Akamai Guardicore Segmentation

I use Akamai Guardicore Segmentation  to block lateral movement of malicious software like ransomware. This is very important to protect my business and my corporation.

I create labels for any assets to create rule sets in Guardicore Center with the configuration.

The logs and network logs provide visibility that is very important for my business and my corporate entity. We use microsegmentation by environment. I do segmentation for production, homologation, and development. It is very important.

Today, I have segmentation for Kubernetes  in Guardicore, but I have problems with Guardicore with segmentation for Kubernetes  because it is connected to SaaS. This is very important because we have projects starting in Kubernetes in my enterprise.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation  is deployed in my organization on a hybrid cloud because 99% is on a private cloud computer.

The best features of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation are maps and network logs. I think the analysis of logs and hits in Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is fantastic.

The impact of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very important because it reduced risk for my corporation and organization. It is very important.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation reduced risk because it blocked malicious ransomware and uninspected traffic. I appreciate this. It is very good.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation reduces risk, and the configuration is very easy, among other things.

I think the pricing is very high. It is a big cost. The price of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very expensive, but it is important to the enterprise. I think it is more or less.

I have been using Akamai Guardicore Segmentation for approximately five years.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very stable.

It is very scalable.

I like the Akamai  support very much. The response is very fast. The attention is very good.

I did not evaluate other options. I am happy with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation.

We have a relationship with this vendor. We are a partner and an experienced user.

The investment is necessary for enterprises to reduce risk, protect the enterprise, and have visibility of the network.

I have used other solutions, but with Akamai , I have WAF , I have proxy, and I have IP security.

I gave this product a review rating of 10.

My main use case for Akamai Guardicore Segmentation  is segmenting legacy operating systems.

I use Akamai Guardicore Segmentation  to segment legacy operating systems because they do not support our EDR tools due to their age, and I chose Akamai  Guardicore because its agents support very old systems that need to be segmented from the rest of the network.

We are mainly using it for legacy systems.

The best features Akamai Guardicore Segmentation offers make it simple to see all of the connections that are being made to each of the endpoints, and they can be controlled by process and port.

The ability to control by process and port helps my team day-to-day because, since there are hundreds of thousands of connections to some of these endpoints, looking at the Reveal  Map makes it simple to audit and create rules for what we want to allow.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation has impacted my organization positively because we find it difficult to remove the legacy systems, so it was very important to segment them from the rest of the network to protect them and protect the rest of our network.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation can be improved because keeping it up to date is difficult since it is SaaS-based and updates are not on a regular schedule; I have to reach out to my contact to ask them to update to a newer version, and it would be helpful if updates were on a regular cadence so that I would not have to remember to ask them.

I think it is really valuable to take a course on Akamai Guardicore Segmentation because many things are not obvious in terms of how to do them correctly.

I have been using Akamai Guardicore Segmentation for one year.

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is stable and very reliable.

The scalability of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is very good. It scales very well, and I can keep adding agents and scale as much as needed.

I have not had to reach out to customer support for Akamai Guardicore Segmentation.

I have not seen a return on investment in terms of specific metrics like time saved or reduced risk, but I can say that reduced risk is significant.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that overall everything worked out really well. The pricing was flexible, and it has worked out well with our budget.

Before choosing Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, I evaluated other options, but I cannot recall them off the top of my head.

Since I started using Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, we have not had any situations that demonstrate specific results or metrics such as fewer incidents or improved compliance.

My advice to others looking into using Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is to work with professional services during setup because it is not intuitive at the beginning and to take the administrator course to understand the Reveal  Maps, as the Reveal Maps are the most useful way to control the segmentation.

I give this product a rating of 8.

We want segmentation for a data center, and we have the problem that we cannot change IP addresses within the data center. So we need a solution. With the Guardicore solution, we can keep the IP addresses.

Additionally, we get agent-based segmentation, and we don’t have to change anything on the network. These are the main reasons why we chose Guardicore for micro-segmentation.

The enforcement points under the agent, the firewalling has been most beneficial for your customers’ cybersecurity needs specifically. We do not need any further security features like IDS, IPS, or whatever. For us, it’s only the firewall feature, and that’s part of the enforcement point of the Guardicore agent. So that was completely enough for us.

