Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

We were looking for a solution to provide firewall rule management that would enable us to choose which firewall rules to keep and which to eliminate.

Now we can confidently remove firewall rules that are not needed and make the configuration of firewalls more strict.

We are able to discover firewall rules that are too broad and widen the security footprint.

This solution would benefit from an improved reporting functionality with graphing so that reports can be presented to management.

Implementing new rules and the ticket system as users are creating changes. We're using Tufin to implement these rules.

It's much easier to implement rules. It's easier to have an overview of the policies because we don't have to review them, so it's much faster.

Sometimes it hangs when I go to the designer or verification. You can wait, wait, wait and then forget it. Then you cancel it and start again, and within two seconds, there it is.

Stability is OK. My customer has one problem, but I am not sure where the problem is. It's not really my part to fix the problems so that they do not always get the target. They have nine gateways and by some changes, Tufin does not find the target. You have to search for the target which has the policy where the change has to be implemented. This is so complicated if you do not know the policy as well.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

I've never had to use technical support yet.

The setup is complex. I think Tufin is a big product.

Sometimes I work with the AlgoSec solution as well, but not much. I think Tufin's user interface is a little bit better, but this is subjective.

Being able to run reports to see what rules are there and which rules are not needed is very useful to me. It allows me to optimize the policies. Also, every time someone pushes policy it sends an email to say that the change was made. I have it set up to run reports every two days to let me see the state of the firewall or the state of the policies.

The ability to get a sanity check for the rule base is important. Right now, we write our own firewall rules, and with Tufin, we can cut those down to four hundred.

The upgrade was a bit cumbersome because we had to do a complete reinstall. We removed it from a version of Linux that wasn’t supported and we had to do our first fresh install.

We’ve used it for a couple months now.

We haven’t had any issues with stability so far.

We’re a small team and we manage five clusters, so it’s not too bad.

We used technical support for the upgrade and they were very helpful. We haven’t had any issues, apart from the fact that we had to do a fresh install, but we were provided support through that process. They were online with us right through using WebEx. That was great.

My experience with Tufin has been good. We haven’t had any technical issues and the features that I have seen in the software so far are excellent.

SecureChange is the most valuable feature as it shows the difference between policies and proxies that affect performance, such as the router or switches.

The user interface could be improved. It's currently not very user friendly and is not very attractive.

We've had no issues deploying it.

It is very stable. We've had no issues with instability.

We have 600 objects in it and it's able to work well for all of them.

Technical support was very good when I needed their help with significant upgrades.

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward. It wasn't complex or difficult at all.

We implemented it with a partner's assistance.

You can search through policies of different firewalls with one step. That's one of the main features, because I have a lot of firewalls and do lot of firewall installations.

It makes it easy to find a rule and to make sure that all the firewalls are working in just one step, so this saves us time.

Granularity in rule evaluation needs work, especially if you want to narrow it down to a specific device, a cluster or a specific rule set. To have it more combinable so I can say that I want this and this cluster, but only a specific subset.

We've been using it since 2007.

It scales with functionality.

We don't have outages with Tufin and stability has never been an issue.

They've been great as they're quick and responsive. We use both phone and email to contact them.

It was straightforward.

I was invited to look at AlgoSec, but I did not have the time. I only know about it from white papers and so on. SecureChange is the differentiator. I think the part which competes is more SecureTrack, but SecureChange and SecureApp are what makes Tufin more special and they are what we require, which is not provided by Algosec.

It gives me a unified policy across multiple vendors.

Our work is part of the team that manages all the files and people call to tell me exactly which rules I need to change, and where. Tufin makes this easy and let's me know if it already exists or not.

The one that Tufin knows about - being able to support the routers in multi-vendor environments I think is a known thing, but it doesn't make it any better for what I use it for. That's probably the only thing. To be honest, I know we don't use it to it's full extent. We don't use all files on it so it could do a lot more, but it's our own fault.

I think it's OK. From what I've seen, yeah, it's alright. I don't get involved in the maintenance of the Tufin copies though. I just use it, rather than maintain it.

It struggles a little bit with our internal system.

My impression is it's relatively easy, but I don't know about the first time.

Personally, I have seen some others, but I don't think my company deals with anyone else.

You should do a preview of each solution that you're interested in. Use it first and then decide if you want to buy it. Nowadays it's easy.

It's been, from the moment we implemented it, useful for both our security and operations personnel. On a daily basis, the most valuable feature is the integration of different products. We're able to perform and see reports and audits from a single console all in one place.

Tufin should do a better part of educating their users because it's quite complicated. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the changes that come quickly. They're improving this, though, but it still needs work for both partners and customers.

I've been using Tufin for over 10 years.

We've had no issues deploying it.

The stability has been perfect. I know it quite well and it's been stable almost from the very beginning. There were some minor technical problems, as with anything, but the developers were responsive and helpful.

The scalability wasn’t good in the past, but now as they've grown as a company, they've changed the platform so that it can scale for its users.

Technical support has been good.

The initial setup, as I remember, was quite easy, but I've been using it for 10 years.

We implemented it with a partner.