of our simpler, more straightforward firewalls. We haven't even gotten to the complex ones yet. It's a very slow process.

We haven't calculated ROI but the return when it comes to value is getting there. FireMon doesn't scale well enough with the complexity of our Palo Alto environment yet. I think the value will get there. We're at about the midway point when it comes to value. On a scale of one to 10, we're at about a four or five. On the simple firewalls, it works pretty well. On the complex firewalls, it kind of works, but there are a lot of exceptions that it doesn't know about or can't handle, and that causes us to have to backtrack into a lot of manual work.

I don't see an issue with the pricing.

AlgoSec was one of the three other products we looked at. FireMon seemed to be a better fit for where we're going and what we're doing. It seemed to have more capabilities and features than some of the others did, features that fit our environment.

If a colleague at another company were to say to me that firewall policy cleanup and management is important, but it's just not a priority compared to other more urgent items, I would say that firewall cleanup is pretty subjective. We think it's important because if you don't clean things up it leaves potential holes where vulnerabilities can come into your network. I would tell them it ought to be a priority.

In a small organization, I think FireMon would be absolutely fantastic. Just be sure you do a good job of documenting your use cases in terms of the scalability you need, before you talk to FireMon. You need to be clear with FireMon about what kind of scale you need to be able to scale up to.

When you get into an organization like ours, with hundreds upon hundreds of firewalls for different purposes, our firewalls don't line up in a linear fashion. It's not a case of "more of the same, more of the same," when it comes to our firewalls. They all have their own risks and nuances, their own rule sets, and their own security implications. Our firewalls have multiple paths through them and FireMon falls short a little bit because it's not Palo Alto-centric.

I don't think FireMon has kept up with where Palo Alto is at. They started out being Check Point-centric for years and they've never really fully embraced the nuances others, like Palo Alto or Fortinet, have. They don't handle a lot of the capabilities and attributes that Palo Alto does yet. They're working on it. They're getting there.

We have an open issue list that we are working through with FireMon little by little, including things it doesn't do well. We meet with a technical account manager on a weekly basis. Of course, we're not their only customer, so we can't dictate what they do or don't do regarding Palo Alto, but we're making our concerns known.

We've had to customize a lot of the security. Their out-of-the-box risk situation was too restrictive in some areas and not restrictive enough in others. So we have had to tailor the risk conditions by firewall type and create custom risk reports by firewall type, because not all our firewalls are the same.

We were excited in the beginning about this solution because we have multiple firewalls in different regions, and so many rules. We wanted to find a solution that could organize our firewalls and remove the unused rules and redundant rules.

We use FireMon Security Manager. We don't use the Policy Planner or Policy Optimizer. We don't have a license for them. We started with a limited license and said, "If things go well with this, we'll go to the next step."

The solution has helped when it comes to the time and effort required to create compliance reports.

It has also given me some confidence in the changes I make. Before, I was very hesitant to make changes or remove rules. Now, FireMon has decreased the time I spend on that by 50 percent.

FireMon has also helped us when it comes to misconfigurations that increased risk in our environment. That is something that I have just discovered recently, when using it.

Compared to other applications, it is user-friendly. The appearance of the menus and titles is clear and they are easy to follow. Of course, it requires some experience through using it, to go through everything, but it is not very difficult. It is an easy application to use.

During the first year of use we mostly reviewed the results FireMon gave us and used that time to learn about it. We did not go with the recommended changes in-depth, and we did not have many problems. But this year, we tried to go into the details and follow the recommendations. It helped us to remove and clean up a lot of our redundant rules, historically. But in the meantime, especially when we tried to do some advanced rule consolidation or cleanup of historically unused rules, we encountered problems.

The solution does not detect traffic or activities that come and go through our local or site-to-site VPNs. So when we cleaned up some of those rules and encountered issues, we actually had to put them back.

It's not just the VPN, but it also misses some of the rules. Two weeks ago, I cleaned some rules with the FireMon. I ran a report and FireMon suggested that certain tools were not used. When I removed them, while it didn't bring our environment down completely, a lot of our environment started malfunctioning. Our backup system did not work, nor did other things that involve internal and external communication. We are not comfortable with what it did. Since then, I have been busy the whole time just reviewing all those rules and restoring some of them.