I like the visibility of the communication, so that we really see which communications the assets have to the other assets. We don’t need a further sensor or firewall to see the traffic to these devices. That’s the main reason.

And Guardicore makes its own rule set automatically, so we can work fast when creating a rule set. We don’t have a long phase of monitoring or whatever, so we can go straight to rules where we drop unwanted data traffic.

We don’t do micro-segmentation for each asset. We work with the ring-fencing function, and we have really good visibility on the dashboard with the rings. We can see which asset is in which segment, zone, or ring. That’s the main thing, that we can see this really easily.

We can also give this view not only to the administrator of the Guardicore components but also to the application owner, so they can see where their application is placed in the ring-fencing and what communication is there. This makes incident management easier because we get incidents in a more authenticated way from the application owner. That’s also a big benefit from the visibility of the Guardicore solution.

In the firewall, only the administrator has a deep look into the architecture, the logs, and the segmentation. In the Guardicore solution, we can give more visibility to the application owner on their own application. This makes it easier to manage incidents and the overall management of the application and network. The application owner has a view of the actions happening on the network with their assets or applications.

When we have more than one interface, we can only have one policy for both interfaces. Normally, you have assets with a production interface and a server interface that are only for management.

But in the Guardicore architecture, you cannot give the production interface its own rule set and the management interface another rule set. You have to combine these rule sets into one. It’s a lack because security standards suggest a different way to secure management interfaces.

So, I would like to have two separate rule sets for the basis of the device.

We started planning last year, and we are now in the implementation phase. So, since April this year, we have been working directly with Guardicore and the Guardicore management systems.

We [my company] work with the latest version.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten, where one is low and ten is high stability.

The difficulty is when you start with such a project, it’s not only with Guardicore, it’s with all other micro-segmentation windows. You have to change your mindset from a network-centric to a label-centric approach, which is not based on the network. That’s the difficulty for the people, the customer, and the administrator.

There should be more support to change the mindset of the customer. They are all used to the old way to do segmentation. With other micro-segmentation tools, it’s a new technology, and it’s not about thinking in IP segments and IP networks anymore. You have to think in labels and ring fencing. That’s what makes it difficult to start with such a technology. It’s not the vendor, it’s the technology.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is good for our use case. So, scalability is at a satisfactory level.

I make projects with my customers. I do not have any view about my other colleagues and what they have in their projects with Vendor. Myself, it was the third customer where we have placed the Guardicore product.

My customers are enterprise businesses.

The response time should be better. Sometimes it’s good, but sometimes it could be better. You have a problem, you need an answer, and then you have to wait. Sometimes they do not talk with an administrator who knows anything about Guardicore. When my colleagues call support, I think my colleagues are experts. And then the support starts with really easy questions. That’s not funny.

So, I want them to be more skilled, like, more educated on the matter.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy to set up.

The technical setup was easy. It becomes more challenging when you start labeling the assets and doing the ring-fencing. You have to go deep into the architecture of the network, the application, and whatever. That’s more difficult, but in the end, it’s easier than doing classic segmentation with a firewall.

The data architecture took one week, but the segmentation logic took months. We are not finished. We started in April, and we are not finished. So, like almost half a year.

We start to define the ring for the ring fences, and then we start with a part of the network with the test environment. We test and then go. The last will be the production. We label the assets, then start a monitoring period to see the data traffic between the assets. Then we go into an alerting phase and finally to a block period.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. I know other micro-segmentation tools like Cisco or Illumio, and so I think they are in the middle.

Overall, I would rate the product a seven out of ten. We use Akamai because they have their own enforcement point. This was important for us.

Other micro-segmentation tools use the desktop firewall of Windows or the Linux iptables firewall, but Guardicore has its own enforcement point and its own agent. This was a key factor. When you start with the implementation, you have to have a clear picture about your labeling. I think it’s really important. You have to know what you want to separate from each other. You could go into very deep detail, but the more detail you have, the more complex it becomes. You have to find a balance between detail and complexity. You need the middle way.