TufinOS Worker

I have primarily used Skybox and AlgoSec . I have also interacted with FireMon for compiling. However, I am not currently working with ACA, and I don't have any projects related to Skybox. Some customers in Thailand still use Skybox, like PEA, which is an electric company. Additionally, AlgoSec  is quite popular in the Thai market.

AlgoSec is the number one used tool in the Thailand market. Most customers use it for vulnerability control. The tool enhances features to save audit costs. Currently, common firewalls provide basic functionalities, and AlgoSec adds more value with its vulnerability control, which benefits organizations by reducing expenses associated with audits.

Tufin Orchestration Suite  is not commonly used in Thailand due to a lack of local support, and many customers are switching to AlgoSec or other vendors. The analytics features of Tufin Orchestration Suite  are challenging to use and require technical expertise, which is a concern as there is not much knowledge in this field in Thailand. The issue of technical knowledge, especially regarding English language proficiency, is significant for government and some companies, making Tufin Orchestration Suite harder to use.

I have not contacted Tufin Orchestration Suite vendor support for around four to five years.

Tufin Orchestration Suite is easy to implement and generally takes less than two weeks for deployment.

About four to five years ago, I was in contact with Tufin Orchestration Suite's vendor support through a regional distributor. However, in recent years, they have stopped providing specialized engineering support.

I have experience with AlgoSec and Skybox. Customers have been moving from Tufin Orchestration Suite to other brands as Tufin Orchestration Suite lacks support in Thailand.

The initial setup for Tufin Orchestration Suite is straightforward and typically does not take more than two weeks. It is user-friendly.

The implementation is generally easy and does not require extensive expertise.

Tufin Orchestration Suite's pricing is quite similar to AlgoSec, and it is not the cheapest option available. FireMon and Skybox are considered more cost-effective.

Other solutions used include Skybox, AlgoSec, and FireMon.

There is potential for improvement in explaining the analytics in the dashboard for Tufin Orchestration Suite. Tufin Orchestration Suite does provide good monitoring; however, interpreting the graphs and understanding how to resolve issues is challenging. Overall, I would rate Tufin Orchestration Suite eight on a scale of one to ten.

My primary use case involves applying firewall policies faster from a central point. Additionally, I would like to use it to generate reports, but this hasn't occurred yet.

Tufin Orchestration Suite  is a good tool that makes firewall policies faster to implement from a central point, and its support is good. It offers automation capabilities that are very helpful, especially for network security orchestration and applying policies.

The design needs improvement, particularly in recognizing target devices and target files. Additionally, there's a need for an improved network map.

I have been using Orchestration Suite for almost three years.

I would rate the stability of Orchestration Suite nine out of ten.

I would also rate scalability nine out of ten, demonstrating its ability to scale and expand.

The technical support is good. The team is eager to help in fixing issues.

I was previously working with CDO  from Cisco. Additionally, FireMon is another competitor with similar features.

The initial setup process was straightforward and not complex.

Tufin has a partner in my country, and they facilitated the installation process. I monitored it once they installed it the first time.

The Orchestration Suite saves time when implementing rules. However, saving money isn't apparent since it is very expensive.

The pricing of Orchestration Suite is high, which is a point for improvement.

I have experience with CDO  from Cisco and FireMon, which are competitors of Tufin.

Overall, I recommend the product. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Tufin is primarily used to orchestrate and manage network traffic and firewall devices. It is specifically useful for implementing firewall policies and handling requests from clients that require policy updates or changes.

Tufin simplifies understanding network topology. New employees can quickly grasp the various IPs, devices, and the network's logical and physical layout within a short period, often reducing what would normally take a week into just a day.

While Tufin is suitable for small businesses, issues can arise in larger enterprises, particularly concerning policy-based forwarding and NAT traffic.

I have about three years of experience using Tufin.

Tufin is quite stable and typically does not require much troubleshooting.

When dealing with a large number of devices, Tufin can sometimes face challenges, indicating potential scalability issues.

The support team is effective; they connect to the network quickly and help resolve any issues that arise, although issues are infrequent.

The initial setup of Tufin is easy and can be done within a day, provided the environment is prepared.

Tufin and AlgoSec  are at the same level in terms of pricing. They are suitable for small to medium businesses with significant investments.

I have worked with AlgoSec , which is used for similar purposes and provides strong support for network devices. Both Tufin and AlgoSec can connect via API and support major firewalls and networking devices.

I would definitely recommend Tufin, especially for critical industries like banking or ISPs. It is essential for organizations willing to invest and ensure robust network management.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I am responsible for the management of network devices, including firewalls. Security management is handled by our parent company.

It's a great tool for checking compliance of network device configurations against our company's rules and industry standards like NIST 2.0.

It made us look at security policies more holistically, from the perspective of the entire network across all our devices.

We used a version from a few years ago. So, I think my opinion would be a little outdated. Moreover, at the time, there were no huge complaints.

Customizing it can be a little tricky, but that depends on your use cases.

I have worked with Tufin Orchestration Suite, but we no longer use it.

Every case was solved by our partner. They were licensed partners. They were certified and licensed by Tufin.

I was satisfied with the support.

We didn't work with any system of compared functionality.

Moreover, opting for any solution is a corporate decision made at a much higher level than mine.

The deployment wasn't difficult. It's just connecting the system to network devices using some pre-deployed credentials and reading the device configurations. The difficult part is setting it up for the specific tasks you need from Tufin Orchestration Suite.

Customizing it can be a little tricky, but that depends on your needs. So specific use cases could be challenging.

From my perspective as an engineering manager, it saved my team time.

And looking at it from a higher level, it saved the organization money. As an organization, that's paying for my people's time.

So, ROI is something each organization has to figure out based on its own usage patterns.

The pricing depends on the business case. For us, the pricing was six out of ten, with ten being the most expensive and one being the cheapest.

We didn't use the entire suite. So, I would rate it a seven out of ten.