No.

The first implementation was not tailored to our specific requirements and the system was basically an expensive log collector until the vendors came to capture our requirements and then made modifications. This was then followed up with training.

We had several performance issues on high throughput applications due to outdated, old hardware/non-ideal settings in the agents. These were mostly on our end.

We had a problem with mainframe DB2 mappings; incorrect results due to bug. A fix is expected in DAM (Database Activity Monitoring) version 12 in March 2017.

I would like to talk about the upgrade scenario (deployment). First of all, it is complicated; secondly, many manual settings need to be done when you move from one version to another. They don’t automatically get replicated into the newer version, something which I encountered only in Imperva products. The boxes should have built-in scripts to reconfigure the settings and carry out a smooth migration.

I have not encountered any deployment, stability or scalability issues.

They did have some issues with HA and Clustered environments, but it is supposed to be fixed in v12, which I have not tested.

I remember that SecureSphere stores limited data according to the number of the data structure type that is defined in the server configuration files. If a customer does not realize this, data taken with the policy that has a max data structure type is interrupted.

I was not around during the implementation, but reports do not show any issues noted.

No, the engineer did a very smooth job at deployment.

I don’t deploy, only monitor.

I have not encountered any issues with deployment, stability or scalability issues. Deployment is very easy, and it offers more stability and scalability.