Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

We use SecureTrack for troubleshooting, APG (Automatic Policy Generator), implementation of new requests, change monitoring, rule and object usage reports.

This solution provides an unified display of rules across vendors.

We use this solution e.g. for cleanup and processing of shadowed rules.

Using this solution saves us time and money. The Automatic Policy Generator saves time because we are able to identify the required policy when a client doesn't know what he needs.

We are able to perform an inventory analysis for colleagues.

The most valuable feature of this solution is APG, the Automatic Policy Generator. Further there are very good capabilities for policy browsing and reporting implemented.

I would like to see better report integration in this solution.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability of this solution is ok.

The technical support team for this solution is very polite.

There was some functionality in the integration with Check Point that was initially working not in the best matter, and it was only fixed after Check Point got involved.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup of this solution was not complex. It was simple.

Our in-house team handled the implementation and deployment of this solution.

Tufin is expensive but it is very good.

We did evaluate other options. However, Tufin was the best one that we tried.

Following installation, we mentioned to the SE what ports were on the rule already, and he responded that those were the right ports. So immediately, Tufin already saved us work. And there was already traffic to the destination of a requested rule that needed to just be added to another group. Previously, we would have had to make a new rule and type in the source destination ports. With Tufin, however, the group already existed and we just needed to add it to another group.

Object look-up is also valuable. When someone needs to know about a particular endpoint and what's allowed to it, we only need to type in the IP address and are then able to see every rule associated with that address line by line.

From the very beginning, Tufin has kept our rule set compact so that we don't have to keep stacking up rule after rule. We still have to analyze and find rules that are too open, but it helps use make the right rules in the right places.

It's also a huge deal to us to be able to see the configurations as they change over time, and to know which firewall is responsible for which segments. It allows us to look at all our firewalls at the same time and not have to SSH one after another. We've got it all right there with Tufin -- one pane of glass that shows us everything.

With new engineers to the company, I pull them aside and show them Tufin. Within one hour, they have all the information they need to start creating firewall rules. It's incredibly easy to use. I can't imagine life should it if it should go offline. It's made a huge difference for us.

I'd like to see code provisioning.

It's been up for two years.

We had no issues with deployment.

I believe we had one reboot due to a code upgrade. This was only a single incident.

Our current machine handles all firewalls for one of our business units. We're at a point where we've ordered a larger one to handle 200 firewalls. We'll take the smaller one to have an additional collector. The scalability is very good.

Excellent.

These guys have been amazing. They will work tirelessly. I've only had a few calls, but every time I've had a call, the answer came through in a timely fashion and we got things sorted out. Usually it was user error, they told us, and they didn't lecture us about it.

We simply turned it on, gave it an IP address, and logged into that IP address. Getting it set up with other firewall was straightforward, as was setup for interoperation with Active Directory. We now have group-managed logins.

We looked at FireMon because it's able to analyze rules. But for daily, operational stuff, such as finding rules that already exist and which firewalls are involved, Tufin is much easier and more efficient to use. It was a no-brainer.

It already does traffic analysis and secure change. We've got the secure app so we can keep track of the business critical things. They shouldn't change that. I love the left-hand pane, and being able to navigate that and being able to see things in the split pane on the right-hand side. There are other vendors out there who will decide I need to just have everything at the top and scroll down.

The best thing to do would be get all your firewalls in there and let it bake overnight. It does take some time to collect the data in the config files. Once that's done, teach your help desk staff and the firewall operators how to use this to look up existing conditions and to determine right away whether a rule needs to be made, or whether a group needs to be added, or whether the rule already exists.

We can identify rules that are not used. We can identify rules that are open.

When importing the devices, they made it nice where you can script it and import all the devices into Tufin. That was a nice little feature.

I like the SecureApp feature. That looks like it's pretty handy. The compliance portion of it, where you build your security database. It runs against that security database and figures out whether the correct ports are opened up or if there are vulnerabilities.

I know that in importing some devices, I think routers and switches showed up the same. Router would be layer 3 but they would only show up in Tufin as a layer 2 device. On the Cisco portion of it, there wasn't separation between that.

At this point, there aren’t any other configurations I’d like to see.

I’m using SecureTrack basically to evaluate rule bases.

I have not really found any other side benefits. I don't really use it that much and it's relatively new. I don’t use any of the recording features.

I wouldn't say we had stability issues.

We have, I think, over a thousand devices right now, and we haven’t had any scalability issues.

I’ve never used technical support.

I was part of the initial setup. I imported devices but that's about it. It was pretty easy. You can put it in an Excel spreadsheet and import it that way or as a CSV file.

It's a pretty useful tool if you have a large environment with a lot of devices and you're trying to make it easier for the technicians to basically pawn the work off and make the application team more accountable.

With the limited knowledge I have of it and the limited use, I would probably give them an 8. I never give anyone 10's or 9's.

There are a few things. One is that from the portal people are able to request access. It is going to be able to stage the policy, add the rules or objects or whatever is needed for us so that all we need to do is push the policy at the time. It almost doesn't need a human being to be involved in the rule staging of provision process.

