Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Reviews

Our use cases are for container monitoring and scanning.

One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes.

There is room for improvement in the setup process. All these tools come down to how you're integrating into your environment and having good knowledge of the tool. So that's the biggest problem with all these security tools – you gotta have knowledgeable people to build, integrate, and really flesh them out in your environment to make them work as they should.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years. 

We started out using a Red platform and then found out that if you don't basically buy into Red Hat OpenShift, they kind of drop you on the floor, so you gotta migrate within Red Hat products.

Neutral

I used open-source products like CrowdSec and Sync. I was looking for a more comprehensive solution. RedHat has more polished dashboards and a focus on making the tool more user-friendly.

The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult. 

We had a variety of different security experts involved in the deployment process. They were kind of subdivided, trying to perform different actions.

The deployment took a couple of days. Moreover, there's a matter of patching it because it has periodic updates to maintain, and you've got to put your security signature on as well.

Make sure your security folks are getting the support and investment in it, depending on how you want to use it. It's unfortunate that in some environments, everything seems golden, but just in case you have a tool, if your staff does not, it's pretty much worthless.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The solution is used in our organization for container security. In our company, we have used OpenShift to create a base image using UPI and Docker images, which are available with Red Hat. The aforementioned UPI images have varying features, and you can use only the ones that are required. The images within the solution are more secure in comparison to other images distributed by Docker. 

The communication between containers in our company occurs through a unique subnetwork and the ports present in the cluster is divided for each node when the principal objective for each node is defined. The connection between microservices used in our company is called GRPC which provides enhanced performance, and there is also a layer embedded in the GRPC server to implement limited authentication in between connections.

I have used Istio service mesh with the solution, which allows visibility into the connections between the containers. In our company, we have also used a distributed database so that we can establish a connection with the database for multiple instances and use it in different parts of the system. 

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes offers easy management with authentication and authorization features. The UPI images offered by the solution remain secured as the Red Hat team maintains the base images. 

The tool allows container connection with HTTPS for the management of each container. 

In the instance of each container, when you try to create a new container, you can automate the process using scripts, and JWT can be used as a certificate for each container. The performance of the solution is usually not up to the mark and depends on the use cases.

The solution can be used to verify the credentials of an individual who is trying to install a new port or container for the company. The aforementioned verification is a proper way to improve the container when new microservices are being developed in the cluster. 

I am a user of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. 

A load balancer can be used with the tool depending on the traffic and the requests obtained to maintain the solution's stability. The load balancer suggests if more microservices are needed with the minimum number of ports. 

There is a support team to assist with the clusters implemented with the solution. The documentation of OpenShift and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is comprehensive enough to help resolve issues. Our company is going to get an international certificate on the website. I would rate the tech support a five out of ten. 

Neutral

I have experience with the solution's setup in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and our company has assisted in the development of a cluster in a research department, but we didn't start from scratch because we have IT professionals who have installed Kubernetes across 12 nodes of a cluster and a new environment can be created for a new platform.

I also had another setup experience of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes in Portugal where I had to implement the solution in a cluster of 22 computer servers, which was completed with assistance from the IT department of the company. 

The initial setup process of the solution can be considered as difficult. The setup process involves using the permissions, subnets and range of IPs, which makes it complex. Deploying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes takes around eight to ten hours for new clusters. 

The solution's deployment can be divided into three parts. The first part involves OpenStack, where the cluster's resources need to be identified. The second part involves virtualizing assets and identifying other physical assets, for which OpenStack, Kubernetes, or OpenShift are used.

The third part of the deployment involves dividing the networks into subnetworks and implementing automation to deploy the microservices using Helm. The number of professionals required for the solution's deployment depends upon the presence of automated scripts. Ideally, two or three professionals are required to set up Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. 

In our company, we deployed the solution in-house in our organization's server by virtualizing the existing computers. 

I haven't noticed any cost reductions in our organization after implementing Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. 

It's a costly solution. I prefer to use the open-source tools, but I need to use and configure Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes wherever required. There are additional costs involved with the solution on top of the standard licensing fees. 

I would suggest to others that the clusters and systems can be managed easily using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. The solution provides visibility into the organization's security about what measures are working and what's not. Support is available for the tool, and the solutions from the vendor, such as OpenShift is a ready-to-use product. 

For specific requirements in our organization we have used AI features to check the cluster performance and improve it. The solution's model implementation ensures users without credentials cannot enter your company's system. I would rate the solution overall a seven out of ten. The product has ready-to-use features but the support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies in the system. 

Basically, the solution is integrated OpenShift. Whenever we are installing OpenShift, everything will be using the orchestration of the deployment ports and will be taken care of by the underlying Kubernetes. It can be applied inside OpenShift.

The command administration in the solution is the most valuable feature of the tool.

The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade. For a platform maintenance person, it is very difficult since they need to identify, find out, and get the customer to make changes to their application. The aforementioned area can be considered for future improvements in the solution.

Stability can be improved in the solution.

I have experience with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. I am a customer of the solution.

