At this bank, it replaced the manual solution, where if you were not a Tier 3 Network Engineer, then you were probably not going to be able to get into the details and nuances of any of the rules and configurations. So, they get glossed over. The firewall review done manually is more of a sanity check. "Do we need the rule at all?" is really the question that gets asked, not whether the rule is done correctly to support privilege and least access.

We are in the process of doing microsegmentation right now. That is one of the reasons why we started looking into a utility like this because we needed to get that current snapshot of where we are at and where we need to go. AlgoSec is beyond phenomenal for helping to create and manage this type of initiative. With the automation piece and the fact that we can take a look at the traffic that is currently running through our firewalls and automate the rules being created for that. This will take a lot of manual work off of our shoulders that would have taken many man-hours to be able to implement.

This is our first automation solution. We went with AlgoSec after asking partners and other companies and everybody said, "Use AlgoSec."

We've used Cisco Tetration in the past.

We didn't use a different solution.

I've used the Skybox Security solution as well.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We used a couple of different solutions and they all have their problems. We thought we had a good solution at one point until we found out that it wasn't working properly. When you trust in an application like this and you believe in the numbers that it's giving you, you go with that as gospel until you find out that it's wrong. That vendor's support was just not on the level that we wanted. We were getting no response from them for a long time. So we finally gave up on them until we went to AlgoSec, and it was a much better solution for us.

I did not use another solution previously.

We did not use a different solution previously.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We previously used Firemon. AlgoSec has more functionality and is user-friendly to manage our firewall more effectively.

Not really. We used a homegrown VBScript that would parse the configurations on our firewalls for auditing. This didn't help at all with compliance.

We didn't have a different solution.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I have not used other tools. We know AlgoSec is a leader in this industry. We haven't faced any issues in the last four years while using the AlgoSec solution. We haven't done any research on other solutions because we haven't faced any issues with AlgoSec.

We used Tufin. 

We have used Tufin which does a good job looking at groups and objects but AlgoSec adds more of a risk approach to it. 

We were not previously using another solution. We chose AlgoSec because we knew that we were going to be managing ACLs globally at a rapid rate going forward and we needed a solution for that.

We have had several projects with other firewall management solutions, and our customers choose AlgoSec because it's very flexible.

No, this is the first time we have introduced this solution.

We did not use a solution like this one previously. This is the first time.

We used another vendor prior to AlgoSec but we were not satisfied with the "intelligence" of the product when it came to the processing of FCRs.

We used a different solution prior to this one and we had issues integrating with our new firewall vendor which was Palo Alto

No previous solution.

I've always used Algosec.

Did not use another solution previously.

We used a different Network Security Policy Management Solutions (NSPM) tool, but we felt that it would not be able to fulfill our requirements and address the gap which we had before.

We were looking for a place where we could keep our rules and also track ownership of each rule in the application.

We previously used FireMon and switched to AlgoSec because we were not satisfied with it. FireMon was good but was not user-friendly.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. However, it was picked up after careful review and comparison with similar products.

We didn't use any security managament tool prior to this one.

No, we evaluated AlgoSec and Tufin, and we selected AlgoSec.

We did use a different solution for several years. The features and usability made us switch.

No.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

Previously, we were using Tufin but we found that solution more complicated when compared with AlgoSec. 

We also used Tufin, but AlgoSec provided us better visibility and ease of use.

No. 

No.

Earlier we are not using any solution but always planning to procure solution that have ability to integrate multi vendor firewalls into single platform and after assessments and evaluations with OEM products we finally select Algosec as approved solution.  

We did not previously use a different solution. 

We did not use a different solution previously.

I use a few other solutions as well. More often, I would advise clients to go with AlgoSec. Of course, as a secondary option, if our customers personally had some other preference, my experience is that they tend to go for Tufin rather than Skybox.

We just relied on tech skills and pen tests. This way led us to be reactionary instead of getting ahead of problems.

Before knowing and using the AlgoSec tool, we were managing daily activities with Firewalls the standard way. It was done rule by rule, creating, modifying, removing, analyzing, and finally compiling once all it was decided that everything was under control and following internal security policies.

Other than Check Point, we did not use another solution prior to AlgoSec.

We did not use a different solution previously.

The first solution that we used in this category was AlgoSec.

We did not use a previous solution.

We have used Tufin beforemuch-much we faced lots of challenges and saw bugs all the time so we wanted something better. 

No.

We were a Tufin user but moved due to a POC with another asset we acquired which had AlgoSec and at the end we preferred AlgoSec. 

Our previous solution was not useful and did not have an intuitive interface. Support was also terrible.

We did not use another product prior to AlgoSec for the same purpose.

Our company was using old fashioned firewall devices.

We did not use another solution before this one.

We did not have such a tool before installing AlgoSec for a firewall policy audit with reports. We had a homemade tool for change management.  

This is the first solution we used.

We did not previously use a different solution.

No.

I did not use another solution prior to this one.

No, it is my first application for this kind of work.

We used a different network security policy management tool, but we felt it would not be able to fulfill our requirements and address our previous gap. We were looking for a place where we could keep our rules and also track ownership of each rule in the application.

We never had a solution like this. It is the first one in our environment.

We did use another solution prior to AlgoSec and the change was due to the reports having more information and easy customization.

We stopped using FireMon due to the price and lack of features.

I haven't used any other solutions.

No previous solution.

I also have experience with Tufin.

We did not use another solution before AlgoSec.

I used Nipper and FireMon, but I started using AlgoSec due to the great recommendations I received.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

I have not used a different solution previously.

Not in our case.

Earlier we used to manage everything with our internal and vendor team, where lots of coordination was required. It was a long time-consuming process of gathering requirements and defining the best possible solution.

Since few of the solutions were being managed by outsourced team, it was challenging to make the solutions ready to integrate with AlgoSec during the deployment phase.

Some delays happened due to the lack of support by the external party. There were some delays due to upgrading products to make everything compatible with AlgoSec Analyzer and FireFlow.

No, I didn't.

This is the first solution of this kind I have used.

We didn't have a similar system before this solution.

We have used other firewall products and it is very complex to check if any connections are down or blocked. 

No.

We did not previously use a different solution.

This was the first solution I chose.

Not applicable.

Skybox Security. However, Skybox is has less actionable output than Algosec. 

No previous solution was used.

There was no previous solution in place.

Yes, AlgoSec provides a better solution for the firewall rule optimization that matches our production need.

I used Cisco Security Monitoring Analysis and Response System before it was retired.

No.

No previous solution was used.

No.

No previous solution

This is my first implementation.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

No previous solution was used.

I did not previously use a different solution; we have been using this solution since 2012.

I used to use Firemon before but switched to AlgoSec because the AlgoSec product and User Interface are more friendly than Firemon.

Although we had not previously used any solution for Security Policy Management, AlgoSec emerged as a great solution with broad vendor support and a dynamic attitude.

No.

There was no previous solution in place.

I haven't used any other solution.

No.

I didn't use a similar solution previously.