$("#con-aspect-container .snippet-list").append('
DS<\/span><\/div><\/div>
NetworkEccd3<\/span><\/a><\/div>
Network Engineer Lead at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i> <\/span>
Jul 18, 2019<\/div><\/div>
The change workflow process is getting better. I wish it was a little more customizable. Right now, my biggest issue is that it wants to optimize everything we put in. Sometimes, we need a rule to be more readable, and we want it to go in a specific way. Sometimes, it's difficult to get Tufin to accept that. It wants to optimize and reduce the number of ACLs. On the compliance side, sometimes you just want more ACLs, so it's more readable for an auditor.<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Read full review<\/a> <\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
SE<\/span><\/div><\/div>
Security8043<\/span><\/a><\/div>
Security Analyst at a retailer with 10,001+ employees<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i> <\/span>
Jul 18, 2019<\/div><\/div>
I wish there was a read-only admin option. I don't like that you have to be a full admin just to see the Network Topology Map. That option is great out there if you are a user, multi-domain user, etc. However, that piece is very helpful for us, but I also don't want to be handing out admin access to every single person so they can see that network tab. <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Read full review<\/a> <\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
GK<\/span><\/div><\/div>
NetworkE78f6<\/span><\/a><\/div>
Network Engineer at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i> <\/span>
Jul 18, 2019<\/div><\/div>
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.<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Read full review<\/a> <\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
JF<\/span><\/div><\/div>
John_Ford<\/span><\/a><\/div>
Managing Director at Midpoint Technology<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i> <\/span>
Jul 17, 2019<\/div><\/div>
We would like to see more in terms of integration with other application types within the context, such as next-generation firewalls or next-generation threat devices that are out there.<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Read full review<\/a> <\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
BB<\/span><\/div><\/div>
NetworkE9856<\/span><\/a><\/div>
Network Engineer at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i> <\/span>
Jul 18, 2019<\/div><\/div>
We had a discussion in the Customer Advisory Board yesterday around use of SecureChange. We would like to have an opportunity for an engineer to choose if you want to make or take the policy which has been suggested by the designer functionality, making it more human readable or less human readable (more or less granular). This would be huge for the customers who are using SecureChange. They said this was one of their issues with it, especially for anything that was going into a regulator's or auditor's hands. The more human readable, the better that it would be, and this would definitely be applicable to our industry. It sounds like they are working on this issue, or they took the feedback, but that would be a big one for us in being able to make the jump to SecureChange.<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Read full review<\/a> <\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
NH<\/span><\/div><\/div>
Nathan Hulsey<\/span><\/a><\/div>