One Identity Safeguard Reviews

The first time I used One Identity Safeguard was when I was the manager of the infrastructure of Ayendeh Bank, and we are currently using it now at my present company.

Our main use case is in security reviews for all of the change management and incident management services, and we also use it for the VPN connection for PAM. It allows us to review everything that goes on over the working day.

For example, our third-parties who support all of our services, including network services (e.g. Cisco) and our Linux servers, are eligible to connect via the VPN, and through One Identity Safeguard, they are able to make contact with and use the various services.

Our company works alongside various PSPs (Payment Service Providers),
and our work here is mainly to prepare the software switch for them, and
to handle the SLA for infrastructure maintenance services. Due to the nature of our work, we also use One Identity Safeguard for on-call and direct administrators whether they are in-house or external to our company. It is, in fact, the main tool for managing access for all the services. And because of that, I'm available for these companies 24/7 all year long.

At present, we have around 17 direct users of One Identity who use it on a daily basis, which includes 10 people from my own department.

The first feature I like about One Identity Safeguard is the live contact point for the VPNs. This has been working very well for us, as it's both highly available and reliable.

The second thing I like is the services that let us review all the contacts and take all the passwords from another administrator. These services are very reasonable. For instance, some of the third-parties will leave our company and support, but then fail to relinquish the usernames and passwords. With the security orchestra that One Identity Safeguard provides, this is no longer a problem.

We currently have a problem with the Active Directory integrations on Windows. Some of our users need to be logged with Active Directory, but we are having communication issues between One Identity and Active Directory. It seems that Active Directory is not well-integrated.

Apart from that, when we are using the interactive login, such as when logging in and going inside the site for support, we find that we need to repeat the username and password, sometimes even two or three times.

When it comes to suggestions for new features, I would like to see something along the lines of an automated command prevention system. To elaborate, sometimes we will have users who input unsafe commands, and we would like to prevent those commands from being processed, and to be able to identify those users who sent the commands.

I believe some kind of automation, possibly based on AI, would be appropriate for this, and it would help the administrators and managers to more easily prevent these kinds of incidents. Part of my role is to reduce the number of total incidents, and if we had an automated mechanism to prevent unsafe commands from being entered in the first place, it would help a great deal.

I have been using One Identity Safeguard for about six years.

I can say that it is 100% stable because during the past two years we have not had a single problem with stability.

In our company, the scalability is good enough for us at present. In my department, there are ten direct users, and outside my department there are another seven direct users. Perhaps when we increase our customers, we will scale up further.

At present, because of the sanction department for technology in Iran, we cannot use the direct customer support. Instead, we use third-party support. For example, we have a contact point with a company who has branches in Turkey, and they are taking the tickets for Safeguard. Before that, with Balabit, we got responses in less than 24 hours.

Positive

Before Safeguard, we were using Balabit. However, Balabit has now been acquired by One Identity.

Another solution that was being used by some of the other companies I consulted for was WALLIX Bastion. Using WALLIX was a really different experience. With One Identity, we have no problems with connections or slow communications in the network, but with WALLIX there were many problems to do with the networking. Sometimes the servers would even crash or hang, but none of these issues have been found in Safeguard. By comparison, Safeguard is much better in terms of performance, networking, and server stability.

There were no real problems with the setup. Regarding the ease of installation, if you have a professional team, then it is easy. But, for example, if it's your first time setting it up as a junior administrator, then it can be quite difficult. I would Safeguard a 3.5 out of 5 in terms of how complex the initial setup is.

We used an in-house team for the implementation, because myself and the other companies we work with have a lot of experience in it. Thus, for us, it was no problem to implement.

The license is very expensive for us, partly due to inflation and partly because of the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Iranian Rial. We purchased a perpetual license that we've been using up until now, but I believe that we are not going to update it in the future. Instead, we plan to find another third-party  to support us with the license, in the sense that we would have access to their license as a shared agreement.

I would rate One Identity Safeguard a nine out of ten.