FireMon also does not detect the rules with UDP. That's another problem.

Another issue is that our compliance team wants to do some consolidation but that is also a problem because FireMon recommends consolidation based on the ports that we open. We have a grouping system with multiple groups. Under the consolidation grouping, FireMon suggests only based on the port. For example, if we use port 22, we have to share it across the board. It disorganizes the groupings that we have. So the consolidation is not working very well.

Our compliance team also creates reports using FireMon, reports that they send to me. Sometimes I can follow those reports, but most of the time I cannot. In the last two days, I received two huge reports on unused rules and I cannot really use them. At the same time, I'm using my own judgment and my own due diligence. When I doubt a rule, I go back to the firewall and run the history and compare things to help me decide. The problem is that if I always do that, it will take me a lot of time and the solution ends up being 50 percent useful and 50 percent not useful.

I have been using FireMon for roughly two years.

I guess it is scalable, but there is room for improvement. 

I was not involved in the setup of FireMon but, later on, when I became involved working with it, I approached FireMon personnel through remote conferences and remote meetings. They helped over the course of several sessions and that was helpful.

Their technical support is very good, very responsive, and very helpful. They follow up on issues.

Positive

We did not have a previous solution. We just relied on regular reviews of our firewalls and rules by looking at the history.

The pricing was very good during our initial year, but they increased it this year a little bit. The price is okay. It is not cheap, but it is still average.

It is not a bad tool. I still recommend it and I'm not against it. I recommend it because, overall, it has helped us to remove and clean 15,000 to 20,000 redundant unused rules. When we cleaned those, we were confident that they were not usable. They were very old. But we didn't just rely on FireMon's report. At the same time, we used our own judgment. When we blindly relied on the FireMon report, it created issues.

It's a good solution, but it is not something that you can 100 percent rely upon. It is a useful tool. At least it will help you up to a certain percentage.

We work according to the risks FireMon warns us about, but some of those recommendations are false alarms and others are valid. If it gives us 100 warnings, about 10 of them are valid.

Despite all the shortcomings, we still prefer to use it. At least we get some good recommendations and suggestions in the reports. We like it, despite the drawbacks.

We only have security management. 

It was deployed on-prem. It used to be on the hardware, and there used to be an appliance, but we have switched to a virtual server. We are now on a VM.

It is a good product. Previously, we were using only spreadsheets to compare the usage, but now with FireMon, we are able to clean up or review the policies to some extent. It is still a work in progress, but we are at a good stage now.

Its reporting can be improved. I am the only one who works a lot with it, and I am having problems in terms of reporting. In the case of Palo Alto, I'm okay with it, but with some of the Cisco devices, such as routers, when I provide the reports to other teams for review, they always say that the hit count is incorrect. So, I was struggling for a long time to work with them. When working with other teams, they have a lot of questions about reporting, such as how it reports, and we are still struggling with that.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

It has been stable until this year when we had three weeks of downtime. We had an issue with data collectors, and they couldn't figure out what the issue was. They were troubleshooting for more than two weeks. It was up and down. It was probably related to the hardware because since we have moved to the virtual machine, we haven't had that issue.

It is a capable solution. We are in the process of buying more licenses and adding more virtual machines. We started with 20 licenses, and now, we have more than 60 licenses.

Their support is nice. They are very good.

I am not aware of any previous solution.

I wasn't there when they installed it.

It is a very good product. I always tell others to have FireMon people come and give a demo. I encourage people to try it out. We only have security management, but it is really a good product. I have attended a couple of their webinars, and they have a lot more features for more usage and value. It is a capable product. If our company had sent us for training and we had got to know more about the product, it wouldn't have been so hard.

To a colleague at another company who says that firewall policy rule clean-up and management is important, but it is just not a priority compared to other more urgent items, I would say that it is very important. Sometimes, a firewall is created temporarily, and if you don't know, you will forget. So, the usage and hit count information is very important.

