ARCON Privileged Access Management Reviews

Compared to BeyondTrust, ARCON Privileged Access Management fails to provide its users with functionalities like managing AD Bridging and addressing the OT assets from an OT standpoint, including operational technology devices. The solution lacks to offer a governance mechanism for operational technology assets. ARCON has not addressed all of these areas where they lack, while BeyondTrust has a solution for the unaddressed issues by ARCON.

I have experience with ARCON products for ten years. With ARCON Privileged Access Management, I have experience of around nine months. Since I work in the pre-sales department and am not a developer, I won't be able to give you a complete or detailed insight into the solution's technical aspects. My company only recommends ARCON Privileged Access Management to potential users. We already have customers using the solution. My company has a partnership with ARCON.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team was good.

The deployment process for the solution was easy.

ARCON Privileged Access Management's pricing is reasonable.

Some of our customers who use the solution are satisfied while some are not. We have also received some negative feedback from some of our customers. So, I recommend BeyondTrust over ACRON Privileged Access Management owing to its additional features and easier deployment process. BeyondTrust is also available on a hybrid cloud. However, if you compare the costs of both solutions, BeyondTrust is on the higher side. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I'll provide feedback on additional features after the project is completed. I think it would be better to comment on that after the implementation is finished.

I have been testing this solution for the past month. 

The deployment is not finished yet. To assess performance and stability, the project needs completion. Currently, our professional service is actively involved, managing tasks related to services and users in the ongoing termination process.

Currently, I'm in constant communication with them. They are professional, helpful, and highly experienced.

Positive

They need to simplify the implementation process. I've observed that sometimes the professional service is focused on the database, especially around log shipping, and it can be challenging.

I'm actively involved in the deployment process, but it's carried out by our professional service. Our plans are implemented through this service, acting as intermediaries between our clients and the professionals. The implementation typically takes around a month, but various issues, such as management, resources, and other challenges, may arise during the deployment.

One notable difficulty we face is the lack of exceptional resources for deploying the solution in our plans. Despite encountering challenges, our satisfaction with the professional service remains high. They are dedicated to implementing the solution effectively.

I'm uncertain about the licensing, specifically the pricing. This falls under the purview of other teams, particularly the sales teams. I am not informed about the pricing details.

I would rate it a ten out of ten overall. It's scalable and easy to deploy. However, I have some concerns. I noticed there are no instructional videos or guides on the network portal for initial configurations. There is limited information available, and this is a concern for me. I would like to see more resources and guides to address these issues.

Regrettably, this product remains incomplete, and the interim phase is still pending. It is challenging to determine its effectiveness due to some significant initial license issues.

ARCON PAM offers two main access control use cases: dynamic and fixed. In the dynamic use case, users request access to services through the admin, who approves the request and grants access to a specific user account. In the fixed use case, generic users are validated, and the admin manages the password. Additionally, the admin can take a real-time session for any user accessing any service.

The important features are the APM and password-retrieving tool.

The tool is giving an error while accessing the services. I need to modify the DLP file, which involves altering the coding for development purposes. Others may modify some reports. ARCON is dependent on these modifications. As an admin, I cannot edit & customize reports. When I request a personalized report from ARCON, the report template provides the changes.

While some features have been added, the video-capturing functionality for PAM is currently limited to Linux-based systems. When using Windows RDP or Windows-related solutions, command retrieval is not available, allowing users to execute the delete command without capturing the action. It is recommended that video-capturing capabilities be expanded to Windows environments to address this issue. Additionally, enhancing the video log functionality to enable faster and more efficient identification of user actions would be beneficial.

I have been using ARCON PAM for the last five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We directly contact and raise the ticket to the support team.

I have used CyberArk before. CyberArk is the most famous PAM solution. Also, it is a very costly solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our company is involved in the health care sector and our primary use case of this solution is for compliance. Previously we used a system that included an Excel sheet but it would crash all the time because we have a large number of IT executives; tech related, application development and other administrators. We weren't able to receive the complete audit file that told us who was accessing and who was deleting what. It wasn't in compliance with data information security. For that reason we introduced the PAM solution and it's working extremely well. We're using it constantly on a daily basis. We are customers of ARCON and I'm a project manager. 

There are several valuable features in the solution. First, it's 100% compliant and you don't have to maintain ID management for each and every user. That's from the management perspective. From the technical aspect I would say that it completely meets our requirements. 

I think hazard flow could be improved, the data compliance part. We need to ensure that no data from any of our users is being accessed or compromised by any privileged user or a team member. There are some things on the database side which are missing and could be included. This is a web-based interface with multiple windows and you have to keep logging in. It should be that you can run any command in any window. It's really about the interface and navigating it.

I've been using this solution for over a year. 

The solution is very stable. I've read that it has been recommended by most of the financial institutions worldwide and I bet most of the companies in India, where I am, are promoting it.

This is absolutely scalable. We currently have 90 users out of 150 employees and we aim to increase that by the next quarter. It was delayed because of Covid. 