I work for a bank, and we use Safeguard to manage access to our Internet banking services. We use Safeguard for two things: identity and access management and detection recording. We have our services onboarded on SysTrack doing RDP directly to the servers or station, and we use virtual appliances for collection. The solution covers around 150 users at this organization. 

I like Safeguard's snapshot feature that enables us to review the last time an application was opened and by whom. If there are any issues, we can look behind the scenes to see what has been done. We can suspend a user's access or close off a server. 

We've had issues managing accounts and access to some data saved on the servers. Accounts are granted a new working certificate daily. We have an account to do it on APIs online and sync it with that. If the path changes at some point or someone changes the password, I don't know if it's from the Active Directory or what. 

I have used Safeguard for one year.

Safeguard is stable. 

It's scalable, depending on the solution case. I don't know if it's domain-based because it was not restricted. We're gradually moving to the Azure cloud.

One Identity support is okay. 

Deploying Safeguard was straightforward.

I rate One Identity Safeguard eight out of 10.

We use the on-demand version. We use the solution for monitoring and connection to the customer's server for Windows and Linux.

It's easier to connect to the server and it makes it more secure. We've seen about a 40% improvement in that regard.

The monitoring system is very good.

It has a very nice user interface.

The product is very fast to implement.

We use the solution's transparent mode for privileged sessions.

There is a lack of documentation and many problems with the plugins.

I did run into problems with transparent mode for privileged sessions. We didn't connect correctly to the server. It was an issue we had with the customer's server, not the product itself.

The security of the connection could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for one year. 

It's not completely stable. Sometimes the newest version does not support an older version.

The solution is not so scalable. 

Mabe 20 or so users are leveraging it in our organization. They are admins. 

We use regular support. The response times are too long. Sometimes it could take days. 

Positive

I previously used CyberArk. I changed companies, and now I work with this product. I find Safeguard to be easier to implement, however, it does lack documentation.

It is fast to implement. 

While the process is not technically complex, there was a lack of documentation and we had to figure out how to do it ourselves. The deployment took three weeks. We had two people working on the process.

We have yet to witness an ROI.

The solution is offered at a good price. We pay a monthly fee. I'm not sure of the exact cost we pay.

I'm a product partner. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I have yet to use the cloud assistant feature, so I can't say much about that aspect of the solution. We also do not use the solution's secure remote access feature for privileged users. We don't have it integrated with DevOps or RPA.

While basic knowledge is important, there isn't much training required to start using the solution. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

One Identity Safeguard is used by administrators to access their devices. They will log in using identity management in order to secure the administrator's login.

One Identity Safeguard can improve by having more integration with multiple devices.

I have been using One Identity Safeguard for approximately one year.

I have found One Identity Safeguard to be stable.

The scalability of One Identity Safeguard is good, we can add multiple devices.

We have approximately 40 administrates using this solution in my organization.

We plan to increase usage in the future.

I have not contacted support.

The initial installation was simple.

The full deployment took approximately a couple of months. Not because of the One Identity Safeguard, but because of us, we were busy doing other projects in parallel.

We used a third-party vendor for the implementation and we had a good experience with them.

My advice to others is One Identity Safeguard is a must to have because it's part of the cybersecurity framework, such as Nest ISO. We should have an identity management solution to manage the whole identity, such as privileged users.

I rate One Identity Safeguard an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to manage passwords and use for the RDP access. 

Our infrastructure is three SPPs and two SPSs. This is across 1,000 users and approximately 500 targets. 

Safeguard can define and update processes and procedures into the security framework of a company, including mobile. It allows us to change the policies and configurations on a mass scale in regards to security.

The most interesting thing about this product is it is very easy to implement and configure as well as its usability. Also, for the final user, the work experience doesn't change when using the SPS for the Linux administrator, which is fantastic. You change only a little bit of the connection. Everything else is really easy.