In terms of compliance reporting, we have set it up for compliance reports such as PCI, but we didn't use it that much. Similarly, in terms of identifying the risks in our environment, it does show the changes, but we aren't yet able to prioritize them.

It is helpful in automating firewall policy changes across large multi-vendor enterprise environments, but we only have two vendors. We were earlier using it only for the Cisco environment, and now, we are using it for Cisco and Palo Alto. We will probably use it for the core environment. Overall, it notifies you, but we are still not using it that much.

In terms of the clean-up of firewall rules in a large enterprise environment, it didn't affect us, and that's because we are not doing it in the right way. We probably need somebody to help us on that one because we gave them the report, but they haven't cleaned it up. For Panorama, they use their own reporting, and we have to correlate them. One thing about Panorama is that if you have a rule from 20 years ago, and somebody is still modifying it, it doesn't update the new person's name. It doesn't ask you to put any change number. I know FireMon is only pulling the data, and it is not pushing the data, but I wish that it was pulling the changed data. The last time when I talked to FireMon, they said that they are just pulling the data. They don't go and push any data. For that reason, we don't have that much data. So, we have a report, but we haven't used it much for clean-up. We should use it in the future more. We also haven't used it to create a lot of policies.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We have a single server and we're a small group. We use FireMon to track all of our firewall rule changes.

The security section lets you see where your unused rules are and it lets us go in there, optimize it, and make the firewall more secure.

FireMon saves us a lot of time and it's nice because if you're adding a rule that's similar to another rule, it'll tell you so sometimes you can just edit the one and add another source or destination in there without creating a duplicate rule. It enables us to consolidate and have fewer, more meaningful rules. We're saving around 30% of our time.

I like the dashboard for the security section of it. It helps you identify the higher risk rules on your firewall so you can mitigate the ones that you were not aware of.

When it comes to real-time compliance management, we can use it to push out rules. We do that manually. But it's a great thing to be able to track and do everything because we were doing all that manually in the past and trying to go back and find something that we had done in the past the manual way was not working well.

FireMon decreased errors and misconfigurations that increased risk in our environment.

It also helped us to identify risks in our environment and helped to prioritize fixes. It does that through the security dashboard. It lists recommendations, zero-hit rules, and things that you just have out there that aren't being used.

It's been great for our security posture. Every hole we button-up is one less out there.

It comes as a Linux appliance on a server and we're not a Linux shop, we're more of a Windows shop. It would be great if they could automate or integrate the backups into it and other things through their GUI interface, just to make the management of Linux a little more transparent.

I have been using FireMon for two to three years. 

The stability has been great. We have not had any problems whatsoever. It's very reliable and always available.

We're a small shop. We have everything on a single server, but I know you can put it across multiple servers for larger organizations. We're just not one of them.

There is one network engineer who uses it. But we have about a dozen people on there all together who are system admins that add rules.

We have our main site and a remote site, so it's two firewalls.

It's at 100% of the implementation.

Technical support has been very good. They always answer my questions. They'll stay on with you until they resolve the issue.

FireMon is a totally new implementation. We previously did everything manually.

We chose FireMon because it was recommended to us by the auditors and it was time to automate it as much as we could.

The initial setup was straightforward. We sat back and they installed it for the most part.

I don't remember anything bad about our FireMon consultant so I'm sure everything went smooth. We set up the servers, they set up a backup server and they had everything working when we got off the phone. They also had some additional training online for me, which I found helpful.

Our ROI is that it saves time and helps us improve security. 

Other than the initial purchase, we just put in for the renewals every year and somebody else worries about budgeting and everything. 

We haven't been using it for compliance at this point. The auditors use a different application for compliance. So we've been running that to check with security compliance.

I would rate FireMon a ten out of ten. 

We act as a business partner for our clients. We're implementors. Each client has a different use case. 

The solution is very stable. We haven't found there are any issues with its reliability.

The product scales well. You can really expand it if you need to.

This product is very simple to use. In that sense, it's one of the best on the market.

