Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

1. It's easily deployable.
2. It provides change and reporting on changes 
3. One of the features helps you clean up firewall rules, and maintain a good, clean rule set.

From an organizational standpoint, it can help improve for one by streamlining the change process, assisting and streamlining the change process for firewalls, routers and switching ACLs.

Also, it can help with compliance from an organizational standpoint, maintaining a certain level of compliance. Also, reporting - it provides reporting to auditors for the organizational level that need to provide evidence and for other auditors outside the organisation.

They could improve their support. 

They've already known about their support being kind of shaky. They can make the product more MSP ready, managed service provider ready. They can do that.

Outside of that, I can't really think of anything right now, but making it MSP ready and providing better support, I think they can definitely improve upon.

5 years.

I am impressed with the deployability. The set-up is really straight forward. I mean, I had one of my guys who has never really touched a computer before set one up.

I believe it is stable, well not every time, but 99.9% of the time.

It scales okay. They can add some scalability to it, yes, they can definitely add scalability to it.

Their pricing is too expensive, and I think they're one of the best products on the market but I think they can't get enough market share because of the pricing (the licensing). It's too expensive. They changed licensing models a couple of times I think, but I think they need to be more cognizant of the middle market, as far as licensing. 

My advice would be to do your research first on the product. Make sure it's going to cover everything you need, which it does. They have several uses for Tufin, several models as far as function like Securetracks, Securechange and the Secureapp, so you've got to do your research and someone may need all of the orchestration, the full Orchestration Suite.

I would ask you to just research it, make sure you get what you need because quite often people go to buy Tufin and they go to buy the Securetrack just the Securetrack firewall changes, that they end up getting a quote for Securechange, Secureapp, and not even know it, and they say "Oh, that's too expensive," but that's not really what they wanted, they just want the Securetracks.

I would also have them get a competitor, a demo ware competitor and compare it to Tufin just so they can see how well Tufin out-performs their competitor.

In regards to my rating of 8, if they did mark the price down, change the licensing model to include more middle market, so they can reach the middle market and get more market share, and also provided their partners, and this is going to be a big one for them, provide their partners with two-way licensing so their partners can use the product for free.

If I am partnering up with Tufin, and I've got to keep downloading demos to use it and I have to advise potential users about the Tufin product, it's just not going to work. They should give me the product for free, especially if I have sold a few deals for them, they should give me the product for free with a couple hundred licenses that I can use anywhere I want to. This should be done every year, so long as I'm a partner.

That would help increase their visibility, their market share, and bring them up from an eight to maybe a nine or so.

We primarily use this solution for integration, and we deploy the solution on-premises and on cloud.

They have very good responses regarding integration and internalization with open tickets.

The solution does not have automation with other Firewalls and it should be included.

We have been using this solution for approximately five years.

The solution is scalable. Currently, approximately 60% of our organization uses it.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support.

We have used AlgoSec.

Licensing costs are charged every year.

I rate this solution a six out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by including additional automation in the next release.

Our goal is to move towards a completely automated system within our organization. We also want to integrate different business units, see what our vision is from an automation standpoint. In addition, we want to get complete visibility across all the different platforms that we have.

We use Tufin to clean up our firewall policies. It makes our firewalls and our security-stack devices a little bit more bulletproof. We are in constant compliance and it's nice for us to know what's out there and what's actually being used, from a business standpoint and also from an operational standpoint.

Also, what used to take us a few days to implement from inception to final, is now accomplished within a day. But our goal is to move it to a matter of a few minutes. Overall, holistically, it gives everybody a chance to focus on the more important tasks at hand and to be cognizant of automation as it comes along.

It has also helped reduce the time it takes to make changes. The process used to take a few days to a week. In some cases, given the complexity of our projects, it used to be a little bit more than a week. Now, it has come down to a day or two at the most. We want to shorten that as well, to bring it down even more. But it's far better than what we had many years ago.

Our engineers are spending a little less time on manual processes. There's always that constant time spent to keep the product and the platform up to date but, overall, they're spending a little bit less time.

It's hard to pick the most valuable feature. All of them are valuable, they're all critical for us. It depends on which application we're talking about. ChangeTrack obviously has a lot of very good features, like the risk analysis, the USP, and the Policy Browser. The Topology Map, which feeds into our SecureChange - the latter being an automation platform - there's a lot of synergy between the two. All the features that we have used are critical and are good.

The change workflow process is flexible and customizable. It's not 100 percent but it's definitely in the high 90s. It is very customizable, it's easy to set it up. There are certain fields that we feel might require some enhancements but, overall, it is customizable. It's very easy to use and super-efficient.

Tufin has come a long way when it comes to visibility. What we would like to see is a little bit more on the discovery level, network discovery, which Tufin does not have today. It does a pretty good job when you statically define the endpoints; it goes and discovers them. But an auto-discovery feature on the network would be awesome.