I just received a question from a customer in regards to a connection with Oracle OID. I tried to integrate Safeguard with the Oracle YAML as well as something else to manage the groups and users from a different system, like AD or LDAP. This one feature could be better. At this moment, the platform system can only use the integration with LDAP or AD. The software for research and development to create a connector to a YAML platform can be very complicated.

I started using it two years ago.

It is a very stable system. There are no problems when using the platform.

The scalability is fantastic. It is very easy to connect and use the solution, if you need it.

There are two different supports: one for SPS and another for SPP. The technical preparation of the support is very high. They have very quickly given me the solution for a couple of issues that I have seen.

We switched from CyberArk to Safeguard. In order to manage CyberArk, it is a very big effort. The platform is very complex. The management system of Safeguard is very easy. Also, the configuration for the targeted user is easier in Safeguard rather than CyberArk. Lastly, the cost of CyberArk's licensing is very expensive.

We try to understand what the customer needs in order to fit the solution for what they want, then we plan all the activities based on that.

We can deploy the system in a couple of days, then the system is up and running. The next step is importing the whole system. The time frame of this depends on many targets the customer has, but it doesn't take too long.

I work at a system integrator, designing and implementing the solution for our customers. I think our customers see a return of the investment using this solution.

Safeguard is cheaper than CyberArk.

It is a good solution. There is no limit to its usage in a company, e.g., IT or financial.

Check the basic rules in the documentation because the solution is easy to use.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

Our company is regulated by the central bank in our country. There are about 4,000 employees in our organization. 

Our main need was to reduce the operational cost of our department by increasing the window of operations to 24-hour rather than have office unemployment. 

We are now digitizing the access control function through One Identity. Whoever forgets their password can reset it on their own rather than reaching out to the security desk. Whenever we have a new employee, we found that it was taking at least two days to get them a username or access to the system. Now, once they are logged into the organization and are registered on our ERP system, their complete access will be ready within five seconds. They will receive an SMS with their username and password so they can start working. This has increased efficiency and effectiveness of the access control function. It has reduced operational costs as well as providing services 24/7 with a platform that can be used anytime and anywhere for investigation in case we have a requirement. 

We use the physical appliances, as they are more reliable. Around the world, dedicated appliances are more reliable than having a virtual version/copy. We went with the physical appliances because they are dedicated and closed like a black box. However, we haven't reported any misses with the virtual version. 

We use the solution’s Approval Anywhere feature which enables us to add an extra layer of security for critical passwords without adding time-consuming approval processes. In the past, we were having problems when a user went on vacation. There were many recalled cases of password sharing. When we received this type of incidence and started to investigate, we found out the past setup had no solution. For example, if someone with a daily duty went on vacation, they still had to do it within the office. That is why sometimes people tried to justify the sharing of passwords by the importance of their duties. Now, by using this platform, if someone goes on a vacation, out of office, or needs urgent/planned leave, then our setup will select the functions tied to that person and automatically delegate them to the next person. That person can start performing that duty based on their access. No sharing of passwords is required.

The multilanguage functionality does not support the Arabic language, even though this solution is deployed in an Arabic region. However, it matches our criteria and requirements overall.

One Identity is using a third-party to create one-time passwords. Due to our security restrictions, we needed to build our own. When we discussed this with One Identity, "Why they don't provide a technology that can be hosted on our data center and be built by One Identity," they said they are using a third-party. This was their justification, so I think it's based on their strategy and there's no harm using a third party. However, we were having an issue using a third-party.

I have using this solution for about six months. The project started about one year back. We started product introduction through phases. We went full-fledged with One Identity using Cloud Access Manager, Password Manager, and Privileged Access Management along with identity and access management.

We have been trying to stabilize the system until now. We haven't had the chance to revisit the deployment to find out if there are any expansion plans, as we are working to sustain the set up. We want to increase end user awareness and start building the number of reports.

I didn't have a requirement to test the scalability of the solution. We did discuss the scalability with the system integrator at the beginning, and it's on the license level. I don't think we will have an issue once we come to the point of needing to scale.