We've been using Check Point for 10+ years and some of the rules were converted from other systems, mainly from Cisco devices. The conversion process or the migration process is not the cleanest. We end up with rules that we call over-saddling. Rules which are really not needed.

We're talking about a ton of rules. We have policies that have 3,000 rules. It's able to give us reports that tell us these 10 rules or 100 rules in our policies are not needed. Either we need to fix the rule which was a bad rule or we do not need another rule.

One thing it's not currently able to do is remove rules. For instance, one of the biggest things is that we have a server what we call decommissioned. That means they no longer need it. Either the application is end of life or they bought a new server and they took on new IPs. But we still have rules that allow the IP, so there's a hole there. Right now you cannot say, "Hey, Tufin, this IP is obsolete. Please remove all the rules that allows this IP."

Another good thing is that Tufin has a good portal. 

We were using Skybox. Tufin has that fun end to the user which Skybox doesn't.

I would recommend it.

With a tool like this, spend a few dollars to bring in their professional services to help out. Tufin is not going to be for a really small company. One of the important things is that you need to get your network team on-board.

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

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

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

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

We have been using this solution for three months.

I have not contacted their technical support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stability is very good.

You can easily scale the solution if you need to.

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

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

The initial setup can be tough.

The product could use better integration with the cloud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deployment took about a month or so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're just a customer and end-user.

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

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

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

We are using SecureTrack and SecureChange to make policy changes.

For us, it's all the features that Tufin provides, including the 

• USP
• rule design
• documentation
• implementation
• auditing.

They're all important. We could not have one without the others.

In addition, it provides greater visibility, once the setup is configured correctly. It provides a real-time sense of how the policies are configured and whether there are any shadow rules. Another great thing is that it provides greater reporting based on how the rules have been set up.

There are at least two things that need improvement. One is the business workflow and the second is the integration with logging solutions.

The product is stable. Regardless of the software we are running, the current or the new one, it is stable.

The solution is scalable if we have to add more devices, more distinct resources, or also high availability. That's part of the solution. It's not like after-thought, it's there.

Tech support is very helpful. If there are any issues, we bring them to support and they get addressed immediately.

You should definitely be looking at this as in your top-two choices, before even considering any other solutions.

We are in the midst of a transition, going to a newer version. All the features which I talked about above, we want to implement them in a new production infrastructure. We are working with Tufin and Professional Services very closely, so we can enable it. There is the old way - the way we are using it - versus the way we want to. It is not there yet. 

Currently, it's not helping us meet compliance mandates, but the new way will definitely help us to meet them. In addition, once we go with the new way of doing things, the solution will ensure that security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network. At that point it will follow business practices.

We primarily use SecureTrack for viewing and tracking changes to policies.

This has helped us to better clean up and audit changes to the firewall policy. Also, giving access to the other teams without giving them direct access to the firewalls, themselves, is very helpful.

This solution has also saved our architects time. They are unable to view the firewall policy directly, so they use this product to find the rules that they need. If something is being moved then they can easily create a document that has all of the existing rules.

The most valuable feature is to give people outside of the firewall group access to view the policy. Tracking is the most useful feature for us, right now. It saves time but I cannot give an estimate as to how much.

The visibility is good. We can see the policies and what changes need to be made, based on the report.

When viewing the policy there are a lot of Check Point user's inline rules, and you don't see those in our policies. It just labels them from top-down. We use a lot of inline rules, and it would be beneficial to see those from within Tufin. 

Overall the system is stable, and we have had no issues configuring it with our firewalls, or otherwise.

It is scalable in the sense that we use a lot of policies and we haven't run into any limits yet.

The solution has been pretty straightforward and I haven't had to contact tech support. Again, we're not using all of the features so perhaps that is why. I do know that there are plans to use the SecureApp and SecureChange in the future, but the trust isn't there yet for us to push down those changes.

We did not use a solution prior to this one, but we needed Tufin to give access to other teams to view the policies. We did not want to give them direct access to the firewall management system.

I would say that the initial setup was of medium difficulty. I and one other engineer completed it, and it wasn't too difficult.

The deployment, in total, took more than a year. This included bringing in every single firewall policy and making sure that it was updating and tracking.

We handled the deployment in-house.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution, and I don't know who else is competing in this space with exactly the same features as Tufin.

We don't use SecureChange at the moment, although hopefully, we can get to it in the future.

With respect to having this solution automatically clean up our firewall policies, we run the report but we don’t always push those changes on. We consider the recommendations but review it manually ourselves. This does point out what we can get rid of, and where we can optimize it. Once we have the trust of our team to push these changes automatically it will be implemented, but we're not ready for that yet.

Part of the reason is that we want to be in control of the firewall policy changes. We don't want developers or anybody recommending what we should be doing.

If somebody is looking to integrate a ticketing system, and not push changes directly through their firewall management system, and they would like a third-party verifier and checker then I don't know any other products that can do that. This is especially true for Check Point firewalls, and Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.