Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

The primary use case is monitoring routers, switches, firewalls, but mostly routers and firewalls.

We are just using SecureTrack, either version 18-2 or 18.3.

We use it to aid with firewall reviews. We don't have SecureChange active, but we can take the info and use it to help. We have found a lot to work with.

Tufin has been helpful with making sure all parts of our organization are following change management:

• If you are changing rules, then you have tickets, and there is the approval process associated with it.
• Seeing people are sticking with those temp rules, if they end up staying there for awhile. 
• Sometimes, there are just bad rules where something that should've been "deny" and should not be allowed.

Those are more direct examples without getting too far into the weeds.

It is greatly aided in helping us meet our compliance mandates. There used to be manual reviews for certain compliance requirements. Now, this solution helps automate a lot of that, and even the parts which are still manual. It's a lot more comprehensive than trying to read raw text files of the configs and making sense of those.

The solution helps us ensure that security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network. It is like a centralized single pane of glass where comprehensively shows things, especially coupled with the Network Topology piece that they have. You can say, "Here's where the DMZ is, and here's that. These are the amount of firewalls crosses this through." Whereas before, it was this big spreadsheet of all the firewalls and zones. Except for like two or three legacy knowledge people, no one really understood how it flowed before Tufin.

It has helped us troubleshoot, e.g., why isn't this still working? "Oh, they put it on the wrong firewall or they typoed it." The solution has helped with that.

The firewall reviews for compliance used to be a more labor intensive process. It used to take a few months, and now, it's down to just a couple of weeks.

It provides a comprehensive overview of what our network looks like in terms of what is allowed and what is not, then how the traffic' is flowing with the Network Topology Map.

With the Unified Security Policy, the more you improve it, the more you will get out of it.

For the things that Tufin is able to work with, it is really great. It sort of provides a comprehensive view. It is easier to explain to people who don't really work with firewalls everyday:

• Why this is an issue.
• Why certain things are an issue.
• Why some things are the way they are.

I wish they had a credentials vault or something. Right now, you have to manually add a username and password per device, and if they are using something like in a centralized, like an AD account, that password rotates eventually. Now, I have to go back and change information for all these hundreds of devices. Whereas, if they just had some credentials vault for credential one, two, and three, then you could just reference them per device and change it in one place. It would make our lives a lot easier.

I wish there was a read-only admin option. I don't like that you have to be a full admin just to see the Network Topology Map. That option is great out there if you are a user, multi-domain user, etc. However, that piece is very helpful for us, but I also don't want to be handing out admin access to every single person so they can see that network tab. 

Tufin covers a lot of vendors, but there are still some that they don't, like Radware. Some of these vendors that they don't cover are at critical points in our company, as far as explaining the full picture of our routing. Since it can't show the full picture, it can't support that. 

The stability is pretty good. We have run into repeat issues with Palo Alto Panorama, where it doesn't seem to play nice if we change the vice group names in Palo Alto or if one of the Palo Alto servers is down, but it is in Panorama, because we're pulling everything through Panorama. Sometimes, it'll freak out and cause everything else to stay and be unable to get configed. Then, our Palo Alto products will sort of cease, usually a good majority of them, which is not ideal.

So far, scalability has been doing well. 

The technical support is very good. They respond pretty fast. They are always available whenever I need it. It is usually my fault when there are delays because I just don't respond to an email. I forget, then a few days go by and email again like, "Oh, shoot." The technical support has always been on top of things.

Someone before me had stood up the actual server on the network. They had one device, and it was monitoring. Then, I took it over. I've expanded it out to over 400 devices.

They made getting new monitoring devices in pretty easy. From the monitoring devices tab, it was pretty straightforward. You pick the vendor, then under there, this is a drop-down. I struggled a bit under the Cisco tab where they have a router, then a Nexus router. They have a lot of different vendors, and figuring out which category it falls under was confusing. The help docs don't exactly specify between the two or what commands it will be running. This is usually more for our older devices. 

We had Professional Services hours. However, as far as getting the actual devices and scaling it out, that was all just me.

Understand your DNS or network segment. What all these different subments and how they will fit into what categories, because you are going to directly take that info when you build out your USP. If it's too messy, your USP is not really going to do anything. You need to have a good dictionary for the USP to follow.

We aren't really using the cloud-native security features in our current environment.

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

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

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

Our engineers are spending significantly less time on manual processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our licensing fees are approximately $250,000 USD.