We contacted technical support once or twice in the implementation stage because there was an issue with the database team. The problem got solved and we were happy with that. 

We did a few POC, proof of concept. One was with Centrify and also with another solution. When our POC was done, it was clear that PAM was the best solution for us and I was happy with the result. We also heard from other companies that they were happy with this solution and word-of-mouth is also an important source. 

The initial setup was really simple but the database portion was a little more complicated and some of the features we had expected were not initially there. They were able to sort it out. Deployment was done in-house and expected to take two months but ended up taking four to five months until we were happy with it. It's a beautiful solution and we're much happier.

The pricing for this product is on the cheaper side. 

This is a very good enterprise solution and I would say that all enterprise companies should be using products like this. We're satisfied with the features and availability of this product.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

We use it for privileged access management.

Our purpose initially was to have a few critical projects. Not to have password management of all projects. So we started on a smaller scope. Later on, we implemented it across the organization. So now, all technical solutions are being controlled by ARCON. And the main area of improvement here is, we have ease of access. People have password-less access and a need-to-know-basis access whenever they require, when the approvals are in place for access. Previously, all this things were handled manually in the environment. Those we have automated, we have eliminated dependency on any manual intervention.

Everything is in the system. When a person wants to have access, they put in the data, the requirement, the timing, the other technical parameters. The project managers in charge of the infrastructure, they approve it and the access is available to the person who requires it, all the time. 

Equally we are able to monitor it all. It gives us the capability of monitoring it online, rather than going to the persons' desk for the activities being done. We sit in our office and monitor what is happening in the target device, using ARCON. The recordings and other things are available, in case any forensics are required.

Mainly the password vault. So, we have all of our generic IDs, which are present in the infrastructure, we have it securely vaulted. When we want to have access, we use ARCON only to have the access of the target devices or systems.

We have the load balancer and we have certain cloud environments. So, if you take Microsoft hypervisor - which comes with its own interface, its own web layer, etc. - something like that also requires privileged IDs. As per our institution policy now, everything has to come through ARCON. We have demanded that these kind of advanced features also should be there.

They have improved a little bit in providing all the interface, but as of now it is not comprehensive, not at all the interfaces, but the major ones are covered. Whatever we have demanded, they have tried to provide the solution. In fact, with a little bit of time, because of new technology, integrations, and dependency on the OEM side - taking all these things into consideration - they have done a good job in integrating many of the technologies which we have demanded.

For example, vCenter that is a hypervisor for VMware. They have a vCenter environment. Now it can be easily integrated with ARCON. We have a plug-in for that. It was not there last year, now they have come up with it and it is working very well. So my cloud management user IDs are now using ARCON for managing the cloud.

In the basic functionality of the solution, there have not been any challenges. The product is very well designed so that it actually adapts the scalability well. 

But we have seen changes over the last year in terms of security. I would rather not say it is a product deficiency or a deficiency the company. I've been reviewing other products as well, and when we see a product releases something it challenges the other market players. We are seeing that the security trends are becoming very stringent, now providing a high level of security. There has been a lot said and recommended about the access of the infrastructure.

We have our own infrastructure management team which actually looks into the vulnerabilities and the old architecture, protocols, etc. When we start eliminating tools, it's becaue they only support the old communication mechanisms. The migration from SSL to TLS. This is one example. Lately, TLS 1.2 has been recommended by the IT industry. This product was working last year in SSL only. We migrated to TLS 1.2. The adaptability to move quickly towards a new environment is lacking and they are deficient in having integration with other OEMs. I am not naming company names but I would say, for example, one load balancer should be integrated.

For about the last one year or so, everybody has their Web layer for their own product, for their appliances, for their load balancer. Those Web layers are developed by the particular OEM of the appliance. They all have their own logic for providing their access. This solution, doesn't immediately provide any way to integrate with that particular Web layer. So what we do is, whenever we have a new appliance and there is a Web layer above it, we report it to ARCON and they look, see whether it matches any existing solutions, or whether it requires new development.

That is something that is happening every time a Web layer comes out, which is proprietary to an OEM. We have to have them look at it. We cannot directly integrate with that. But that is the scenario with all the products in the market. They cannot integrate directly with any proprietary system. ARCON tries to provide a quick solution.

Earlier they were having issues, only releasing upgrades quarterly. Now they have changed the frequency to monthly, for about the last six months. So that is some kind of improvement.

Updates are not a problem, our in-house team is capable of implementing them, even without support from the company. They provide documentation with the  technical dependencies and the steps.

I would rate it eight out of 10, mainly when we ask about regular technical issues. We do a certain hardening of infrastructure. Whenever we start doing hardening, it affects the access management. So troubleshooting on technical aspects, on these kinds of things, which are a regular technical issue, they are good.

But when it comes to new implementations or new integration - because in the last six months we have given them 15 to 20 new integrations, new Web layers, new appliances to integrate and other things - those are new for them also. So they take their time for checking the feasibility, seeing how it works, and then releasing it. So, in these cases they are taking time. 

