Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Reviews

We were implementing and expanding a system that we had internally. We were creating a system called Midas, which was about keeping data safe. It was cloud-based. We wanted to keep data safe and provide an analytics environment on the cloud.

We now have a service offering that secures data and allows large volumes of data to be secured and exposed within a tight and well-founded community.

It helped to reduce downtime in our organization.

Its ease of integration is valuable because we need to get the solution out of the door quickly, so speed and ease matter.

The area for improvement is less about the product and more about the upsell. If we've already agreed that we'd like your product x, y, or z, don't try to add fries to my burger. I don't need it.

The firm has been using it for about two years. My direct interaction with it was about a year ago.

I didn't notice any kind of instability, but there are foibles and little nuances.

We are happy with it overall. I'd rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We had a number of different solutions and still do.

It was in-between in terms of complexity. We leveraged our Palo Alto friends to help us get over the humps, and they did a great job.

We didn't take help from any third party. Palo Alto implemented it.

We have not seen an ROI in this case, but we didn't buy it for a return on investment.

We evaluated multiple solutions. They have a well-known product line in the industry, and we stopped and talked with them and picked them because of their capabilities and competencies.

In terms of providing a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, I'm not expert enough to say that it supplies everything, but it's well-known. There are a number of different features and capabilities in their suite.

To a colleague at another company who says, “We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall," I would say that it's never the cheapest and the fastest. You always need to lay down what your needs are and then go after who has the right level of capabilities, competencies, and price point.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. Every vendor needs to be considering how they're going to appropriately integrate both generative AI and machine learning. As we move forward, it's going to be table stakes.

In terms of the value I receive from attending an RSA Conference, I have two hats. I'm working for an organization. It's federally funded research and development. Attending an RSA Conference helps me keep a finger on the pulse of that, but I also am a security blogger, so I make sure that I'm keeping up to date. Talking to people is another important part of this conference. The one thing that's missing from the conference is that there's so much focus on reaction instead of protection up front and thinking about things up front, but it's a very valuable conference overall. 

Overall, I'd rate them an eight out of ten. They are well known in this field, and they do have good products that are niche to what they're doing.

When we started using this tool, the name was Twistlock, it was not Prisma Cloud. We had a container team responsible for modernizing our environment and they created an on-prem solution using Red Hat OpenShift. They started using Twistlock as a way to manage the security of this on-prem environment.

My team, which was the security team, inherited the ownership of the tool to manage all the security problems that it was raising.

When we started using containers on the cloud, our cloud provider was Azure. We also started migrating our security solutions for the cloud, but that was at the end of my time with the company, so I didn't participate much in this cloud process.

We were also sending the logs and alerts to Splunk Cloud. We were managing all the alerts generated by policies and vulnerabilities and the threats from the web. That way, we had a pipeline system sending these alerts to a central location where our investigation team would look at them. So we used the system to manage both cloud and on-prem and connect them.

We had one team that didn't have any security whatsoever. We helped them to add Prisma Cloud to scan their environment. It was a big issue in the company at the time, because they had a huge environment which was not following the security rules of the company. They didn't have any security. Prisma Cloud helped us to start raising alerts and vulnerabilities. That was a successful case because in the timeframe of one to two weeks, we installed the tool and were teaching the team how to manage it, find their vulnerabilities, and how to fix them. We were able to help a team that was totally vulnerable to have a security solution.

Overall, it covered all the stages that we hoped it would cover.

The solution also reduced our runtime alerts. I don't have the exact numbers but I would say it lowered the number of issues by 70 percent. Our strategy was that we started using the tool for some small applications, and then we started using it for other teams. For the small applications, I can't guarantee the reduction was 70 percent because those solutions were managed by the security team which had smart people who were security conscious.

We used the policy features to manage users so that they would not have secrets in their containers. We also used the vulnerabilities, the CVEs, that were being raised by the tool.

The CVEs are valuable because we used to have a tool to scan CVEs, at the language level, for the dependencies that our developers had. What is good about Prisma Cloud is that the CVEs are not only from the software layer, but from all layers: the language, the base image, and you also have CVEs from the host. It covers the full base of security.