Overall, the product is pretty good. Also, stability-wise, it is a very good tool. I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

The users of the solution in my company are below 1,000.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using the on-premise version. Whenever you are installing OpenShift, and you have resources, it will be really fast. If you don't have resources, it will be slowed down.

The initial setup is not that difficult. The setup is not complex or that much simple.

The control plane installation won't take more than an hour. Then you need to get a lot of information. You need to build and add the work. Hence, the deployment will take some time since it depends upon the information you have.

Actually, I'm not using the Red Hat Kubernetes service. I'm just using the integrated Kubernetes, which comes with OpenShift.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for vulnerability management, configuration management, compliance, safety handling, and everything else.

The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration.

From an improvement perspective, I would like to create new policies in the tool, especially if it is deployed for the prevention part, but currently, we need to do it manually. I hear that Palo Alto is conducting some checks on the containers and documenting the policies to help with the prevention part from our side.

I do see that some features associated with the IAST part are not included in the tool, making it an area where improvements are required.

I would like to see the features in Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, which are similar to the ones offered by Palo Alto Prisma revolving around IAST.

I have experience with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes for a year. I am a customer of the tool.

I am not familiar with the technical support of the solution.

The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma.

I have only compared the product with Palo Alto Prisma. I am trying to compare Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes with Palo Alto Prisma to see the features of both the tool and, specifically, of Palo Alto, as it includes Prisma, which is better. If Palo Alto Prisma has better features, it is worthwhile to get it over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

The tool's policy management supports our company's compliance efforts since any corporate entity or enterprise must follow specific regulations, which include periodic analysis and configuration review.

The tool has contributed to reducing security-related incidents in our company's operations by getting the vulnerability findings and then checking all the findings of the vulnerabilities. The tool also detects a lot of exploits and helps with configuration hardening. The product deals with the complications arising out of unauthorized access to any confidential data.

The tool has not yet been integrated with AI to help manage the security part linked with Kubernetes.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I worked with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security's APIs, and I integrated it with Python programming language in order to automate an automatic touch and to generate, monitor, and also to create tickets so we can send them to the rightful administrators of the cloud container or the or the cluster running on the servers.

The benefit of working with the solution is the fact that it's very straightforward. I felt like, if you are an admin, as I was, then you have access to everything, and you have a full view of all the network and the communications. From my view, the benefit was it was easier for me to control all the communication and to see where it was going and where it was coming from. And the second thing that was benefit of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security was vulnerability scanning because we could have all the reviews about all the vulnerabilities that came along, and we could detect exactly and quickly the container infected by the vulnerability, which is a very, very good system and a monitoring solution for containers, especially for enterprise-level containers. So because I believe we had almost thousands of images and containers, and it was, like, very fast to detect all the infected containers, it was beneficial.

It has a very good view of information on networking and how every cluster works, and how they communicate with each other. Also, it shows you all the group names, which is very flexible to use because you can have access to the views. And the web UI was using it. Its name was Cockpit, a web-based interface. It was notified as Red Hat wanted it to be, and I find that the dashboard which has all the information on the internal clusters and containers, it's perfect to have a big view of the whole system. This is the first one. The second thing is the APIs. I'm not sure how it was implemented. But the APIs work perfectly. Also, I really love the idea of how we can have access to all the necessary needs from the AI in a way that is very secure because it has an access control feature to verify access to certain clusters, containers, or administrator boards. So the APIs it's very well written, and they integrate perfectly with Red Hat. I have worked with programming with Python software to program to have, like, automatic touch or automatic work. So it was well made. The aforementioned details are the two things I like the most about the Red Hat. In short, the first thing was the web UI and how it works in the networking solution, and the second thing was the APIs which are very well configured and integrated.

I'm not sure that I can accurately answer what needs improvement because my part of working was integrating. So, I believe the first week, I've never had a lot of problems with Red Hat as much as with the code or writing the programming.

The APIs have more access to the data than the web UI. Like, I believe I can do more automatic things with APIs than the WebUI. Also, I can have filtering with more accuracy in APIs than the web UI. So, the aforementioned areas can be considered for improvement. I felt like working with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security's API, that it's more flexible than working directly with the web UI.

The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited. But now I remember that it's very limited because it was integrated, and they had bought it from another company. I forgot the name of the other solution. The documentation is an area to focus on because, for a new program, the same developers of the old solution start working at Red Hat Enterprise. So it's very limited to the documentation. It was because it has a straightforward user interface. So, they didn't add or put up some documentation about it except for installation, implementation, and configuration, of course. But, dealing so much with it was hard for me, considering my attempts to find documentation because it was a new product.

I have been using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes for almost six months. I didn't work on implementation, but I worked on developing and integrating Advanced Cluster Security with other programming languages. So my first mission was from almost March 2022 until August 2022. So I worked for almost six months until the first of September. So, it's going to be, like, nine months from now since I haven't worked on it.

It is a perfectly stable product since the details are very accurate. Also, I didn't feel any lagging or latency, so it was perfectly stable, especially for an enterprise-level product.