The technical support is very good. They've always been helpful.

I personally have started using it recently, therefore it's hard to pinpoint if anything is lacking. I need more time with the product.

The cost of the solution is pretty expensive. It would be ideal if they could work on their pricing.

My company has been using the solution for around five years or so. It's been a while at this point.

The solution is very stable. We've found it to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy or glitchy.

If a company needs to expand the solution they can. The product is very scalable. We've been satisfied with it.

We've currently applied for 20 users.

We occasionally need the assistance of technical support. We've always found them to be helpful and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we get.

The installation is pretty straightforward. It didn't take much time to install. It will take around 10 days of time to install in an environment similar to ours.

We have 30 people that deploy the solution to different organizations.

We're the deployment team. We implement this solution for clients.

The solution is expensive. It's not the cheapest option.

We've pre-paid for the license. We don't have to pay for it on a monthly basis.

We're using the latest version of the solution currently. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I've been very happy with the product overall. 

I'd recommend the solution as it's so easy to use. Clients are very happy with it.

We use FireMon for compliance reporting. Also, because it provides a roadmap for us to start doing workflow automation - not to be confused with other forms of automation that occur in the firewall realm - we use it to see the processes and procedures that we can automate and enforce. These include approval processes, review processes, and pre- and post-implementation validation.

Any organization will have a best practice of looking at their firewalls at least once a year, going line-by-line. But whenever we have something like a PCI assessor coming in, we want to make sure we do our due diligence. We want to look at anything that has popped up, or that we might be unaware of, or that we put on the back burner, because it's impactful to the business. We can't really do that unless we can query our environment or set it up to keep us informed of everything that conflicts with our best practices. That's where we get the great majority of the value out of the product.

One of the most concrete examples of how it has helped our organization - and it's not the most spectacular example - is that with Security Manager specifically, we have the ability, as security engineers, to review and approve firewall rules before they are implemented, even though that task is performed by our networking engineers. What that allows us to do is maintain a separation of duties, which is very important for a lot of compliance checks. I can't be the person who makes a rule and the person who says that the rule that I just made is okay and up to standards. There's a conflict of interest there.

So one of the main things that adds value or improves the security posture of our environment is the ability to separate roles and responsibilities. As part of our processes, I can say to the networking team, "Submit to me what it is that you're planning on doing." Using FireMon, I can look at the firewall and the firewall rule without having to have access to the actual firewall. After they are done with their change, I can validate that what I said they could do matches what they actually did do. Having that mechanism as an option in our environment holds everyone up to a higher level of best practices, because they know someone can validate that they're not just doing whatever they want to do without anybody being the wiser about it.

The solution helps to close a visibility gap we previously had. That goes back to reemphasizing the fact that we're trying to maintain that separation between security engineers and network engineers. I don't want access to the firewalls themselves, but I am accountable for every rule that's on them. Everything we do goes through FireMon. Is it instrumental in my being able to see something and correct it? Absolutely.

Because of FireMon, we have found several instances of objects that were created where the intent was for it to be four ports, but it got fat-fingered and someone put in a much wider port range. It has helped us to identify misconfigurations. It has helped us to identify out-of-band changes, where stuff was done that wasn't necessarily approved. Because it has its own repository of industry best-practices, it has helped us to highlight hundreds of rules that have unwanted objects in them. If I don't have to spend two days walking through all of our firewalls to do that, and I can run a report that I know is pulling back authoritative information, then I'm able to accomplish more because of it.

It certainly helps reduce our overall auditing time. The alternative to not having the product is doing a manual review. What the product is designed to do is to show me everything that violates this standard or that rule. If I can do that - and even if I have to spend a day or two coming up with standards and the rules for me to check against - in two days I have the results that a manual process would take me several weeks to achieve. Now, cleanup still takes just as long. I can't say, "Fix all of these," and it automatically cuts tickets for me - yet. With proper future-proofing, optimization, and integration, it would be able to do that for us as well. But overall, it definitely helps reduce auditing time.

Another advantage is that is has helped to clean up rules that have not been reviewed in several years. There are thousands of rules every year that we clean up directly, based off of the reports.