The compliance is good because it has a deep view of the container. It can find stuff that only administrators would have access to in our container. It can go deep down into the container and find those policy issues.

We also started looking for the WaaS (Web-Application and API Security) solution, but we didn't implement it during the time I was at the company. We tested it. What's good about the WaaS is that it's almost a miracle feature. You can find SQL injection or cross-site scripting and defend against that by setting up Prisma Cloud and turning on the feature.

Prisma Cloud also provided risk clarity at runtime and across the entire pipeline, showing issues as they were discovered during the build phases. It provided a good rating for how to prioritize a threat, but we also had a way to measure risk in our company that was a little bit different. This was the same with other scanning tools that we had: the risk rating was something that we didn't focus too much on because we had our own way to rate risk. Prisma Cloud's rating was helpful sometimes, but we used our risk measurement more than the tool's.

One problem was identifying Azure Kubernetes Services. We had many teams creating Kubernetes systems without any security whatsoever. It was hard for us to identify Kubernetes because the Prisma Cloud could not identify them. From what I heard from Palo Alto at the time, they were building a new feature to identify those. It was an issue they were already trying to fix.

In addition, when it comes to access for developers, I would like to have more granular settings. For example, in our company we didn't want to display hosts' vulnerabilities to developers, because the infrastructure or containers team was responsible for host vulnerabilities or the containers. The developers were only responsible for the top application layer. We didn't want to provide that data to the developers because A) we thought it was sensitive data and B) because it was data that didn't belong to developers. We didn't want to share it, but I remember having this problem when it came to the granularity of granting permissions. 

They need to make the settings more flexible to fit our internal policies about data. We didn't want developers to see some data, but we wanted them to have access to the console because it was going to help them. One possibility was to develop our own solution for this, using the API. But that would add complexity. The console was clean and beautiful. It has the radar where you can see all the containers. But we just didn't want to show some data. It was a pain to have to set up the access to some languages and some data.

Another thing that was a pain was that in our on-prem environment there was a tool that sometimes generated a temporary container, to be used just for a build, and Prisma would raise some compliance issues for this container that would die shortly. It was hard to suppress these kinds of alerts because it was hard to find a standard or a rule that would fit this scenario. The tool was able manage the whole CI/CD pipeline, including the build as well—even these containers that were temporary for a build—but sometimes it would raise too much unnecessary data.

Also, one of the things that it's hard to understand sometimes is how to fix an issue. We managed to do so by testing things ourselves because we are developers. But a little bit of explanation about how to fix something would help. It was more showing what the problem was than it did about how to fix it.

I used Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks for about a year and a half.

It's pretty much stable, as much as containers are stable. It is more about the container solution itself, or how Kubernetes is managed and the state of health of the containers. As Prisma is a container solution itself, it was as good as the Kubernetes environment could make it. 

I don't know about the Prisma Cloud SaaS solution because we didn't use it, but the on-prem solution was as reliable as our Kubernetes system was. It was really reliable.

It's pretty scalable because of the API. I liked how simple the console was and how simple the API was. There was no complexity; it was straightforward. The API documentation was also very good so it was pretty easy to scale. You could automate pretty much everything. You could automate the certificate information, you could automate the access for developers, and a lot of other stuff. It was a pretty modern solution. Using APIs and containers, it was pretty scalable.

We used their technical support many times and it was very good. The engineers there helped us a lot. They were engaged and interested in helping, and they were polite and they were fast. When we raised an issue to high priority, they answered faster. I would rate their support at five out of five.

Prisma Cloud was the only solution we had for container security. We had other tools such as SAST and DAST tools, as well as open source management tools. Those intersected somewhat with what Prisma does, but Prisma had access to the whole environment, so it's a little bit different.

We used the API from Prisma Cloud. We had a Jenkins pipeline with a lot of scripts to automate the installation of Prisma Cloud and the patching updates as well.