We have 3,000 end users and 10 administrators.

I haven't had a chance to work the One Identity technical team. We work with the local partner instead.

None of my team has gone for training yet. However, they did have a handover for operation of the solution. It doesn't need that much training as long as you know the basics of access control functions. End users only need to have a tutorial to the portal. This is what we provide: a tutorial for how to use it and the know-how.

We previously were using a manual process. One Identity helped us to automate this process.

We integrated One Identity with our ERP system (Oracle) and also with our security operations center (Splunk). The integration went perfectly. It was an easy connection. We built the connectivity directly through the API. What we found time consuming: the setup and connecting One Identity. E.g., Oracle takes more time than Splunk to connect because Splunk's system is ready to send the security logs to the security operations centers. With Oracle, the integration depends on the business needs and there are a number of different requirements based on those business needs. The enhancement One Identity made is the historical part related to system access control goes through our SOC to this tool.

My team worked on the initial setup. I don't remember any critical escalations related to technicalities during their field deployments. The local system integrator helped us with any deployment challenges. There was zero disruption to privilege users during the deployment, which can be attributed to the work of the project management team. The deployment took about six months using two outsourced resources.

For the consultation services, we went with a well-known, famous system integration company (Exceed Gulf), who is local. They were cooperative, experienced, and professional. They have led many successful deployments in our region. Sometimes, they provide better advice when we are releasing an RFP to the market, e.g., when they got this RFP, they added value by doing a slight amendment to the deployment. This contributed a lot to the success of this project. Their advice comes based on their experience in the deployment for such a solution in our region. I strongly recommend working with Exceed Gulf and the same team that we worked with, as their technical skills were perfect.

We have not yet seen ROI. The benefit that we get from using One Identity is that it reduces operational costs.

We have a yearly license. The cost depends on how much a company wants to invest in technology. In our organization, we believe in modern digitization and automation processes so we found it affordable. One Identity was not that much less than other solutions and it is not a cheap solution. There were number of cheaper solutions. However, it's the most effective, according to our evaluation.

When we started thinking about approaching such a solution, there was an increased need to digitize or have a platform that helped to provided access control functions. There were a number of solutions in the market, like Oracle and Microsoft. One Identity (per our evaluation) was our selected solution. One Identity won when we match these criteria against other solutions in the market:

• Support
• The system integrator
• Strength of the solution
• Complexity of the solution (less complex than other solutions).

Make sure to always get the support. This solution could not be successfully implemented with no support of the HR and procurement system. You will need to mature all of your HR and procurement processes to do the deployment in a secure manner. This is a security solution, not an IT solution. If you want to deploy it as a security requirement, you need to ensure that the HR and procurement processes are correctly in place. You can use it as a technology solution, because not all the technology requires security, but all security requires technology.

We haven't activated the session recordings yet. We have tested it, and while it worked successfully, we didn't apply it fully because of internal technical issues.

All the logs in the system are recorded and sent to our security operations center (SOC) for analysis. In our SOC, we have end user behavior analysis, but do not depend directly on One Identity to provide this. However, I might ask to have a report for the user behavioral analysis going forward.

I can rate the solution as an eight (out of 10).

With Safeguard, there are two virtual appliances. There is one that helps you manage passwords and then there is another one that helps you record the sessions. You can configure it to record whatever you do when you make the remote calls.  

We use this solution for a bank. My current project is to onboard all the bank's security assets onto Safeguard. It will be used for admins to have secure access to the server.  

The part of this product that I like the most is the transparent mode. That is the number one advantage of the product. I also like the ease-of-use. That is what Quest is known for. The interface is interactive, relatively easy-to-use.  

I like the fact that we are using a proxy server. Also, I like the fact that it is integrated in such a way that I can connect to my Linux and Unix resources using my AD credentials. They map the AD credentials to Linux accounts. So, when I am connected to my AD accounts, it acts as a sort of proxy to convert it to the Unix account that it is configured for. That is quite useful.  