To give more context to this answer, one of the main functions of anyone in security is: If we don't need it, we need to get rid of it. But there's always that battle between the needs of enforcing best practices and accommodating the business. Anyone who has ever used this solution, or competitors' solutions, or gone through a firewall cleanup process, has experienced this scenario: "Well, we deleted 300 rules and something broke and now we need to find out which of those rules we need to turn back on." And that happened because they were working from a report that they only ran once a month or once a quarter. What this tool allows me to do is not only disable unused rules, but to specify conditions like, "anything that is unused for at least six months, or at least a year." I can now put unused rules into different categories. Something hasn't been used in a year is very low risk. If it was used two months ago, there's a higher risk if I disable it. So it helps reduce potential impact, which is a unique feature.

The most valuable feature is the reporting capability because everything that we do is a result of our being able to query a report, based on our environment and our PCI compliance efforts.

The current health and monitoring of the devices is atrocious. I know of several engineers within the company to whom I've mentioned this to and they say, "I know, I've been telling the devs that." They would back me up on my statement.

Here's the bad part, and it's hard to articulate without having like a visual that you and I are sharing. But imagine you have a list of 200 devices, and you can grade each of those devices as either green, yellow, or red. However, there might be three different reasons for you to go to red, or eight different reasons to go to yellow, and all of those things could be combined. As long as all of them are good, that's the only way that you're going to get green. Out of all those categories, I only find one or two of them that are, perhaps, pertinent. I only care if it's not communicating at all, or it hasn't communicated in the last 48 hours. If the last time that it pulled down information it took three minutes instead of one minute, I don't care about that. 

The way that the health and monitoring works right now is that for all these devices, instead of breaking out all those different things, or allowing me to judge what I think is pertinent or not, I have to see the lowest common denominator. I might have 40 percent of my devices saying that they're in a critical state, when in reality, according to my standards, maybe only five percent of them are. I don't have the time to sit here and click on a dropdown and dig into 100 different devices every day of the week. Essentially, because of the way it works right now, I don't resolve something until I've become personally aware that a firewall isn't communicating with FireMon at a given time.

It's not something that is optimized so that an engineer can run a report, take screenshots, and make a little run-book to hand over to level-two support and say, "Here, you guys do this every day as a repeatable process. Make sure that if we have any issues, we open tickets about them." Right now, the overhead of conducting a thorough day-to-day assay of the health of our environment would take several hours. Functionally and logistically, we just can't accomplish that goal right now.

The solution is stable. The main platform has gone through many iterations of version upgrades with no problems, no hitches. The devices themselves are very stable. The most frequent problem that we have is the loss of connectivity between firewalls and FireMon. That's more due to configuration changes on the firewall side, as opposed to anything that has to with the actual FireMon devices.

It's very scalable.

We have about 60 users configured and that's because everyone on both my team and the networking team has access to it. But we never have more than four concurrent users.

We intend to increase usage, but the goal is to move down the path of integration with our ticketing solution and the actual firewalls themselves. Right now they communicate, but they're not necessarily integrated. Once we achieve that, then instead of network engineers logging into firewalls to do firewall things, they'll be shoehorned into performing everything that they're doing now within FireMon - meaning Security Manager - rather than it being something they pull up whenever they have a use for it. The intent is to make it more of a foundational piece of our operational procedures.

Tech support is really good. If I've praised anything so far, as far as the vendor or the product goes, it would pale in comparison to how much I want to give credit to all of their tech support and their higher-level engineers, like the regional engineers and some of the folks back at headquarters. Whenever I call in and I say, "Hey, I need someone to walk me through this thing that I'm trying to do and I don't want to open up a ticket for it," at several different levels I've always received some of the best customer support and competent feedback, compared to any other solution that I've used.

I've been an engineer for about 15 years so I've owned a lot of technologies for different things in the security arena. I used to be a Cisco firewall admin. That's not necessarily a competitor, but I know what it's like to own IBM products, or Cisco products, or Check Point, or a whole wealth of smaller vendors. To put FireMon's support service on a pedestal, in comparison to everyone else, is pretty accurate as far as I'm concerned.