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

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

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

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I am using Tufin for audits and for deploying changes. I am working with this solution in the financial industry.

The solution has made our operation a lot simpler. We are able to track changes in our network

The most valuable feature of Tufin is we have better visibility and management of our file infrastructure.

We need to implement micro-segmentation in our infrastructure, and we are using Cisco ACI. However, we are facing an issue with Tufin, as it does not currently support integration with ACI for micro-segmentation, even though it is advertised as such.

There should be a feature in Tufin that would make it easier to back up configurations and schedule changes, as well as make it easier to roll back changes if something goes wrong. This would make it less time-consuming and more efficient.

I have been using Tufin for approximately one year. 

Tufin is stable. We did not have any large issues.

The solution is scalable. You can onboard a lot of devices from different vendors. It only depends on the hardware resourcing and licensing. You have to purchase enough licenses.

We use Tufin a lot. I'm an administrator of the application, and we have people who open requests in Tufin. We use an internal ticket system to record these requests. We don't have an integration with an ITSM system yet, but we plan to do so with ServiceNow in the future. Until then, users will have to use Tufin to open their own requests. I've had two experiences with technical support and I find them to be too slow. I can't really say if they are good or not, as it seems to depend on the individual company and the engineers they employ.

I've had two experiences with technical support and they are too slow. I can't say if they are good or not, as it seems to depend on the individual company and the engineers they employ.

I have used CDO previously. Tufin is better than CDO. If you only have Cisco devices, Tufin isn't the better option. However, if you have a multi-vendor environment, Tufin is better than CDO. The limitation of CDO is that it can only be used with Cisco. However, CDO has a better user experience when processing applications than Tufin. Additionally, the network map of CDO looks more accurate to me than Tufin.

The initial setup of Tufin was easy.

The partners we used from Tufin in Romania were not very experienced, which caused the deployment process to take an extended period of time - approximately one year. This was due to the implementor's lack of knowledge on how to deploy the product, despite knowing how to install and onboard. We had a lot of requests, and our network was very complex, so the implementor was unable to complete the requests in a timely manner. However, we are now in a good place. We believe this issue was specific to the Tufin partner that won the auction and not related to Tufin itself.

We used a partner of the vendor with seven of our team members for the implementation of the solution. They have to be skillful people.

We have received a return on investment using Tufin.  Tufin saves us time. Our network team can make changes more quickly. We have better visibility and management of our file infrastructure. Before we didn't have this and it was time-consuming. We use Tufin to generate reports for different security teams, and for firewall operations. We also use it to integrate Cisco ACI and segment traffic between different IT processes and destinations. Tufin has been very helpful in allowing us to detect traffic between sources and destinations, and integrate our firewalls.

I had a bad experience with the financial department, and the price is too high. The software does work and does the job. The solution is worth the money. If I had a different partner to implement the solution, it would have been worth the price.

The solution is paid monthly. We paid approximately €‎300,000.

We use two people for the maintenance of the solution.

I rate Tufin an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is processing change requests.

While our organization has implemented SecureChange and SecureTrack, we are not using either tool rather extensively. Therefore, we are trying to put together a plan for the organization to adopt these tools more firmly.

The idea is to be using SecureChange as the primary portal for entering change requests on both the perimeter and shop floor network firewalls. The way we are approaching this is to do a pilot first among a few sites, then bringing it out to a larger group once we feel more comfortable with how the pilot went.

The pilot will probably last for a couple weeks. After that, we will roll it out in buckets or groups to the rest of the sites. Then, the primary use case will be using tool for change management and SecureChange, while SecureTrack will be used by our security monitoring group who is tracking for threats.

My engagement to date and going forward will be to assist in the planning of the rollout and helping with the rollout. I make sure teams and users who will be using this tool are actually using it, including processes from: 

• Submitting a firewall change request.
• Price or rule requests.
• Opening a port.
• Firewall maintenance or maintenance processes, e.g., rule cleanup.

The additional visibility into network path analysis is really helpful. The ability to provide assistance with role clean up will be helpful as well.

Part of the work that one of our firewall implementation teams is doing is a justification process right now. I think that a clean up is included as part of that effort.

One of the things that we really like is the ability to customize work flow. It seems like there are ways to make a workflow robust and capture multiple different types of things that you would want to do when you are maintaining a set of shop floor network firewall rules. These include things decommissioning a server and performing a common rule maintenance process, like a recertification process. 

