Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

Our customers use Tufin to manage multiple firewall access rules through a single console. We have done on-prem, public, and private deployments of this solution.

It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. 

We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall.

Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin.

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

It is very stable. It has good stability.

It has very good scalability.

Their technical support is good.

Its initial deployment is not very easy. It is a little bit complex. After the deployment, it is easy to work with it in the GUI. Its deployment takes at least two or three days.

Customers usually evaluate AlgoSec. 

I would advise others to go for it to manage firewalls from multiple brands in a single console.

I would rate Tufin a nine out of ten.

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 were primarily using the solution in order to grade the firewall rules.

How the solution benefits the organization is something that is currently being tested. We're considering doing something different, as we just used this product as a POC.

The compliance aspect of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The stability is very good.

You can easily scale the solution if you need to.

The number of features is very robust - and there are a large number of features. That's a huge selling point, which is why its popularity is where it is.

I have heard many people complain that there is a high level of complexity. It may make it difficult to work with for some people. That said, I don't have those issues with the product.

The initial setup can be tough.

The product could use better integration with the cloud.

I've been using the solution for years at this point, It's been a long time.

The stability is very, very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is good.

The scalability of the product is excellent. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.

In our case, while I don't have an exact user count, I can say that there were quite a lot of people on the product.

We're talking about shifting potentially away from Tufin, however, if we had kept it would have been used extensively.

While other people have the opinion that it could be better, I've mostly been satisfied with the level of support we've received. They've been okay. I've had three or four run-ins with them and they were all positive experiences.

I also work with AlgoSec. We use both solutions currently.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's a little difficult, a little tough. New users need to expect this before they get started.

Often, a consultant is involved in the process, as there is a large learning curve, and many companies don't have the bandwidth to ramp up the staff. Bringing on a consultant can speed up the processes a bit.

The deployment took about a month or so.

We're still working on how many people we actually require to handle the maintenance aspect of the product.

Typically, we get a consultant for everything, however, this last deployment, in particular, seemed to be more challenging for the consultant and for the staff.

That said, our experience with the consultant was very good overall.

While we are getting what we need out of the solution in terms of functionality, I haven't really looked into an exact ROI. We got what we were looking to get out of it. 

The billing and licensing aspect of the product is not something I'm a part of. I don't have any insights into the costs involved in using the solution. I cannot see if there's just a flat licensing fee or if there are other costs needed on top of that.

We are considering moving away from the solution currently. We're looking for other options. We might shift towards FireMon, however, nothing is set in stone.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're likely not using the latest version of the solution. Currently, there is a team that directly supports it. I can't remember the exact version number off-hand.

I'd advise organizations considering the solution to do their homework first and see if they can find out from industry associations and professionals what their experience has been.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for monitoring, automation, policy orchestration, and security.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring. I quite enjoy the monitoring this solution provides. It allows administrators to visualize the traffic flow, and troubleshoot when necessary. It's a useful tool.

The interface is quite user-friendly and intuitive.

The cost of this solution should be improved.

They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint.

They have an API, but it needs more service on this.

While technical support is good, they could still improve.

I have been working with Tufin for one year.

It's a stable solution. There are some bugs that they are working on but that is common with any vendor.

They do mention that they don't support specific features from Nexus for some automation but it does actually work, although it is not listed as working.

Technical support is relatively good. They are not the best but they are good.

They could improve but they do respond with accurate responses.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was deployed in less than an hour.

The first time without training, it took an hour or so, but it was quite easy.

It's quite an expensive solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.
I have not worked with any other vendors with this type of solution, for example, FireMon. I haven't worked with it. 

I would recommend it specifically to start with a secure track, which is a monitoring tool. Once the customer sees it, they want the solution. Afterward, for automation and secure change.

I would rate Tufin an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is fo the security of our medical facility. We have a lot of holes in the firewall and we wanted to see the details. For example, we see a lot of traffic between the different zones that we needed to reduce. So we use the solution to eliminate this traffic. It also allows us to have a lot of optimization rules for a good switching policy in the firewall. 

It can quantify and reduce a lot of risks.

I like the deployment and management of this solution. I don't have much experience in that kind of security solution, but I have three years of experience in similar solutions, like AlgoSec. I do some scripts to optimize the solution, such as configuring the API.

Additionally, when we export the report, you can see a lot of logs of all the equipment in the company and we can identify some of the machines or some log station in the network. Also, the user can create some requests to implement the flow and push the rules in the firewall. You can analyze the log and the traffic, you can have a lot of API's, and do some reporting.

In the next release I would like to see better migration in the Cloud because that will allow more visibility in the network.

I have been working with Tufin Orca for one year.

This solution was already deployed and we just manage it.

It is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

I have tons of contact with support. If you have some problems or issues you can contact support and manage the problem together. I did that with a lot of competitors, like Palo Alto on our network. If we have an issue in production, my production team will try to solve it or you can contact support to manage the issue.