In our company, the security team had about 10 people, but only two were responsible for Prisma Cloud. As I mentioned, we inherited ownership of it from the containers team. In the containers team, we had a guy who was our main contact and who helped us. For example, when we needed to access a certain environment, he had to manage access so that it could have privileged access to do what it needed to do in the container environment. So overall, there were three people involved with it.

We used Prisma Cloud extensively. We used it across the whole on-prem environment and partially on cloud. We were at around 10 or 20 percent of the cloud. I think that nowadays they have probably reached much more than that, because we were just beginning on the cloud at the time.

Smaller companies should probably use the SaaS. I know that Azure and the cloud providers already have different ways to use tools in an easy manner so that you don't need to manage the infrastructure. So smaller companies should look into that. The infrastructure solution would be more for big companies, but I would recommend the solution for big companies. I would also recommend it for small companies. In terms of budget, sometimes it's hard to prioritize what's more important, but Prisma fits into different budget levels, so even if you have a small environment you can use Prisma's SaaS solution.

I was pretty satisfied with it. My impression of Prisma Cloud was pretty good. It's an amazing tool. It gives the whole view of your container environment and connection with multiple platforms, such as Splunk. It is a good solution. If I had my own company and a container environment, I would use it. It can fit a huge container environment with a lot of hosts, but it can also fit a small container environment. Azure also provides built-in solutions to install Prisma in your application. So there are different solutions for various container environments. The company I was in had huge container environments to monitor, on-prem and in the cloud, and the tool fit really well. But the tool also fits small environments.

Our use case for the solution is monitoring our cloud configurations for security. That use case, itself, is huge. We use the tool to monitor security configuration of our AWS and Azure clouds. Security configurations can include storage, networking, IAM, and monitoring of malicious traffic that it detects.

We have about 50 users and most of them use it to review their own resources.

If, for a certain environment, someone configures a connection to the internet, like Windows RDP, which is not allowed in our environment, we immediately get an alert that says, "Hey, there's been a configuration of Windows Remote Desktop Protocol, and it's connected directly to the internet." Because that violates our policy, and it's also not something we desire, we will immediately reach out to have that connection taken down.

We're also integrating it into our CI/CD pipeline. There are parts we've integrated already, but we haven't done so completely. For example, we've integrated container scanning into the CI/CD. When they build a container into the pipeline, it's automatically deployed and the results come back to our console where we're monitoring it. The beauty of it is that we give our developers access to this information. That way, as they build, they actually get near real-time alerting that says, "This configuration is good. This configuration is bad." We have found that very helpful because it provides instant feedback to the development team. Instead of doing a review later on where they find out, "Oh, this is not good," they already know: "Oh, we should not configure it this way, let's configure it more securely another way." They know because the alerts are in near real-time.

That's part of our strategy. We want to bring this information as close to the DevOps team as possible. That's where we feel the greatest benefit can be achieved. The near real-time feedback on what they're doing means they can correct it there, versus several days down the road when they've already forgotten what they did.

And where we have integrated it into our CI/CD pipeline, I am able to view vulnerabilities through our different stages of development.

It has enhanced collaboration between our DevOps and SecOps teams by being very transparent. Whatever we see, we want them to see. That's our strategy. Whatever we in security know, we want them to know, because it's a collaborative effort. We all need each other to get things fixed. If they're configuring something and it comes to us, we want them to see it. And our expectation is that, hopefully, they've fixed it by the time we contact them. Once they have fixed it, the alert goes away. Hopefully, it means that everyone has less to do.

We also use the solution's ability to filter alerts by levels of security. Within our cloud, we have accounts that are managed and certain groups are responsible. We're able to direct the learning and the reporting to the people who are managing those groups or those cloud accounts. The ability to filter alerts by levels of security definitely helps our team to understand which situations are the most critical. They're rated by high, medium, and low. Of course we go after the "highs" and tell them to fix them immediately, or as close to immediately as possible. We send the "mediums" and "lows" to tickets. In some instances, they've already fixed them because they've seen the issue and know we'll be knocking on the door. They realize, "Oh, we need to fix this or else we're going to get a ticket." They want to do it the right way and this gives them the information to enable them to make the proper configuration.