The linkage between SecureTrack and SecureChange is nice. The way that you can identify a rule in SecureTrack that needs to be recertified, then create a ticket in SecureChange, which can essentially implement that, and complete the recertification process for workflow. This helps us keep organized, in a big way, a complex, large set of network firewall rules. Otherwise, there is no way for us to track who the business approver or owner is for each of those rules and when the last time each of the rules was looked at. In terms of keeping this set of rules clean, it goes a long way in helping with that.

I had been impressed with the depth of capabilities within SecureTrack, particularly, in terms of generating insights for a user and firewall operator. With SecureTrack, I've been impressed with the level of flexibility with workflow design and its ability to generate different work streams and flows through the tool that are customized for our organization processes.

One of the things that came up this week was the ability to decommission a server, which we thought was interesting. We had a workshop recently that talked about all the things that need to be thought about when managing firewalls. People said, "A lot of times, things get forgotten when you are decommissioning a server." E.g., making sure rules are taken away and taking out the rule set. The fact that there is an automated workload for that can be helpful.

From the training that I've done at the conference, I like the ability to visualize the network paths between different endpoints and servers. I thought that was cool.

I have been impressed with the range of capabilities. The ability to connect with other services and software solutions via APIs is very impressive. In terms of breadth of market coverage, that seems pretty robust.

I would like a USP that was a little like an interface and a bit more intuitive. It seems like the 2.0 version did that better. 

I know when I was performing a search, like in the policy query area, some of those options as your typing could be better defined. That was one thing that came up. I would like it if there was some way to provide real-time feedback or context for each option as you are typing in search fields and search parameters.

Even somebody with relatively little experience like I have should be able to come in and have more intuition towards how to operate the solution. That would be a bit more helpful. There are things that could be explained a little better for somebody brand new to this system, which could be helpful, especially if it was in real-time while you were working in the system. Having the ability in real-time to be able to understand search query suggestions would be helpful.

A limitation right now for compressed firewalls is the limited ability to see above a site level in terms of the Topology Mapping in the policy display. While Tufin's actively working on a solution, or at least they have this in the queue, from being able to view this on a higher level and how all of our site networks are connected, this ability would be useful, as we expect to have these compressed firewalls in place for quite some time.

The Tufin products seem very long-term oriented. The ability to be customized seems good. It seems like there is a good roadmap for what features need to be added.

We did a USP upload earlier this week into SecureTrack, and the upload process was okay. Some of the definitions around the columns and the formatting could be more clearly defined.

The scalability seems good. It is overwhelming to think about how to define a USP potentially for the amount of networks that we have for shop floor firewalls. However, in terms of scalability, it seems like once the information is in there, it can operate well and help speed up change requests.

I don't think we've worked a lot with the technical support teams yet.

It was clear that no one was managing the shop floor network firewalls. 

Right now, there are no tools to do that. As we are hardening and locking down firewalls, the requirement to maintain and manage them becomes increasingly more challenging.

I don't think there was any tool before Tufin. The rules were historically stored in CSM and operated out of CSM. Before that, there wasn't any other way to perform a regular analysis and maintenance of firewall rules in this way from a security and policy perspective.

The initial setup seemed like it required a lot of effort. I wasn't super close to the project during the initial setup. Now that I've gone through the training it seems a little less overwhelming.

For the initial setup, I was only involved slightly on the SecureChange side. The API integration process with BMC Remedy seems difficult. I don't know if that is a result of the way the SecureChange application is designed, or if it's a result of a challenging resource environment for focusing on the implementation and the integration of it with Remedy. But, it seems like a challenging effort.

We used WTT for the deployment. My coworker, Dorothy, had a good experience with them. They were engaged before I joined the project.

The rollout was accomplished largely with an in-house team. The vendor that we purchased it through provided a little bit of support, but very minimal. Then, there is the team who is doing implementation with a lot of the firewall rule changes. Booz Allen has been helping a lot with the rollout, as well. I have been helping to design the rollout and adoption.

For our current implementation, which is temporary, once we move the cleanup process from this implementation team to the permanent team that is when I will be performing the work. That is when I'll be a bit more involved.

The company a good comparison of the different tools. I don't know if they were working with Booz Allen at the time, but Booz Allen seems to feel pretty strongly about the quality of Tufin and their user experience. It does seem like Tufin has reputation regarding its user interface that it is more friendly than other competitors.

