There is room for improvement in pricing. It would be better, especially if a customer bought all four modules.

There is room for improvement in customer support and service. 

The tool does not offer options for customization. My company would like to see some customization features added to the solution to make different workflows since, currently, we only have a limited set of workflows in Skybox Change Manager.

The solution needs to move and improve its interface to a full web browser version that is more accessible and doesn't require installation for use. 

Speed of analysis could be improved because it takes quite a lot of computing power to import data from various networks, servers, firewalls, routers, and vulnerability scanners. Sometimes it can take 12 hours to run an analysis. If you understand scaling, upscaling vertically doesn't work really well because there's always a ceiling in computing resources. But upscaling horizontally by making the solution capable of paralyzing computational resources works well in computing science and theory. 

There is room for improvement in device policy provisioning. Typically, the configurations need to be pushed across. Currently, Skybox Security Suite has features that allow a policy push, so if we want to configure the policy and need a sub-policy, it needs to be added within the existing rule frame. However, modifications and the deletion of existing policies are currently unavailable or under enhancement.

The solution does not support certain devices or vendors in some regions or countries due to regulations. A universal connector would be an interesting way to ensure that support is worldwide. 

The UX interface could be simplified and more convenient. 

Skybox should improve their UX features by making them easier to use. They're also trying to transfer from Java GUI to web-based systems, but it's not consistent right now, so they need to develop and improve the features on that side. I mean, the native Java based GUI results and the new Web GUI results are not always the same. I have experienced some inconsistency results among them. So, I need to trust newer GUI for results.

As for room for improvement, there are issues in logging. The logs are not coming into the log.

There are multiple dashboards but no custom dashboard. It would be good to include a custom dashboard so that we can actually choose which field and what kinds of things we want to look at.

They are not satisfied with the complexity of the solution and the price.

To be used, we must have proper skills that require additional support, and the entire potential of the tool is not utilized and addressed. As a result of a lack of skills, it is complex.

Network auditing, which AlgoSec does, could be included, or perhaps Sky Box does but we don't know how to use it.

We are not using the solution and rely on customer feedback. If the customer does not provide any, then we can't recommend what could be better.

If they have had any kind of issues, then we are able to know and have it perform better.

Change Manager can be improved. If they can improve Change Manager so that whatever we want to do on a firewall, we are able to do it through Change Manager, it will be helpful for us. Whenever we are doing a change, it only does them at an L3 and L4 level, but all the firewalls are at the application layer. So, whatever needs to be done on the firewall, we aren't able to get it done through Change Manager. Currently, this functionality is not there because of which we are sometimes losing customers. I can create a role on Layer 3, Layer 4, but when it comes to the application layer, such as configuring and defining URLs or other things at the application level, it can't be done through Change Manager. Customers demand that they should be able to do everything through Change Manager. They don't want to do it through some other mechanism to accomplish their complete change management policy. They don't want to use a firewall manager because sometimes, they don't have any manager. They ask if they can use our solution so that a manager is not required. If Change Manager can do all the management automatically without involving any other manager, it will be great. They can also provide better integration with other managers so that everything can be done through a central point.

On the OT side, if they can provide more visibility, it would help. We are working on some of the features related to OT, so more visibility would be helpful.

The solution needs more detailed reporting. In Skybox the reporting is good, but it could be improved.

The solution needs to add more automation and orchestration capabilities. Those features would make the solution much stronger.

The only place where Skybox has room for improvement, and they're working on releasing this, it's just a slow-go, is the UI. The user interface has historically been via a locally installed thick client. They are moving to a web-based console and it's slowly coming out. It looks really good right now. I've seen the previews. I've seen what's going GA. Really, it's just building in that feature parody, to take all the features that are currently in the thick client and move them into to the thin client of Web-based GUI.

Skybox Security Suite can improve the change management module. It is the one part of the tool that is used with the firewall devices and you have a change management module that is used to record changes of all firewalls in the company. It's not compatible with all brands, this is where they can improve the solution.

The solution was quite technical. It would be easier to manage if the solution was more specific about certain aspects and provided more advisory around how to use it effectively. It would help users a lot if they were more clear about everything.

The solution requires more integration in terms of automation features.

It would be great to have proxies, IDs, IPs, firewalls, certain network centers, etc. on the solution. If more of that can be looked at or reviewed from a Skybox standpoint it would be helpful. The solution needs to expand its scope.

Skybox Security Suite's attack surface management feature needs improvement.

The solution needs improvement in firewall configuration checks. I would also like to see more configuration checks for Forcepoint and for other non-supported firewalls. 