Prisma Cloud also provides the data needed to pinpoint root cause and prevent an issue from occurring again. When there's an alert and an issue, in the event it tells you how to fix it. It will say, "Go to this, click on this, do this, do that." It will tell you why you got the alert and how to fix it.

In addition, the solution’s ability to show issues as they are discovered during the build phases is really good. We have different environments. Our low environments are dev, QA, and integrations, environments that don't have any data. And then we have the upper environment which actually has production data. There's a gradual progression as we go from the lower environments and eventually, hopefully, they figure out what to do, and then go into the upper environment. We see the alerts come in and we see how they're configuring things. It gives us good feedback through the whole life cycle as they're developing a product. We see that in near real-time through the whole development cycle.

I don't know if the solution reduces runtime alerts, but its monitoring helps us to be more aware of vulnerabilities that come in the stack. Attackers may be using new vulnerabilities and Prisma Cloud has increased the visibility of any new runtime alerts.

It does reduce alert investigation times because of the information that the alerts give us. When we get an alert, it will tell us the source, where it comes from. We're able to identify things because it uses a protocol called a NetFlow. It tracks the network traffic for us and says, "This alert is generated because these attackers are generating alerts," or "It's coming internally from these devices," and it names them. For example, we run vulnerability scanning weekly in our environment to scan for weaknesses and report on them. At times, a vulnerability scanner may trigger an alert in Prisma. Prisma will say, "Oh yeah, something is scanning your environment." We're able to use this Prisma information to identify the resources that have been scanning our environment. We're able to identify that really quickly as our vulnerability scanner and we're able to dismiss it, based on the information that Prisma provides. Prisma also provides the name or ID of a particular service or user that may have triggered an alert. We are able to reach out to that individual to say, "Hey, is this you?" because of the information provided by Prisma, without having to look into tons of logs to identify who it was.

Per day, because Prisma gives us the information and we don't have to do individual research, it saves us at least one to two hours, easily and probably more. 

One of the most valuable features is monitoring of configurations for our cloud, because cloud configurations can be done in hundreds of ways. We use this tool to ensure that those configurations do not present a security risk by providing overly excessive rights or that they punch a hole that we're not aware of into the internet.

One of the strengths of this tool is because we, as a security team, are not configuring everything. We have a decentralized DevOps model, so we depend on individual groups to configure their environments for their development and product needs. That means we're not aware of exactly what they're doing because we're not there all the time. However, we are alerted to things such as if they open up a connection to the internet that's bringing traffic in. We can then ask questions, like, "Why do you need that? Did you secure it properly?" We have found it to be highly beneficial for monitoring those configurations across teams and our DevOps environment.

We're not only using the configuration, but also the containers, the container security, and the serverless function. Prisma will look to see that a configuration is done in a particular, secure pattern. When it's not done in that particular pattern, it gives us an alert that is either high, medium, or low. Based on those alerts, we then contact the owners of those environments and work with them on remediating the alerts. We also advise them on their weaker-than-desirable configuration and they fix it. We have people who are monitoring this on a regular basis and who reach out to the different DevOps groups.

It scans our containers in real time. Also, as they're built, it's looking into the container repository where the images are built, telling us ahead of time, "You have vulnerabilities here, and you should update this code before you deploy." And once it's deployed, it's scanning for vulnerabilities that are in production as the container is running. And we're also moving into serverless, where it runs off of codes, like Azure Functions and AWS Lambdas, which is a strip line of code. We're using Prisma for monitoring that too, making sure that the serverless is also configured correctly and that we don't have commands and functions in there that are overly permissive.

The challenge that Palo Alto and Prisma have is that, at times, the instructions in an event are a little bit dated and they're not usable. That doesn't apply to all the instructions, but there are times where, for example, the Microsoft or the Amazon side has made some changes and Palo Alto or Prisma was not aware of them. So as we try to remediate an alert in such a case, the instructions absolutely do not work. Then we open up a ticket and they'll reply, "Oh yeah, the API for so-and-so vendor changed and we'll have to work with them on that." That area could be done a little better.