More API integration with third-party platforms is something that we would definitely like to see in upcoming releases.

Enhanced reporting and enhancements to some of the dashboard features would be good too.

The solution is very stable so far. Within our environment it doesn't cause major outages. There have been a few instances where we did run into issues but they were things that we could fix relatively easily, with less of an impact to the business.

The scalability is pretty good. Right now, our solution is a little bit more contained, given our business requirements. But we don't see scalability as a roadblock if we do have to expand it out or scale out. No complaints there.

Tech support has been phenomenal. It's very easy to get someone on the call and resolve an issue. They've been really good.

We knew we needed to switch based on past lessons we learned. The overall goal was to have a better and efficient system going forward. With automation on the grid, this was a win-win solution for us. It was able to provide us everything that we were looking for and also help us meet our roadmap goals as well.

Very straightforward. There was nothing complex about the initial setup. It's easy to get it up and going in a matter of a few hours.

We pretty much did everything on our own with a little bit of help from Professional Services. When it came to customization we did leverage some of their expertise. But most of the solution was rolled out in-house.

We do see some return on investment but the financial toll, the prices, are always going to be up there. Tufin does a pretty job in working with us to reduce the cost or give better discounts so there definitely is an ROI.

The cost is pretty high. It's close to seven figures. That only goes to show our commitment to using the solution and the products to reach our goals.

We did look at one other solution but the other solution was not close to what Tufin was able to provide, given our enterprise requirements. That basically helped us move in the direction of Tufin.

Tufin provides a very comprehensive solution. Anyone looking to go down the path of automation should not look any further because Tufin will be able to meet their requirements and scale out really effectively.

We don't yet use the solution to automatically check if a change request will violate any security policy rules. We are in the process of building that. Similarly, we are still working on having the solution ensure that security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network.

We are in the cloud but we haven't yet started using the Tufin solution actively in the cloud. We are still in a trial phase as of now, but so far the results have been pretty good. We tend to test things out a little bit more but the results have been positive and favorable for us to move forward.

We are using SecureTrack and SecureChange to make policy changes.

For us, it's all the features that Tufin provides, including the 

• USP
• rule design
• documentation
• implementation
• auditing.

They're all important. We could not have one without the others.

In addition, it provides greater visibility, once the setup is configured correctly. It provides a real-time sense of how the policies are configured and whether there are any shadow rules. Another great thing is that it provides greater reporting based on how the rules have been set up.

There are at least two things that need improvement. One is the business workflow and the second is the integration with logging solutions.

The product is stable. Regardless of the software we are running, the current or the new one, it is stable.

The solution is scalable if we have to add more devices, more distinct resources, or also high availability. That's part of the solution. It's not like after-thought, it's there.

Tech support is very helpful. If there are any issues, we bring them to support and they get addressed immediately.

You should definitely be looking at this as in your top-two choices, before even considering any other solutions.

We are in the midst of a transition, going to a newer version. All the features which I talked about above, we want to implement them in a new production infrastructure. We are working with Tufin and Professional Services very closely, so we can enable it. There is the old way - the way we are using it - versus the way we want to. It is not there yet. 

Currently, it's not helping us meet compliance mandates, but the new way will definitely help us to meet them. In addition, once we go with the new way of doing things, the solution will ensure that security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network. At that point it will follow business practices.

A lot of the most valuable features have to do with the reporting and the cleanup of policy. With our day-to-day busy lives, we just want to get the change in and implement it, and that just increases rule base exponentially. From time to time you need to go back and find duplicate services, objects, rules, and cleanup. With a lot of the cleanup effort, I think the product helps out a lot.

Tracking changes is beneficial. We get alerted immediately who made the change, what change was made, and things like that. That's probably the most valuable.

It is important to keep up to date with the vendors you support. For example, Palo Alto, CheckPoint, Cisco, F5, and so on. They should make sure that Tufin supports the latest version of those products.

We upgraded to R80 two months ago, and our Tufin product hasn't been working. It's because there's no support for R80. We're hoping that Tufin supports R80 soon so we can start getting all the changes. If a vendor upgrades to a certain version, Tufin needs to provide support fairly quickly.

Also, our 20/20 vision is to be in the cloud wherever we can. Cloud first. If Tufin had any kind of management in the cloud, that's one less piece of hardware to manage in-house. Being in the cloud would definitely provide that extra missing feature.

We've had it for about 3 or 4 years now.

We have not had any stability issues at all. Upgrading has been simple, no issues at all.

It is scalable. We manage about 150 firewalls. There are no issues at all.

The support portal has been quick. I actually emailed them about R80 support, and they were really fast at letting me know that it's coming in mid-2016.