But otherwise, the support is good. For regular activities, their support doesn't have any challenges. People are available on the phone. There is a portal available for us to look for technical support, and they do update it regularly.

This is the first solution.

They set it up for us and then we trained our people.

I am not in a position to give any financials, but whatever we have paid, it is value for money.

Their licensing model is good. They have been flexible for us.

We have evaluated two solutions, for two projects - two of our projects required access management. Then we selected this and we extended this solution for multiple projects as well.

It was an open RFP for us in 2015. There were eight products in that quadrant. So we referred to all of them. For us it was an open tender. Then we technically evaluated, compared them, and then selected one product. It was open to the global market and we saw all the products which were present at the time. I think ARCON is one of the leaders now.

Have your access management process is in line. If you have complex processes, or you have not defined it, it will be rather difficult to implement any such product.

I give ARCON a nine out of 10. The missing point is for not quickly adapting, as per the example I mentioned above, regarding integrations. I don't know whether it's a deficiency at their end, maybe that proactiveness is not there. Or maybe there are too many changes happening in the market, they might not be able to cope with all the changes that are happening.

Lately, in the last year or so, all technical products in the IT world have come up with their own access management portfolio. These kinds of products require integration with this portfolio. I have received 15 to 20 items which require integration, 75% were already available and 25% had to be built. So that minus one is because of that 25% they could have integrated even before I asked them. They could have done a workflow just by surveying market.

We are using it for privileged identity management. We are an ARCON partner and nowadays, in the industry, every customer is asking about a PAM product.

We are using all the features. My favorite is Passive Mode.

When the ARCON product was not on the mark - we got this account six years back - we gave all the requirements to them and they took our requirements as a positive, and built all the features we wanted, because we are supporting multiple customers. Now I see the product is ready, it has all the features, it meets all the requirements.

We have given them a few more requirements like SSH keys, or to have the risk factors. They are working on those, they are in the development stage.

Also, they they should focus on support. The support needs to be very strong. Since the product is becoming stronger, their support team also should be equally strong. They should respond to open queries within the time limit they have set. Their support team should be more technical, to understand the issue or the set up.

It is a very stable product.

It is scalable.

I would rate tech support about five or six out of 10.

It is straightforward.

ARCON will give you all the features in a very cost-effective solution.

Pricing and licensing is very good compared to other players in the market. This product is from an India-based company. I feel it is also very effective.

I have evaluated other players: CyberArk, CA, Unisys, but they are all complex and costly.

Arcon fits the requirements, at a small cost.

In terms of advice, I would first check with you what your requirements are and what budget you're looking at. Budget varies but requirements are the most important. If your requirements match this product... Whenever any customer comes to us, we first check if ARCON meets their requirements. If ARCON doesn't meet their requirements then we recommend another product.

I would rate this product at eight out of 10. There are still a lot of improvements which we have suggested to them, they will probably be available within the next three or four months.

We are using ARCON Privileged Access Management for entire data centers.

The most valuable feature of ARCON Privileged Access Management is the recording of sessions. It has all the basic features we need to fulfill our use case.

We receive automatic updates as part of our subscription.

There are some features lacking but they typically are added when the upgrades are released.

I have been using ARCON Privileged Access Management for many years.

We have approximately 100 people in my organization using this solution.

We have over 200 servers and storage systems using this solution. The solution is scalable.

We use third-party support.

The initial setup of ARCON Privileged Access Management is easy.

We have a subscription to use this solution.

We did an internal evaluation of many solutions, such as CyberArk and PAM, we selected ARCON Privileged Access Management as the best for our use case.

I rate ARCON Privileged Access Management an eight out of ten.

This solution is used by system administrators that need to access critical servers. They need to log in using this product, and it then logs their activities.

The only advantage this product has over competitors is the price. It's cheaper than competing solutions.

That dashboard is okay.

The password vaulting is robust.

This product has only a basic set of features. There is nothing really special about it.

The support services need to be improved.

The interface should be easier to use. One thing that would help is better documentation.

Managing users is difficult, so that is something that can be improved.

I have been working with ARCON Privileged Access Management for more than three years.

This product is relatively stable.

This is a highly scalable solution.

This product can be good in a small enterprise but when the environment is too big, it will be difficult to implement. It is only good for banks. For certain environments, it is very bad.

The support is very bad. This is an area that needs improvement.

I have experience with several similar products across different organizations. These include SIEM solutions, as well as Micro Focus ArcSight and IBM QRadar.

The initial setup is relatively easy. I would not say that it is overly easy or overly complex. However, the end-to-end implementation process is very complex. This is something that needs to be better.

The cost of this product is very cheap, comparatively in the global market.

Indian products are cheaper than American products, and they penetrate the market easily because of the price. There are no eye-catching activities or support. Rather, the advantage they gain is because of the price.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.