One additional feature I'd like to see is more of a focus on API security. API security is an area that is definitely growing, because almost every web application has tons of APIs connecting to other web applications with tons of APIs. That's a huge area and I'd love to see a little bit more growth in that area. For example, when it comes to the monitoring of APIs within the clouded environment, who has access to the APIs? How old are the APIs' keys? How often are those APIs accessed? That would be good to know because they could be APIs that are never really accessed and maybe we should get rid of them. Also, what roles are attached to those APIs? And where are they connected to which resources? An audit and inventory of the use of APIs would be helpful.

I've been using Palo Alto Prisma for about a year and a half.

It's a stable solution.

The scalability is "average".

Palo Alto's technical support for this solution is okay.

We did not have a previous solution. It was the same solution called Redlock, which was then purchased by Palo Alto.

The initial setup took a day or two and was fairly straightforward.

As for our implementation strategy, it was 

• add in the cloud accounts
• set up alerting
• fine tune the alerts
  
• create process to respond to alerts
• edit the policies.

In terms of maintenance, one FTE would be preferable, but we do not have that.

We implemented it ourselves, with support from Prisma.

One thing we're very pleased about is how the licensing model for Prisma is based on work resources. You buy a certain amount of work resources and then, as they enable new capabilities within Prisma, it just takes those work resource units and applies them to new features. This enables us to test and use the new features without having to go back and ask for and procure a whole new product, which could require going through weeks, and maybe months, of a procurement process.

For example, when they brought in containers, we were able to utilize containers because it goes against our current allocation of work units. We were immediately able to do piloting on that. We're very appreciative of that kind of model. Traditionally, other models mean that they come out with a new product and we have to go through procurement and ask, "Can I have this?" You install it, or you put in the key, you activate it, and then you go through a whole process again. But this way, with Prisma, we're able to quickly assess the new capabilities and see if we want to use them or not. For containers, for example, we could just say, "Hey, this is not something we want to spend our work units on." And you just don't add anything to the containers. That's it.

The biggest lesson I have learned while using the solution is that you need to tune it well.

The Prisma tool offers a lot of functionality and a lot of configuration. It's a very powerful tool with a lot of features. For people who want to use this product, I would say it's definitely a good product to use. But please be aware also, that because it's so feature rich, to do it right and to use all the functionality, you need somebody with a dedicated amount of time to manage it. It's not complicated, but it will certainly take time for dedicated resources to fully utilize all that Prisma has to offer. Ideally, you should be prepared to assign someone as an SME to learn it and have that person teach others on the team.

I would rate Prisma Cloud at nine out of 10, compared to what's out there.

I was looking for one tool which, as a WAF, could provide me with information regarding applications  and with features where I can oversee things.

We use the solution's ability to filter alerts by levels of security and it helps our teams understand which situations are the most critical. Based on the priorities that I get for my product, I can filter the notices the team needs to work on, to those that require immediate attention. That means it's easier for me to categorize and understand things exactly, on a single dashboard. I can see, at one point in time, that these are my 20 applications that are running. Out of them, I can see, for example, the five major vulnerabilities that I have — and it shows my risk tolerance — so I know that these five are above my risk tolerance. I know these need immediate attention and I can assign them to the team to be worked on immediately.

Instead of going for multiple tools, this tool has helped me to have one platform where I can have all the features and information I'm looking for.

The tool is working on the principles of governance, risk, and compliance as well. It even helps me in application-level firewall security. It's not just a single tool. It has helped me find out details about multiple things.

The integration with user tools is pretty easy; it's user-friendly.

In terms of a reduction in alerts, it has helped me out in not putting unnecessary time into a couple of things, which can be figured out at a glance. I would estimate the reduction in alerts at about 40 percent.

I was looking for a vulnerability scanner and I was looking for one place in which I could find everything. This tool not only does vulnerability scanning, but it also gives me an asset management tool.

It has been good in my test environment when it comes to scanning my infrastructure.

We would like it to have more features from the risk and compliance perspectives.