For this type of use, we did not have a previous solution. Another team already owned this product in our company and we assumed ownership of the product from them.

The initial setup was very straightforward. There are three different versions of the appliance that you can have, but they all come from the same ISO. They're just set up differently, depending on how you go through a configuration process. Everything is virtual. Even if I had to completely rebuild my entire infrastructure, it wouldn't take more than a day.

With all the processes and procedures around testing and only doing stuff during change windows, our original deployment took less than two weeks. For us, that is a pretty good turnaround time for deploying something, going through all the proper procedures and pre-requisites, validation tasks, etc. It wasn't a dedicated two weeks. I only have certain four-hour change windows for when I can accomplish tasks.

Our implementation strategy was that we sat down with a vendor engineer and we talked about how this needs to look. We took that and ran with it. It wasn't a run-book implementation strategy, no. But the vendor made sure that we were very clear on what we were building, how we were building it, how it all needed to talk to each other, and what access it needed to the rest of our network. It's simple enough that we didn't need more of a strategy, the kind you might need with a more complex infrastructure product.

In terms of the staff for maintenance and deployment, maintenance is a vague term. Let me give you two different answers. The actual maintenance of the solution really only occurs whenever the networking team has made a change on a reporting device, and I need them to make sure that they get it working with FireMon again; or, whenever we perform an upgrade. So that's a minimal amount of time, maybe five hours monthly. But, the whole job of one of my operations team's members is to review firewall changes, approve them, validate that they were done correctly, and to run reports monthly and quarterly against out compliance posture. All of that is done within the solution. There are some folks who spend 80 hours per paycheck inside of FireMon.

I, and another engineer from the networking side of the house, managed the deployment independently with FireMon technical support.

Even if it wasn't financially related, I don't have the background where I could authoritatively speak to you about any specific ROI. I can say that I'm sure it's paid for itself several times over, but I would actually have to have seen what a calendar year was like before and after having the product.

The best advice that I could give, honestly, would be not to look at a product for a short-term goal. Speak with the vendor about the maturity model that you want to go down and the roadmap that you have for your organization. They have a lot of different components and products that complement each other. I'm still waiting to do stuff now or next year that I wish I could have gotten funding for three years ago.

If you're going to engage and move forward with something, try to future-proof what you're signing yourself up for. Take into consideration where your roadmap is taking you. If there is something you know you're going to do in two years, and they have this other product that supports that effort and can provide greater ROI between now and then, go ahead and lump that into it.

As far as the solution's cloud support automation for public cloud platforms goes, I have used it and looked at it enough to ensure that it aligns with our roadmap. I feel it's there, but we're not currently utilizing the functionality. The solution would provide us with a single pane of glass for on-premise and cloud environments, but we're not using a production cloud environment at this time. However, I have made sure that whenever that does become a bigger footprint in our infrastructure, everything's going to be in place for us, as far as FireMon as a solution is concerned.

The solution provides us with the option to have comprehensive visibility of all devices, but a prerequisite to it being able to provide that information is that the owners of the solution have to optimize and educate FireMon. That has not necessarily been a high concern of ours. It hasn't been a primary responsibility over the years for me to take my network map and input it into the device. For me, it doesn't fulfill that function, but that's not necessarily a reflection of the tool's abilities.

In terms of using the solution to conduct a full inventory of our assets to secure everything, the Security Manager portion of it, alone, won't be able to perform that function. I think that there are a couple of other options that the vendor provides which address that need, but it's not something that we've invested in. Immediate Insight is the tool that associates itself with that kind of task. It's not something that we currently have the plugin for.

End-to-end change automation for the entire rule lifecycle is something we're moving towards. It is something we have on our roadmap and that we've worked out with the vendor, to make sure we'll be getting funding for that integration. Integration is required to create that full automation. FireMon does support that and it's something that we're actively pursuing, but we have not submitted funding for it yet.