The only part of the Safeguard solution that I think could be a problem over time is the amount of storage it takes in the sessions. For example, because it records in real-time video it takes a lot of resources. So, it has not been a problem yet, but we are looking at a solution where we allocate the cost of that additional capacity differently. Then there will be enough resources to compensate for whatever the storage needs are. It just takes a large amount of storage for each current session.  

Another thing that I would like to see them improve is that I would like them to make the transparent board a little bit more transparent. The transparent mode is something I use often and it is the best feature of the product but that is also why I see how it can be improved. It might just be a little bit easier to use.  

We are a long-time Quest partner and have only been using the product for the past five months. We just got onboarded to the One Identity product. This is my first project with One Identity.  

One of the things I really like about the One Identity solution is the fact that it can be configured in active-active cluster mode. It is just a little pricey because you have to purchase the additional licensing just to be able to do an active-active configuration.  

But I like it also because it is a virtual appliance. This means I can configure a high-availability cluster anyhow I want. If I have it on a VMware cluster, I can enable high-availability or any virtual cluster solution that makes sure it is highly available. I would do that using VMware storage. This makes it a more stable and flexible solution.  

The fact that I do not have to worry about other incidental things is good. I am not connected to an external database server. So all the dependencies, patching, and additional setup is something I do not have to do on the One Identity appliance. Everything is on a hardware appliance. In other words, I do not really even have to worry about securing my security device. It may not be the first thing to think about, but because you deployed a security device, now you have to worry about securing it. As it is all-in-one as a hardware appliance, I do not have to worry about all that.  

We have not had any issues with scalability to this point and it is handling our capacity and needs. The only potential issue would be budgeting for additional licensing, which would not be a problem in our case, and handling the resource usage. These are not really limiting.  

Between the banking client and our company, not everyone has been onboarded yet to the One Identity Safeguard. But in the end, we are looking at probably about 500 servers and I think a total of about 180 admins. This seems realistic using this product.  

My impression of support is that the guys there are very helpful. They are eager to jump in and to help you out. Yes, I think it is a great service.  

I think that the initial setup was very straight forward. Pretty much a piece of cake, actually. With our implementation strategy, the deployment actually took only about two hours. That is including the discovery of the assets. It is a relatively large enterprise network, so discovery can potentially take some time. This was very reasonable.  

The approximate cost on a yearly basis is in the ballpark of about 80 grand, $80,000. That is for about 100 servers. That is the standard license fee. There are not really any additional costs once you purchase that. Sometimes you can have professional services included with it. For example, if you take a week of professional services or if you need them to do the install. That is the only additional charge.  

As a long-time Quest partner, this was an easy choice to make. Because we were already partners it made sense to work with their other solutions.  

The advice I would give to organizations considering this solution would be that before they make a commitment they need to try to find a local support resource. They will want to be able to get local support because that can be critical. But otherwise, I think it is a good product and a good buy. I would buy it again. As a partner, I would also sell it again because I am confident in it as a product and a solution.  

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the One Identity Safeguard solution as a nine-point-five out of ten. I'm very happy. If I have to choose an integer, it would have to be a nine. Ten would mean it is perfect and there are things I think can be improved.  

We use this solution to control the access of privileged users, such as application administrators, to the internal network. This solution allows us to record and log user sessions.

We use virtual appliances on the VMware platform. The virtualization of such services allows us to flexibly scale our hardware configuration and gives significantly more opportunities for building a stable structure. 

This solution allowed us to provide remote access to the company's internal infrastructure in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It made this access more transparent and controlled for information security departments.

We easily integrated this product with our SIEM system for collecting events. Thanks to this integration, we were able to build convenient, regular reports on privileged user connections. Therefore, our information security units can better see who is connecting to the remote infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is the logging sessions with their visualization, which is video recording. This functionality allows us to restore the actions of a user in the event of any incidents.

The solution transparently integrates into the infrastructure and users do not notice it. I would give this feature the highest rating.