I am aware of two other competitors who were possibly considered.

There is a plan for clean up as part of our regular process. There is a process drafted and an intention to do that.

It seems flexible and customizable. The bigger question is whether it will integrate into our existing process effort for change management. There is an existing risk assessment process that sort of fits up into our Remedy change request process, so now we have to think about how does the Tufin change management portal and SecureChange fit into that as well.

Once the USP is defined and we feel comfortable with that, we plan to use the solution to automatically check if a change request will violate any security policy. However, we are not doing that yet.

The program that I am supporting is not engaged in any of the firewalls affecting the cloud, so I didn't have a lot of context with that.

Once we have it up and running, this solution should help reduce the time that it takes to make changes and our engineers should spend less time on manual processes.

I did training at Tufin two weeks ago.

We use this solution for firewall rule management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The visibility that this solution provides is great.

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

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

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

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

At this time, we manage almost five hundred firewalls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Automate the firewall change via SecureChange Workflow

1. Policy Optimization by using Tufin APG under SecureTrack. If you have a wide open policy, and you want to restrict it into fewer lines of policy based on last 30 or 90 days hits, you can use APG tool to build restrictive policy.

2. Firewall Cleanup: Deletering unused Rules, unsed objects, duplicate objects from firewall database, by using the report created by Tufin under SecureTrack. You can run this report on Tufin SecureChange to delete all the unwanted space. This will save tons of space on your Firewall database.

3. SecureChange Workflow: You can link Tufin to ticketing system to upload the firewall change ticket, and use the workflow to fully automate the firewall change process, from start to finish

4. Topology: If you a good topology, you don't need to see routing table on Firewall, or going through any visio network design to find the L3 networks in your enterprise. Topology under SecureTrack helped me a lot

6. Enterprise Unified Security Policy: Once I do have an Approved Unified Security Policy from the CISO, I don't need to ask approval for each low risk firewall change. USP not only saved CISO busy time, but also increased the efficiency of firewall team. The firewall change request doesn't have to stay in Approver Pending steps

SecureChange Workflow: It is Firewall Admin Robot, which handles the ticket right from receiving until the implementing process with documenting all the approvals.

1. Tufin workflow doesn't support IPS module, Identity Awareness Module, Policy Inline layer (Checkpoint)

2. Limitation on edit/create Group object: You can't create group Service object

3. You have to run Designer to Assign Firewall Rule Name, and Rule Number. By default, Tufin uses topology

3

Tufin is very stable. There have been no major outages. 

Sometimes there is an SSL correction between Tufin and the management server. Sometimes it gets broken but I don't why. Apart from that, it is very stable.

We can add as many firewalls as we need. It's just a matter of purchasing the licenses. It has good scalability.

Tech support is very bad. I would give a zero rating to tech support. Compared to Check Point and Fortinet, Tufin tech support is worse. Even the Professional Services team doesn't like to respond to email. It is poor.

My team doesn't have a good relationship with Tufin. The Professional Services and even our Tufin account manager are not friendly. They're not helpful to us. But the Tufin product is fine.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I believe our cost is more than $100,000 per year.

We haven't evaluate any competitors or consider other products.

Tufin is not mandatory to manage firewalls or to manage any products. But it supplements. It will help you to get approvals and to push firewall policies. In the long run, when you have to manage hundreds of firewalls, obviously Tufin will help.

We are working on the USP, but so far we only rely on Tufin between about ten and 20 percent to see USP violations.

We make use of the SecureChange and SecureTrack modules. In SecureChange, we use the Workflow, and we use the USP to see if there are any rule violations.

Using the workflow has made it easier to get approval from the manager or the CISO. Whereas earlier we used to send an email, it is now a very easy process to get approval.

I have not used the Tufin workflow to clean the firewall rules, but I have used the reports to assist me. I have built reports based on six months worth of data, then selected the rules that were not needed and performed the firewall cleanup accordingly. Now that we have SecureChange and the workflow, I think that I should use the workflow to clean the firewall rules. However, to this point, I have been using the Tufin report.

The rule cleanup and checking for rule violations are not any easier for a technical person, as they are firewall operators. At the same time, it is very much easier for the management team, such as the CISO or company managers, to perform these tasks.