Along with a colleague of mine, I was involved in the decision to start using Tufin a few years ago. We compared it to AlgoSec and a couple other vendors. Tufin seemed to meet our requirements at the time. Before our renewal, we are looking to re-evaluate what all the vendors have to make sure we are getting the most out of the product.

It's a great product. It's pretty straightforward to use. It meets our needs and great support overall.

The ability to create out of the box reporting and to have real time awareness of the changes in our environment.

Our operations team will make firewall rule changes and I actually get an email telling me everything that's been done. The way that we have the two things set up it will actually link to the change control that they're doing the work under. I'm then able to review and say "okay, this is what they said they were going to do, this is what they actually did and it's done compliantly."

The reporting simplifies the ability to report towards the business about how our rules are being used so we can make sure the security is always optimally maintained.

We currently use it at the most fundamental levels. There are a lot of advanced features that we've investigated but the real core strength is for our compliance team to be able to pull the rule usage reports.

When we were an early adopter and there were things that were not there, Tufin was very anxious to understand what the need was and then figure out how to integrate it into the product

Over 5 years.

It's reaching the edge of stability since we're putting a very strong demand on it. The resources within it are starting to now be challenged. We haven't had any significant issues.

We've reached the capacity of the current system and we're looking to upgrade. We went from about 100 firewalls in Tufin to almost 300. We've tripled the demand on the same appliance, but we intentionally bought a large appliance so we could grow into it.

We've used technical support and they've always been excellent.

I deployed it. It was very easy. That was the one thing that we really appreciated about the product was the ease of deployment, the intuitive nature and that's what was one of it's strengths are. It came on an appliance, it was intuitive to deploy and it made it very beneficial.

When we selected we actually did a source selection analysis and from there we did a pilot with two of them

Regarding cloud solutions, it's going to be very interesting to do the security assessments with them.

We have a lot of ASA firewalls. We primarily use the product in order to lay down the rules and try to find out if there are any duplicate rules that need to be cleaned up, et cetera. It is mostly tasks like that.

The solution is very straightforward to use. It makes doing our work easy. The product is very good at helping us clean up rules.

We've found the stability to be quite good.

The solution is quite scalable.

The older version that we have doesn't support some newer firewall vendors. I'm not sure what the status of integration is right now on the latest version, however, it would be nice if they updated the older versions to allow for better integrations with firewalls. 

Sometimes the solution does take a bit of time to load. That said, it is a pretty old version, and that may be the main reason this is the case. It's possible that if we just upgraded to the latest version everything would go faster. 

Everybody wants to implement some kind of standard rules, however, it's difficult to standardize everything due to the fact that each company is unique. That said, if there was some sort of universal guide to ensuring firewall rules were compliant, that would be helpful. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half to two years at this point. It's been a while. I've definitely used it over the last 12 months or so.

The stability has been good. I haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The stability has been reliable in terms of performance.

I find the product to be easy to scale. Adding new firewalls is pretty straightforward and it handles the process well. If a company needs to expand and add more firewalls it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I would say six or seven people are using it and they're network operation people who have to deal with day-to-day firewall management, putting in new firewall rules, et cetera.

I've never had an opportunity to reach out to technical support. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are. I have no experience.

The initial setup happened before my tenure with the company. I was not present when it was set up, and therefore I can't directly speak to my experiences with any implementation. I do not have a sense of if it was difficult or straightforward, and I can't say how long the deployment took. 

There is a bit of maintenance required, in terms of adding new rules, et cetera. We have individuals on staff that can handle that.

I don't have any issue with the pricing, however, I was not the purchaser. I can't speak to the exact cost for our company.

While I was using Tuffin, I did want to evaluate AlgoSec. I wanted to compare the two to see which was better. In the end, I've decided I would stick with this product.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

We are not using the most up-to-date version of the product. We are using one of the previous versions. I cannot at this time remember the version number, however, it was pretty old. We had a plan to upgrade, and then unfortunately ended up not doing that.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten as it helps us do our work. We're mostly quite happy with its capabilities.

We are using Tufin to manage our multi-vendor firewall environment.

We are using the Secure Change workflow to request, asses, and implement Firewall requests. Secure Track is used from our Security and Audit department for regular policy reviews.

Due to the usage of Tufin, we reduced the manual effort during audits to a minimum. The central place to request Firewall Rule Changes supports our Operation teams in a multi-supplier environment on a daily basis.

The automated reporting on a regular basis is helping us to be compliant with legal requirements.

We would like to see granular user permissions on SecureTrack.

The topology should be made easier to configure.

I would like to see the setup of the Unified Security Policy simplified.

We have had no outages over the last six years, so this solution is very stable.

This solution is highly scalable.

Customer support reacts very fast. Due to the complexity, sometimes additional support levels need to get involved.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was complex.

A mix of Tufin Professional Services and in-house.

We evaluated other options before choosing this solution.

I recommend getting Tufin Professional Services involved when implementing automation.