While the "transparent mode" feature did not affect the monitoring in any way, it led to an increase in the convenience of connecting users.

This solution visualizes RDP sessions and logs SSH sessions.

I would like to see support for RDP over HTTPS so this product can be used in conjunction with the Microsoft terminal.

I would like to visualize SSH sessions.

I would like built-in traffic balancing mechanisms with the built-in load balancing mechanism when using several instances.

About four years.

Over four years of use, we have not encountered a single system crash or failure. The product is stable.

When increasing the number of users, we can rather easily add to virtual appliances processors and memory, or disks for storing records, which is more difficult to do on a hardware (physical) appliance.

We have two administrators involved in the deployment, configuration, and maintenance of this solution. During the peak of the pandemic, we had up to 3,000 users connected through the solution and able to work from home.

We have used One Identity’s tech support. I would rate it as excellent. They answer all the questions asked of them quickly and efficiently.

We did not previously use a different solution.

The virtual appliance is deployed from the delivered image without any problems. The setup takes about 15 to 20 minutes, including initial setup and configuration. It also is available to any admin user with Unix competencies.

We use the “transparent mode” function to connect administrative users via SSH to the Unix servers. We did not encounter any problems when setting up this feature, as everything was easy. The solution is well-documented and quite understandable when setting up.

It took about one or two working days to administer the solution, read the documentation and settings, and test various configuration options. It was not very difficult. For our users, there were no special nuances since the connection is transparent. They do not understand nor see that they are connecting through the One Identity Safeguard space.

Our implementation strategy was to use this solution to control remote sessions of privileged users, first with our IT support staff. Now, we use the product for this purpose. In general, the strategy was a success.

There has been a lack of losses, since controlling the actions of privileged users is primarily to minimize risks and create an absence of losses.

Licensing and pricing are quite straightforward. The number of recording channel licenses depends on the needs of the customer. I would suggest estimating the number of concurrent sessions per unit of time and proceed from there when purchasing a license.

We evaluated Safeguard and another product. We ultimately chose Safeguard.

Safeguard is an external (in relation to controlled systems) solution which allows you to record sessions. Its competitor was an agent solution that was put on target servers. With the competitor's solution, there was a risk of disconnecting of a privileged user's recording.

Clearly assess your needs and formulate the necessary requirements, then proceed from there with the selection of an appropriate solution. In our case, One Identity Safeguard became this solution. However, this solution is not a panacea for all ills. It is possibly you’ll find that a different solution is more suitable.

I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10). In order to rate it as a 10, it should have what I would like to see in its coming new releases.

Foreign Language: (Russian)

Как и для чего вы используете этот продукт?

Мы используем это решение для контроля доступа привилегированных пользователей, таких как администраторы приложений, к внутренней сети. Это решение позволяет нам записывать и регистрировать пользовательские сессии.

Мы используем виртуальные устройства на платформе VMware. Виртуализация таких сервисов позволяет нам гибко масштабировать конфигурацию нашего оборудования и предоставляет значительно больше возможностей для построения стабильной структуры.

Как это помогло моей организации?

Это решение позволило нам обеспечить удаленный доступ к внутренней инфраструктуре компании в контексте пандемии COVID-19. Это сделало этот доступ более прозрачным и контролируемым для отделов информационной безопасности.

Мы легко интегрировали этот продукт с нашей системой SIEM для сбора событий. Благодаря этой интеграции мы смогли создавать подходящие регулярные отчеты о привилегированных пользовательских соединениях. Поэтому наши подразделения информационной безопасности могут лучше видеть, кто подключается к удаленной инфраструктуре.

Какие функции вы нашли наиболее ценными?

Наиболее ценной функцией является регистрация сеансов с их визуализацией, то есть запись видео. Эта функциональность позволяет нам восстанавливать действия пользователя в случае каких-либо инцидентов.

Решение прозрачно интегрируется в инфраструктуру, и пользователи этого не замечают. Я бы дал этой функции самый высокий рейтинг.