I am satisfied with the support.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easy for me because I have some experience and training on it. Now I can do a whole production on the application.

We used an integrator for implementation because I have a colleague who has a lot more experience than me and we worked together to manage that solution.

I would recommend this solution. I think it's a good solution to have. It is good to know what this solution does in the network. You can have a lot of training on it and see a lot of questions from different users in the company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it an eight.

I'm using the Fortinet firewalls, so I need the firewall manager tool to manage those files, together with the FortiManager. The Tufin guys provided a solution for our data center where we have a box server, which was specifically developed for Tufin. It would run the scan on the network, get to the firewall, or go to the router, run the scan and give me the compliance, and then send it to me. Then I get a report from there.

The features I have found most valuable are its capability to check on the firewall and the routers. Afterward, it checks out all the configs, checks the vulnerabilities, checks the risks - it checks everything that may end up causing our router to be compromised. In the end, it recommendations what we should do.

Then, if we apply the recommendations, it will scan again and give us a percentage. Sometimes we find out that at first that we didn't meet the compliance, getting a 46% maybe. Then, when after I apply the recommendations, after discussing with my team, and approving the recommendations, it is all remedied. After that, it goes to 80-something percent. And that is what we are looking for.

One area in which I need it to improve is that I need it to accommodate all the files and all the tools. For example, when I buy the firewall management tool, I want it to manage the firewall of every firewall I use across my organization. If I'm going to depend on only one vendor, and it looks likes a vendor or a catered tool, it can't help on any vendor to scan the technology and give the auditing compliance. This is something they can improve from their side.

The second thing I need is that if Tufin comes and deploys their solutions on my premises, I would like to have full support from them. Unfortunately, I didn't have their full support. So what worried me is that whenever the box is no longer working, then I'm no longer going to be able to see my compliance. I know I'm not going to charge whoever is not complying on my premises.

To sum up, the two main negative points with Tufin Orca are the absence of full support and that accommodation of files and tools is not provided in a good way.

Additionally, what Tufin should include in the next release is the ability to see the logical bullets points. In my case, I wanted to see the physical report because when things tripped and went wrong we needed to start fixing it on the physical side. So I would like to have the physical tool policy before we can have the looks side.

But on the looks side it was very good. We need to filter up to it regarding the beneficiaries in the policies. So it was very good on that side of the data, but when I'm using it as a firewall manager, and then find the firewall is down, I need to see it on the Tufin. Also, I need the capability for Tufin to start alerting me whenever there is a change on the firewall.

I can say that we didn't know about that function on Tufin and when we try to communicate with the Tufin guys, they are not able to assist us on that. So we end up having someone go to our firewall and start to make a change, and we end up not having the right thing and not being able to manage our firewall accordingly. The main point of using the same tool as a firewall manager is to have the daily health check of the box.

I have used Tufin for the last two years and then I left it when Skybox was introduced to me. Unfortunately, I didn't have the capacity to use Skybox because I didn't have the skills on my team, so I decided to leave it. But I am looking forward to getting the new tool which will help me to do what I need.

The initial setup was very complex. What worried us at first was that we didn't know how to integrate it with the network. We had to call the Tufin guys to help with that and they physically brought it to us for the integration to the network. So that was challenging.

When you ship the product to our country, to my organization, it is quite expensive. It's not cost-effective. It's quite expensive because we end up paying extra for accommodation, the transport, everything for that person to come and assist us on the integration to the network. 

Generally, you need to pay for everything -  for the support and the implementation with the integrator.

We can also add this to the areas for the improvement, that implementation is difficult and it would be great if they could simplify the way the person can implement the products.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Tufin Orca a five. I would recommend it only if the organization has the skills and enough requirements so that they are able to run it. It is a very good tool when you use it because it basically gives you what you want. It is just hard in terms of support, patching, and upgrading. Overall, it's challenging if you don't have the skills or resources.

This product will work for those organizations that have the knowledge of how to install the solution.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We also use it ourselves.

We have this solution installed in our data center, where we have a box specifically for Tufin. It scans our network, looks at the firewalls and the routers, assesses compliance and sends me a report.

The most valuable feature is the compliance check and the recommendations that it makes. This solution will connect with the firewalls and routers to check out the vulnerabilities, risks, and anything that can lead the organization to be compromised. From there it will make recommendations about what is required in order to ensure compliance. My team discusses the recommendations and then we remedy the issues.

My worry with Tufin is that it cannot connect to Fortinet, which is what I want to do. In order for this solution to be useful, it needs to be able to manage every type of firewall that I come across in my organization. I do not want to be tied to one vendor. Integration with all types of firewalls and related tools is necessary.

When Tufin deploys solutions on-premises then they should provide full support, but this was not the case in my organization.

The implementation, including integration with other solutions, is complex and should be simplified.

I want to see the physical topology of the network in order to help with troubleshooting.