I didn't work on it, but because I worked in a big company, scalability is the first thing any company needs. So I believe if it was not a good option, then they wouldn't have started implementing it at all. I believe scalability-wise, it's a very good option for the company.

I don't have an accurate number of those who use the solution in my company, but my team does auditing of the security in the containers more than the software. So, in my team, we are fifteen people, and I believe I had admin access to Red Hat because I wanted to integrate it with programming with another program, but it was widely used in the enterprise. We are a security team, and we had around thirty people divided into groups of six, twelve, or fifteen, and each group has people who are responsible for auditing security issues with containers. So, my team has five people who are working on implementing it into another program using Python. So it has a lot of features. So you can have as many people as you want because access control also is very straightforward, and it's very useful.

I've never tried contacting support.

It's created with a hybrid cloud. So, it was built in our company. We didn't use an external hybrid cloud solution. I'm not sure because I didn't work on implementing it. But I know for sure that it's very flexible, and it can deal with other solutions.

I didn't work on deployment, but I think it's very flexible. So I think it was on-premises because we used, like, hybrid cloud solutions. I'm sure that I believe we were working on-premises more than the cloud.

I haven't been involved in the setting up process and the deployment process of the solution.

I didn't do any maintenance. It was perfectly suitable for the mission that I was assigned, and it worked perfectly fine for me.

To those planning to use it, I would suggest starting as a non-admin user and start finding out information from the web UI that can be useful for you. And for me, because I worked on the project, my advice to others would be that they work on the same project, like implementing software or programs written in different programming languages to use APIs of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security in order to do automatic creation of tickets to collect off information about vulnerabilities.

For me, it was a really fascinating solution. And I really like working with it, especially with big numbers. Now, all enterprises are moving toward container solutions. So it's a perfect solution for big enterprises.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We have to know what kind of services we are deploying for Kubernetes, whether it's a web application or an app application. During the CI/CD pipeline deployment, I have used Kubernetes native security for the product that protects the applications across the build to deploy in the run time. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes scans the environment against the security for the best practices to prevent misconfiguration threats.

It is supported for the scanning of the embedded OpenShift Container Registry. It can be used to identify inactive software components, detect vulnerabilities, improve the detection capabilities of spring vulnerabilities, and verify the email signatures.

My company has been using the solution for quite a long time, and it's been working really well. The productivity and visibility of the entire landscape of the registries, the containers, the deployments, and the runtime behavior have been really good. The solution performs system-level event monitoring. It collects and evaluates the system-level events, processes the execution, and monitors the network connection that flows with each container in your Kubernetes environment.

The runtime vulnerability in the solution is really good as it uses the Log4j software package to facilitate the redemption efforts in these environments. The run time monitoring immediately identifies the security risks, manages the compliance, evaluates the security risks, and manages the security policies.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature.

The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved.

I have been using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes for more than three years.

I rate Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes a nine out of ten for scalability.

I have previously used different solutions like Ansible playbooks, Docker, and Terraform.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is deployed on-cloud in our organization. The migration between the AWS environment and Azure was a bit difficult, but the rest was workable.

I would recommend Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes to other users.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

Red Hat can be utilized for anything, including OpenShift, Kubernetes, dev environments, automation, banking, and many IT industries.

I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security.

I have used Red Hat since the beginning of last year.

Red Hat is stable. 

Support is one thing I like about Red Hat. They have lots of events like workshops, seminars, courses, etc. 

I have looked at other container security products. For example, some customers use a Palo Alto firewall instead of the security bundled with OpenShift.

Deploying Red Hat is straightforward.

I did some cost comparisons with other solutions like NeuVector. Red Hat is somewhat expensive. 

I rate Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes nine out of 10. 

I am impressed with the tool's visibility. 

The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity. 

I have been working with the product for three months. 

The solution is stable. 

My client's company has around five to six users for the product. 

The solution's tech support is good enough for my customer. 

Positive

The product's setup is complex. It took around three to four weeks to complete the deployment. 

Our partner did the deployment. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use the solution to move workloads from monolithic applications to containers.

The solution is easy to install, manage and use.

The solution's price could be lower.

We have been using the solution for almost one year.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The solution's technical support is good.

The solution's initial setup process is easy. It takes ten minutes to complete and requires only one executive to deploy and maintain it.

We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

We have implemented the solution to address the recent security issue in the Openshift Kubernetes cluster.

Stability is the most valuable feature.

The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I give the initial setup a seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the customer's requirements. Financial institutions take some time. The installation takes a few hours but the configuration takes days to weeks.

The deployments require one engineer and one architect.

We implement the solution for our customers.

Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus. The bundle price includes five products and is more affordable. I give the price an eight out of ten. The licensing options are annual and 36-month terms.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

One person is required for the maintenance.

We serve customers of small, medium, and enterprise sizes. The majority of our customer base comprises enterprises.

I would suggest using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes for organizations that utilize OpenShift since both solutions are supported by the same vendor.