Хотя функция «прозрачного режима» никак не повлияла на мониторинг, она привела к увеличению удобства подключения пользователей.

Это решение визуализирует сеансы RDP и регистрирует сеансы SSH.

Что нуждается в улучшении?

Я хотел бы видеть поддержку RDP через HTTPS, чтобы этот продукт можно было использовать вместе с терминалом Microsoft.

Я хотел бы визуализировать сессии SSH.

Я хотел бы использовать встроенные механизмы балансировки трафика со встроенным механизмом балансировки нагрузки при использовании нескольких экземпляров.

Как долго я использую этот продукт/решение?

Около четырех лет.

Что я думаю о стабильности этого продукта/решения?

За четыре года использования мы не встретили ни одного сбоя или сбоя системы. Продукт стабилен.

Что я думаю о масштабируемости решения?

Увеличивая количество пользователей, мы можем довольно легко добавить к виртуальным устройствам процессоры и память или диски для хранения записей, что труднее сделать на аппаратном (физическом) устройстве.

У нас есть два администратора, участвующих в развертывании, настройке и обслуживании этого решения. В разгар пандемии у нас было до 3000 пользователей, подключенных через решение и способных работать из дома.

Как бы вы оценили техническую поддержку этого продукта/решения?

Мы использовали техническую поддержку One Identity. Я бы оценил это как превосходное. Они отвечают на все заданные вопросы быстро и качественно.

Какое решение я использовал ранее и почему я переключился?

Ранее мы не использовали другое решение.

Как прошла начальная настройка?

Виртуальное устройство развертывается из доставленного образа без каких-либо проблем. Настройка занимает от 15 до 20 минут, включая первоначальную установку и настройку. Он также доступен для любого администратора с компетенцией Unix.

Мы используем функцию «прозрачного режима» для подключения административных пользователей через SSH к серверам Unix. При настройке этой функции проблем не возникало, так как все было просто. Решение хорошо документировано и вполне понятно при настройке.

Потребовалось около одного или двух рабочих дней для администрирования решения, ознакомления с документацией и настройками, а также для тестирования различных вариантов конфигурации. Это было не очень сложно. Для наших пользователей особых нюансов не было, так как подключение прозрачно. Они не понимают и не видят, что они соединяются через пространство One Identity Safeguard.

Наша стратегия внедрения заключалась в том, чтобы использовать это решение для управления удаленными сеансами привилегированных пользователей, в первую очередь с нашей службой поддержки Информационных Технологий. Теперь мы используем продукт для этой цели. В целом стратегия имела успех.

Какой была была ваша прибыль на инвестиции в One Identity Safeguard?

Мы не испытали никаких потерь, поскольку контроль действий привилегированных пользователей в первую очередь сводит к минимуму риска и создает отсутствие потерь.

Какой у меня опыт работы с ценами, стоимостью установки и лицензированием?

Лицензирование и ценообразование довольно просты. Количество каналов регистрации лицензий зависит от потребностей заказчика. Я бы посоветовал оценить количество одновременных сеансов за единицу времени и перейти оттуда к покупке лицензии.

Прежде чем выбрать этот продукт, вы оценивали другие варианты?

Мы оценили Safeguard и другой продукт. В конечном итоге мы выбрали Safeguard.

Safeguard - это внешнее (по отношению к управляемым системам) решение, которое позволяет вам записывать сессии. Его конкурентом было агентское решение, которое было размещено на целевых серверах. С решением конкурента был риск отключения записи привилегированного пользователя.

Какой еще у меня совет?

Четко оцените свои потребности и сформулируйте необходимые требования, а затем приступайте к выбору подходящего решения. В нашем случае One Identity Safeguard стал таким решением. Однако это решение не является панацеей от всех болезней. Возможно, вы обнаружите, что другое решение более подходит.

Я бы оценил решение как девять (из 10). Чтобы оценить его как 10, у него должно быть то, что я хотел бы видеть в его будущих новых выпусках.