I would like Tufin to alert me whenever there is a change in the firewall.

I have used Tufin Orca for the past two years.

We do not have full support for Tufin and it was expensive to have support visit us during our deployment.

The initial setup was very complex because we needed help to integrate it with the network. Unfortunately, we needed to have an engineer come to assist us, which is why it was challenging. Getting an engineer to visit our country is quite expensive because you have to pay extra for accommodation, transport, and everything. It is not cost-effective.

This is a solution that I would recommend, but only in cases where the organization has the skills. I would rate this solution in the middle because it meets my requirements, it is a very good tool, and it immediately gives you what you want. At the same time, when it comes to the support, setting it up, and upgrading it, it is challenging if you don't have skilled resources.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Automate the firewall change via SecureChange Workflow

1. Policy Optimization by using Tufin APG under SecureTrack. If you have a wide open policy, and you want to restrict it into fewer lines of policy based on last 30 or 90 days hits, you can use APG tool to build restrictive policy.

2. Firewall Cleanup: Deletering unused Rules, unsed objects, duplicate objects from firewall database, by using the report created by Tufin under SecureTrack. You can run this report on Tufin SecureChange to delete all the unwanted space. This will save tons of space on your Firewall database.

3. SecureChange Workflow: You can link Tufin to ticketing system to upload the firewall change ticket, and use the workflow to fully automate the firewall change process, from start to finish

4. Topology: If you a good topology, you don't need to see routing table on Firewall, or going through any visio network design to find the L3 networks in your enterprise. Topology under SecureTrack helped me a lot

6. Enterprise Unified Security Policy: Once I do have an Approved Unified Security Policy from the CISO, I don't need to ask approval for each low risk firewall change. USP not only saved CISO busy time, but also increased the efficiency of firewall team. The firewall change request doesn't have to stay in Approver Pending steps

SecureChange Workflow: It is Firewall Admin Robot, which handles the ticket right from receiving until the implementing process with documenting all the approvals.

1. Tufin workflow doesn't support IPS module, Identity Awareness Module, Policy Inline layer (Checkpoint)

2. Limitation on edit/create Group object: You can't create group Service object

3. You have to run Designer to Assign Firewall Rule Name, and Rule Number. By default, Tufin uses topology

3

Tufin is very stable. There have been no major outages. 

Sometimes there is an SSL correction between Tufin and the management server. Sometimes it gets broken but I don't why. Apart from that, it is very stable.

We can add as many firewalls as we need. It's just a matter of purchasing the licenses. It has good scalability.

Tech support is very bad. I would give a zero rating to tech support. Compared to Check Point and Fortinet, Tufin tech support is worse. Even the Professional Services team doesn't like to respond to email. It is poor.

My team doesn't have a good relationship with Tufin. The Professional Services and even our Tufin account manager are not friendly. They're not helpful to us. But the Tufin product is fine.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I believe our cost is more than $100,000 per year.

We haven't evaluate any competitors or consider other products.

Tufin is not mandatory to manage firewalls or to manage any products. But it supplements. It will help you to get approvals and to push firewall policies. In the long run, when you have to manage hundreds of firewalls, obviously Tufin will help.

We are working on the USP, but so far we only rely on Tufin between about ten and 20 percent to see USP violations.

We use this solution for Firewall audit, compliance, and some automation.

Using Tufin makes it easy to visualize when investigating or auditing configs.

The most valuable feature is alerting, which lets me know when someone has made a change. When something stops working I can see what has been done and by whom.

This solution is easy to set up and use.

It is very easy to see what has changed when comparing two different revisions.

I would like to see visibility into the FW features like IPS/Content Filter policies, the same way it does for FW rules/policies.

We use this solution for recertifying connections, application-based automation, and compliance with regulations.

The workflows save time and speed up the authorization processes for applications. For network operators, it enhanced visibility. For application operators, it increased knowledge of dependencies and also provided them with impact awareness.

Before this solution, we used Excel sheets. This approach did not provide ways to filter the options for implementing changes. The filtering of lots of criteria is very valuable.

I would like to see more configuration options on next-generation firewalls, defining possible standards for devices.

The tool is highly reliable.

We have not run into limitations around scalability. Depending on the devices, it is better to have a sizing discussion with the sales engineer.

In the beginning, we did not have a dedicated support handler and it caused some issues because the service requests were interrelated. When we later obtained a central contact in support, it improved the handling.

Prior to this solution, we used Excel and firewall vendor consoles.

The initial setup was fairly complex because of the agreement with the network provider.

We implemented this solution in-house with the support of Tufin Professional Services.

I suggest talking with Tufin about the flexibility of the pricing structure.

We did not perform our own evaluation. However, one of the daughter companies evaluated multiple products (Tufin, FireMon, and AlgoSec) and selected Tufin. We relied on their research.

Implementing the tool is easy, but introducing the changes within the company can be challenging.