On the governance side of it, we did want it, but the licensing costs for that are so high. As a result, I have to integrate this solution with a couple of additional tools. For example, suppose I wish to assign something to an organization or to another person. To do that I have to integrate it with something like JIRA or Confluence where I can ask them to provide the pieces of information. If the licensing costs were a little lower, I would have been able to assign it then and there. As it is, though, I need to assign it from one platform to another platform, one where the team of engineering people is working. I still need to go to multiple platforms to check if something was assigned, and I have to keep checking between the two platforms to see whether it's not done or not.

We have been using Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks for five months, testing it and evaluating it during that time. We are planning to purchase it.

I have been evaluating this product from the point of view of DevOps. I have not been evaluating it from the security operations point of view.

Prisma Cloud actually has two solutions. One is a cloud-based solution and the other is their on-premise solution. I have had a look at and tested both of these tools.

It's a stable product.

It's scalable. We discussed that with them. We also discussed the scenario where I want to move from one cloud environment to another, or if I make some other changes. How flexible is the tool as far as working with different cloud environments goes? And it is perfectly fine in that regard.

If we deploy it, I will be using it quite extensively for my day-to-day vulnerability scans.

I would rate their technical support at nine out of 10. They have been very supportive. Every time I have called them they have been there for me.

I was using multiple tools from here and there: one tool for vulnerability scans, one for risk management. But this has provided me an answer for not just one tool but for multiple requirements that I have.

The initial setup was easy. I got to help from their technical department and the device is more or less plug-and-play. If you have specifications which are required by the cloud, and your products are running on those specific cases, then it becomes quite easy. You just have to install it and it's good to go in your infra.

Since I did it for my development center only, I just had to install one installer and then the agents were installed automatically after running a script. For the whole environment, it could not have taken more than a day or two.

Security tools are not cheap. This one is a little heavy on the budget, but so are all the other security tools I have evaluated.

There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees for Prisma Cloud.

I looked at Trend Micro Cloud One Workload Security. Both it and Palo Alto Prisma Cloud are good for container-level security and scanning. But the financial part of it and budgeting play an important role.

With Prisma, it's not just one feature. It has also provided me with solutions for a couple more of my requirements. That was not the case with Trend Micro. In addition, Prisma Cloud was easy for me to figure out. The only con I see in Prisma Cloud is that because of its cost, I have to use multiple tools.

It's a good tool. I would tell anybody to give a shot. It's easy, it's user-friendly; it's like a plug-and-play tool.

I am a single point of contact for this solution, right now. I'm working on it with my entire management to review things. I have to coordinate because of the multiple platforms they have. Roles have been assigned at different levels. There is a consultant's role, a reviewer's role, and there is an implementer's role. The latter is supposed to be working with them.

Root cause analysis needs to be done at my own level. The solution does inform me that a predicted vulnerability exists and this is the asset where it could be happening. But the intelligence has to be provided by the security consultant.

If something becomes visible during the build phase, we already have a pretty good area where we can change the product so that it does not impact the production environment.

The solution provides an integrated approach across the full lifecycle to provide visibility and security automation and, although we have not started using that part of it yet, it will definitely enable us to take a preventive approach to cloud security when we do use it.

Overall, it provides all the pieces of information that you require, in one place and time. I think it's going to be good to work with them.

When we migrated our workloads from the on-prem to the cloud, we used Prisma Cloud to tell us whether our workloads were PCI compliant.

Prisma Cloud ensures that our organization is PCI compliant.

The most valuable feature is its cloud security posture management. Prisma Cloud is very easy to use and gives us daily reports.

The user interface should be improved and made easier.

We have been using Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks for five years.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

Prisma Cloud’s customer support is good.

We have seen an ROI with respect to time and metrics.

Regarding Prisma Cloud's pricing, we started small, and then we just kept on growing.

Before choosing Prisma Cloud, we evaluated SolarWinds as an option. We chose Prisma Cloud because SolarWinds wasn't an enterprise-level software.

