If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Aqua Security, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
I would rate it a nine out of ten. My advice would be to go for it. This solution solves a lot of problems. I would recommend it. Aqua focuses more on Kubernetes and Docker but they don't have the option to have an environment with other servers so I would like for them to provide more options. There should be more integration with the cloud.
The deployment should be improved. After this pandemic, half of the workforce has been working from so we need to provide our clients a solution that will have an easier deployment. I would rate it a seven out of ten.
I would rate this product between 7 and 8 out of 10 for container security features.
They gave us access to their executive team, specifically, the CTO. I had met him long ago at a Docker conference. He gave us full support and technical support. He was very technically oriented. He helped us with the setups, technically, and we're still in touch today. When I need help he is there. In terms of the number of users of the solution, for us, it's just the people who maintain the Docker images, two or three people: the head of DevOps and the Director of Engineering. It's just vulnerability management, we don't need many people to access the platform. Once we integrate it with Slack, we'll have visibility for all the users. But day-to-day, they don't need to access the platform, they'll just want to consume the reports. In terms of maintenance, it's very low. One person will get along fine. In our company, it is done by DevOps. Usage is going up automatically because we're increasing Docker images all the time, so the usage is increasing by default. Regarding the extent to which we are using all the capabilities of the solution, the parts which are not relevant for vulnerability scanning are not relevant for us. We haven't explored what else Aqua can do. It's not part of our scope. I'm sure other companies are using the vast amount of features it has but we only need the vulnerability management. I rate it at ten out of ten. For our needs, it's a complete solution.
First off, know your environment. Know your rollout. If you're in the planning stage, make sure you design things properly and, once you have that in place, once you know your own infrastructure, then talk with Aqua Security to find the best solution that works for you, whether you need visibility or whether you need enforcement capabilities. If you need to integrate the logs which are in your existing infrastructure, it would be quite useful to involve Aqua Security earlier so they can properly address the issues that need to be solved in the infrastructure. Work with them earlier in the design phase, if it's still being designed. If it's an existing infrastructure, talk to them but know your environment, for your own sake and to make things easier for Aqua Security to provide a better fitting solution so nobody's time is wasted. You can get more bang for your buck or more value out of the deal if you know your environment. The main reasons we chose Aqua Security were the visibility it provided into the container platform and the great customer service. Both aspects: The visibility they provided, compared to the other solutions - their technical abilities were further ahead - and the customer service aspect of it. They were able to work with us closely and address our problems in a prompt manner. The solution they provided, from all aspects, was great. They understood our needs, delivered solutions, and remedied any issues that we brought up in a timely manner. They surprised us on many occasions by having things delivered in a couple of days. The scalability of it and the ease of deployment made it a great solution for us.
Which is better?