With respect to visibility, many vendors claim that they are number one on the market. What I can say is that Tufin works with the Check Point firewall and the Fortinet firewalls, and this is helping us.

This solution has helped us with meeting our compliance mandates. Based on the company standards and guidelines, we configure the USP. When somethings violates it, we can make a decision whether to approve it or not, based on whether it is complying with company policies.

The most valuable feature is the workflow.

Using this solution makes it easier to manage the firewall policy.

The reports that this solution provides are very useful. The report includes information about duplicate objects, duplicate services, shadowed firewall rules, and the firewall rules that have not been needed for a specified number of days or months. It sets my Check Point database.

My team does not have a good relationship with Tufin because the provisioning team, and even our Tufin account manager, are not friendly or helpful to us. The product, itself, is fine.

I would like to see Tufin as a standalone product that does not strictly manage other firewalls, such as Check Point, but works independently. Ideally, it should not have to rely on other products.

This solution increases the time it takes to make changes. It is easy to manage the firewall policy with the Check Point management server, so the time spent with Tufin is extra.

The fact that all of the firewall policies are pushed to the CMA is a major drawback of the schedule window.

Tufin is very stable, and I would say that there are no major outages. Sometimes the connection between Tufin and the management servers gets broken, and I don't know the reason, but apart from that, it is very stable.

We can add as many firewalls as we need to, as long as we purchase the licenses, so it has good scalability.

Technical support for this solution is the worst. I would give it a zero ranking. Compared to Check Point and Fortinet, Tufin technical support is the worst.

Even the provision service team does not like to respond to email, which is poor service.

Prior to this solution, we used email to request approval, and it is now handled by the Tufin workflow.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

Our licensing fees are more than $100,000 USD per year.

We did not evaluate other products before choosing this solution.

I do find that the change workflow process is flexible and customizable, but not fully. I would say that it is seventy percent customizable, as there are pros and cons in the workflow. You cannot fully customize the workflow by yourself. There are certain limitations in the workflow, such as the inability to create a Firewall object or an IP object. You can only create or modify the Firewall object group. The other problem is the schedule window, as it pushes all of the firewalls on the CMA.

For us, this solution is a supplement. Tufin is partners with Check Point and Fortinet firewalls, but I can manage firewalls without using it. At the same time, while it is not mandatory, it is helping us.

For anybody who is considering this solution, I would say that Tufin helps you to get approval and it will help you to push your firewall policies. In the long run, when you have to manage hundreds of firewalls, it is a good thing to have.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use this solution for firewall compliance reviews.

This solution has helped us to speed up our review process. After we do make a change, we're able to quickly review what has actually changed. 

This solution has helped us with compliance because we're able to map out certain firewall rules against compliance requirements, and we're able to write reports to show us exactly what our firewalls look like in those areas.

From our perspective, the most valuable features are the compliance and firewall reporting modules. Indirectly, we use Tufin to clean up our firewall policies. We run reports, and then use those reports to drive improvement in the firewall rules. The visibility into the Check Point firewall rules is a lot easier to look at using a Tufin report as opposed to a Check Point report.

This provides good visibility of our firewall rules. Using Check Point is a little cumbersome to get what you need, so with this solution, we’re able to filter through and better get the information.

Tufin has a lot of tools for PCI compliance, as well as other modules that support things like SOX, but there is nothing substantial out there for the NERC CIP space. It would be nice to have some automated tools for NERC CIP compliance.

One of the areas that I've had challenges with is making complicated reports. There is an ability to pull in CSVs, but I've struggled to find the format that the CSV should be in.

I could spend hours building out a policy to check the firewall rules, and then the next person comes along and they don't see it because it's stored within a user profile. Consequently, they have to build out the exact same thing for hours instead of just being able to export it, and then import it into their profile.

The stability of this solution is fine. We don't have any issues with it, at least as far as I know.

It seems to be really scalable once you have all of the modules working together. We have a broad array of subgroups that we're working on compliance with, from really small to really large, and it works well with all of them.

I've never had to deal with their technical support.

I was not part of the initial setup of this solution.

Using this solution has allowed us to reduce the amount of time we spend making changes by approximately twenty percent.

This solution has a lot of functionality that we aren't using at this point, but it seems to have the flexibility and scalability. The drawback is the lack of integrated NERC CIP.

For anybody researching this or a similar solution, I would always tell them to look at all of the available options, but Tufin does all of the things that we needed it to do.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.