Tufin Review

Improves our efficiency and assists with compliance, although many features are yet unsupported


What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for workflow intake and policy cleanup. It is also used for firewall policy requests.

How has it helped my organization?

We make use of the ability to automatically validate changes to security policy rules. For example, we have four workflows currently in SecureChange, and for two of these workflows, the very first thing that we do in response to a policy request is to evaluate it. We check to see if the new policy is needed or not, and we determine how to proceed from there.

The biggest benefit for us is from an efficiency perspective. The longest part of our firewall policy implementation has been verifying the network and finding out where policy needs to be put in place. Tufin takes this job down from a day, to sometimes five minutes.

This solution provides a more organized manner for us to track towards compliance for our PCI audits.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for us is the topology validation that is part of the workflow.

This visibility that this solution provides is better than that of the competitors that I have looked at.

When this solution works in the way that we need it to, my impressions of the change impact analysis are very good. The hardest thing for us is the inefficiencies with topology. This often means that the results we get are inaccurate.

What needs improvement?

One feature that is missing is the ability to assign a step in the workflow to a specific user at a specific time, based on how the previous steps of the workflow have been handled.

For the traditional application, SecureChange, my impressions of its cloud mandated security features are not very good. Tufin Iris looks more promising.

We have had issues with the stability of this solution, and the basic technical support is not very good.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the normalization of configuration files as they're brought in so that there can be some regular expressions set up to parse them. I would like to see additional cloud support, and the inclusion of security tags as a way of determining risk in the USP.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far, our impressions of stability are not very good. We have already had to RMA one of our boxes, and it was not being utilized very heavily. We've had different issues on some of our other devices, as well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is hard for me to say based on what we have deployed so far. We do have issues, but it's hard for me to say whether they are because of the hardware, or are an issue of scale.

How are customer service and technical support?

The basic technical support for this solution is not very good. However, the Critical Situation Team is actually very good. I would say that the support experience depends on which group you get put under.

If you previously used a different solution, which one did you use and why did you switch?

Prior to implementing this solution, the majority of our security engineering's time was spent working with these policy requests. It was a manual process where a requester would submit and Excel sheet, and the changes were being done from there. This was not leaving time for that team to work on projects and initiatives that were furthering or bettering the company. We started looking into Tufin as a way to automate some of that process and free up some of their time.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of this solution is very complex. Putting all of the devices into the topology, and then getting it to a place where it can provide meaningful and accurate results, and then building the USP on top of that, are all very complex. Out of the box, I don't think that Tufin really provides very much until you get through a lot of those complexities.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the deployment in-house.

What was our ROI?

I'm sure that there is ROI with the time savings that we received, or that we get as part of working the secure change workflows, but I couldn't speak to any hard numbers.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The shortlist included both Tufin and AlgoSec. Our evaluation showed that Tufin's features were on par with AlgoSec, but Tufin was the better financial choice.

What other advice do I have?

Prior to using this solution, our SLA for any change that went into production was ten days. We’ve now lowered that down to two days.

For the most part, our engineers are spending less time on manual processes, but this is when the topology works the way it's supposed to. When it isn’t working the way it's supposed to, then they spend more time than they would normally.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to start small. Pick an area of your network and deploy Tufin, then get it working in a manner that suits your needs. After this, expand it out to the entirety of your network.

This is a good solution but it is not perfect. There is a lot of stuff that is unsupported and it is inefficient.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
See how Tufin can simplify your network security management

Find out how automation and orchestration of security policy management can help you increase agility and efficiency, while reducing risks and ensuring compliance and audit readiness. Request a Tufin demo today.

Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email