I would certainly give it a nine out of ten because there's always room for improvement. Also, once I'm happy with a vendor, I'm not necessarily interested in whatever their competitors are doing. If I was sitting down with FireMon and all of their competitors every year, I might be able to say, "Hey, Tufin is doing this, why aren't you guys doing this?" But I don't do that. I would only feel comfortable giving a ten if I went through that process. I'm very happy with the solution for what it is, for how much it reduces my overhead, and how much it allows me to do things that, otherwise, I just wouldn't have the option of doing.

Our main use case is the monitoring of changes on our firewalls. Another of our use cases is keeping firewall rules in good shape by doing regular rule reviews, using FireMon's built-in categories for rules and even deploying our own. Additionally, we used FireMon when we did internal firewall migration, meaning we were switching to a new generation of firewalls.

The solution has decreased errors and misconfigurations that would otherwise increase risk in our environment.

In addition, when we migrated to a new generation of firewalls, FireMon was of help when doing a first benchmark of the new solution and the initial setup.

It also identifies risks in our environment and helps prioritize fixes for them. The compliance module in Security Manager does that by watching overall rules and any changes, and benchmarking them against a pre-setup set of controls. It notifies us if any control has failed. That's how we monitor whether our firewall rules are compliant with a pre-set benchmark.

Firewall policy rule cleanup doesn't need to be a priority for a company to justify using FireMon, given that it makes that job much easier and faster. That means you don't need to allocate as many resources to do that work. It's now incomparably easier to do things like a rule review.

Overall, our monitoring and compliance are on much higher levels. The visibility we have into our firewall rules is much better now than it was prior to having FireMon.

One of the most valuable features is the compliance feature, which is something that we really utilize in Security Manager. It has a set of controls that we tuned a little bit from the way they came out-of-the-box, and created a custom set of rules that we are monitoring and that we want to have inline in our environment. It's a very good solution for real-time compliance management.

And for the cleanup of firewall rules, it performs really well for us. We utilize it in our regular rule cleanup tasks, several times a year. FireMon is our primary tool when doing that, either by going through its out-of-the-box compliance rules or using it to search for certain things in our rules that we want to prune from our firewalls.

When it comes to real-time compliance management, something that is missing is alerting on certain, predefined controls. It would be good to have a predefined set of controls which, if not complied with in a newly set up rule, would create an alert for us. That is something that is missing, out-of-the-box. We have tried to work around it by setting up email notifications, but it would be nice if it came with the product. That would really turn it into real-time monitoring for us. 

The workaround works for us, and the out-of-the-box setup is also good, but it expects you to be constantly watching and monitoring the solution itself. That's a bit hard when you have more than one solution to work on. You cannot just watch one and keep an eye on it for something that's non-compliant. Having an alert would be much easier for us. Still, it's a good tool for that kind of monitoring, for us.

I have been using FireMon for about two years.

FireMon is quite stable. We haven't had any stability issues with it so far.

It's quite scalable. The process of adding modules has gone quite well. Anytime we have needed to increase it, there hasn't been a problem.

We use it extensively; if not on a daily basis then on a weekly basis. There are periods when we use it even more intensely when doing reviews.

They really give us great support. When thinking of the level of support that we get from some other vendors, FireMon's support is really good. They have a good, knowledgeable support team around the world. We have offices in Europe and California. Whenever we have had any type of issue and have needed their support, whether the issue is in Europe or California, we have had really great support from them.

We did not have a previous solution.

We had a FireMon support engineer for the initial setup and it looked fairly straightforward, but it definitely needed some FireMon knowledge. Since then, we have onboarded a number of new devices in FireMon on our own, and that part is quite straightforward. But setting up the system itself is something that requires the knowledge of a FireMon engineer.

For the deployment, there was a month of weekly sessions with the engineer to get it working.

We have three people, within our security staff, who are using FireMon regularly. The three of us were involved in deploying and we work on maintaining it. It's a shared effort. None of us is working full-time on FireMon.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

We talked about other solutions with different partners, and based on that we decided to go with FireMon. We did have a proof of concept with them before going live, and we liked it and the options it had, so we decided to go forward.