The pricing is too high. 

Other competitors provide a solution that rebuilds holes from scratch and rebuilds configurations on all the holes. Skybox does not offer this capability. It's something they should add to their list of features.

The support could be improved. 

The implementation process could be a lot faster and much less complex.

The search functionality could be better. There's no way to exclude items from your search criteria, for example.

They need to find a way to revamp the firewalls in a professional way. They need to figure out a proper implementation strategy for the firewalls.

The primary room for improvement would be to enable a web interface, which is not something which is there in the product. This is supposed to have come a year, a year and a half ago, but still has failed to come out. It still needs a client application to be installed on a workstation to be able to access that server and then run these reports. So I cannot extend that access to anybody. It has to be one administrator all the time. So unlike a web interface, where you can give multiple users simultaneous access and generate the various reports, that isn't a possibility at the moment.

The vendor's support is terrible. The rest of the product is fine.

It's tough to say, because the areas of improvement, I understand the difficulty. For example, they pull configs from thousands of types of devices, and it's difficult for them to stay on top of when vendors change the way their commands work. If anything, it would be staying on top of the collector scripts, but I understand that's a very tough challenge.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say support for Cisco Firepower. This is one of the biggest segments in the Ukraine market. Many customers use Cisco Firepower. It is not a good solution for me, but it make sense. The second feature that could be improved is a deeper integration with Palo Alto. One of my customers uses Palo Alto and during the trial period with Skybox Security, we had some issues because when the IT administrator used the rules Skybox Security didn't understand. But it's not really a problem with Skybox Security. This was a problem for the company who used these stupid rules.

The price is costly, and I hope they can reduce the cost.

Reporting. A lot of the reports, out of the box, are limited to a certain number of either configuration violations or access rule violations. So when you first set up a new firewall to be monitored by Skybox, you don't get a real full report. You have to really tweak it to get everything.

In our business, our company buys a lot of other companies and a lot of them manage themselves. Unfortunately, for Firewall Assurance in particular, if you need a group of people to be able to manage their firewalls and only theirs, it's almost impossible because to add a new firewall you have to be an admin, and you can't limit what an admin sees. If I want a particular company to be able to add their firewalls, they're going to see everybody else's firewalls as well, which is much more access than they need. That is one thing I would love to see fixed.

We really need to see how it can help us with cloud connectivity. It's there but I think it could give us a far better visualization.

At the moment we have a lot of work in implementing the tool in our workflow, so we are not looking for new features. But this could change in the next six to 12 months.

The most recent update was not tested with all of the vendors before it was released, so some of the features are misbehaving.

As a reseller, I feel the marketing of this product could be better. It seems awareness is a bit low. We are trying to get the message out. I equate it to the early Palo Alto Networks days, where we had to market the concept of what a next-gen firewall was before we could get customers to buy in.

Honestly, I love this solution. As of now, although I have a minimum amount of experience with this solution, Skybox has been great.

Firewall Change Management has to be improved with rules provisioning on firewalls because that is where the competition is going and is what customers need.

The Network Assurance, which helps to create the network model, is not so rich. It tells you the best part, and it gives you the alternate routes that are available based on the configuration and the routing table, but it doesn't give you the analytics. One of the issues with security is that if the network model is incorrect then no matter what I add on top of it, it's going to be of no use. Network modeling is the foundation for vulnerability management, test management, firewall management, and change management.

The focus on risk analytics is not very good and should be improved. It relies on the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Security Score), which gives you a vulnerability score based on the standard. The difficulty with this is that sometimes, risks are based on critical assets, and these can differ between environments. My critical assets, for example, may be different than those of my customers. As such, it doesn't give you a fully-fledged risk score. On top of this, it doesn't give you the flexibility to configure a set of weights to adjust the criticality of the assets, the users, and the entities within the infrastructure.

Another area where Skybox lacks is the calculation for combinations and permutations of traffic from each interface. For example, in RedSeal, if traffic comes in from one interface and doesn't go out the desired interface, you can see what is vulnerable, what the vulnerability is, what is exposed, what is exploitable, whether it is subject to an insider threat or an outside threat, what the criticality is, and so on. It is all related to network modeling and seeing what happens when an interface goes down. In general, it needs to be enhanced.

They have to improve their integration with vulnerability management tools. It is good with some products, such as Tenable, but not really good with Rapid7.

Technical support can be improved in some regards because certain teams are better than others.

There is no dashboard for ISR compliance or NESA compliance.

The cloud site could be better. They should provide some use cases to help users.

The setup is expensive.