The solution has a moderate level of ease of use. Prisma Cloud has helped free 50% of our staff's time to work on other projects. Many tasks were done manually before, but now things are faster with Prisma Cloud.

We are trying to learn about new cybersecurity issues and what other solutions are available to combat them.

Overall, I rate Prisma Cloud an eight out of ten.

I use it for testing and visibility.

Palo Alto has helped our organization improve its security posture.

CSPM is the most valuable feature.

They should improve user experience. It is complicated to integrate the solution with the public cloud provider.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I’m happy with the stability of the solution.

The solution has strong scalability.

We have seen an ROI on the solution. We have full inventory visibility and a full security posture.

The pricing of the solution is fair.

I attend the RSA conference to close gaps. Attending the conference impacts our cybersecurity purchases because it helps us build a roadmap for future evolution. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Prisma Cloud has multiple components. We are already using RedLock, and it has Twistlock included in it. It also has PureSec, which should be pretty useful for our cloud security.

One of the most valuable features is the compliance of RedLock, which we are using for any issues with security. It flags them and that's the primary objective of that feature. We are still working on implementing the other features that were integrated into Prisma Cloud from Twistlock and PureSec.

The feedback that we have given to the Palo Alto Networks team is that the UI can be improved. When you press the "back" button on your browser from the Investigate tab, the query that you're working on just disappears. It won't keep the query on the "back" button.

Also, the way the policies are structured and the alerts are created could be better. It requires a lot of manual work to search through the policies when creating an alert.

These are minute nuances. They are not major issues and are more about convenience than they are product bugs.

We are still working with the Palo Alto Networks representatives to implement our rollout.

Because we are already using Palo Alto Networks firewall, we expect Prisma Cloud should be pretty stable.

It's a team effort and multiple people will be involved.

It's definitely a good product. If a company is heavily into the public cloud environment, they must look to use a product like this to gain good visibility into their security. It will also help with the compliance of how they are doing things in the cloud. It's definitely a good, must-have tool.

In terms of our use cases, we are a telecom firm and we work a lot with telecom firms around the world, and so we have a lot of solutions other than Twistlock. We have applications, we have consumer-based solutions that we run on a daily basis, and heavily regulatory processes as well. We found it's better that we move our core application than our user systems on container because they're quick, they're effective, easy to deploy, and easy to maintain. But because of the sanctions, heavily regulated security is a very core part of the entire environment, and thus we had to go ahead and look for a solution that would help automate that security part and because it was almost impossible to go about doing that manually.

In terms of improvement, there are some small things like hardening and making sure the Linux resources are deployed well but that's more at an operational level. Day-to-day, we do find a lot of issues but having a tool to help us with them is what we want because manually, it's not feasible for us. Other than that, we not really looking for any other add-ons or plug-ins because that was our core problem.

We have been using Twistlock for just under five months. 

We had deployed it on-prem like it was on our infrastructure. It is primarily in our hands how we want to scale it because we could have run that across all of our data centers and multiply the licenses because it was fairly easy to acquire this. We have a running relationship with Palo Alto but we did not face any direct issues with scalability at the moment because we were running it on our premises.

We have people from Palo Alto. We have not had any major issues as such therein we had to reach out but there are some times we create service tickets that go to Palo Alto because Twistlock has networking image of audio open-source development so maybe sometimes there are glitches in that, and we reach out to them but more often the network is just that. We've never had any issues, major or drastic, issues that we need to reach out to L1 and L2. 

The initial setup was very complex. We have more than 10,000 servers on-premises and this is excluding what we have off-prem and on cloud deployment as well.

We used an integration because we got them from Palo Alto. We have a network firewall from them. 

I would say Twistlock is a fairly sophisticated tool. It's not the most user-friendly so if somebody wants to use it for their deployment, their firm, they need to have the right people on your team to know how to use it because it's not a plug and play kind of software, like Aqua Security which is a little more plug and play. I think it's easier, more user-friendly, and has a more flexible kind of deployment. If you can configure it well, Twistlock is a lot better in providing you real-time statistics than Aqua Security.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I recommend two months of POC in this. It's fairly new but until now it's been pretty good.