FireMon Security Manager for AWS

I use FireMon Security Manager as a compliance tool to check rule compliance and firewall rule compliance.

I use FireMon Security Manager as a compliance tool to check rule compliance and firewall rule compliance. Overall, it is good and working fine. As soon as we deployed it for that purpose, we could see the benefits immediately. We could see what rules should be blocked and everything.

The only feedback I would like to give is that we were requesting them to move to SaaS so that the upgradation and everything would be a little more automatic or maybe just easier.

I have been using FireMon Security Manager for around four years.

I have not observed any lagging, crashing, downtime, or instability with FireMon Security Manager recently. Previously, we used to have some issues with respect to upgrades two years back; it was failing, but now it seems pretty smooth since the last two years.

FireMon Security Manager is good in terms of scalability. We are requesting a few things now, and we have requested new features. I have gotten an update from the TAM that the engineering team is working on that, and it may be coming soon. With respect to scalability, FireMon Security Manager is fine and good.

I think FireMon Security Manager is pretty good. I have a support manager, Gary, who helps us. He is a TAM for us, and he supports us very well.

I have contacted the technical support or customer support of FireMon Security Manager regularly. The TAM with whom I am connected supports us, and his support is really good. He gives us proper support; whenever there is a query or any issue, we send an email to him, and he gives us support whenever required. We are completely satisfied with that.

Out of 10, I would give the support of FireMon Security Manager a score of 10. It is really good.

I cannot say that MFNA, Micro Focus Network Analyzer, is exactly similar to FireMon Security Manager because as of now, we have that tool, but it is strictly for configuration. There, we check the configuration part, not the rule of the firewalls. It strictly checks the configuration, so it is not really similar. FireMon Security Manager is better. I think we are exploring to check configuration from FireMon as well, but we are not checking it yet.

The initial deployment of FireMon Security Manager when I first started using the product was fine. It was easy and not so difficult.

Definitely, some time had to pass before I saw the benefits of FireMon Security Manager.

I do not have much idea with respect to pricing of FireMon Security Manager.

FireMon Security Manager does not really require any maintenance on my end to continue working. There are just regular updates whenever a new OS comes up, but apart from that, I do not see any maintenance that is required.

I think FireMon Security Manager's reporting is good. In our case, we do not use the report from FireMon Security Manager. We fetch the data from the API, and we have different dashboards, so we do not use reports directly from FireMon.

I do not have any idea about partnerships; I think I am just a customer of FireMon Security Manager.

I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.

FireMon Security Manager integrates reasonably well into my security stack. We are able to onboard the devices quite easily, but some advanced features of the firewalls take time to support. Sometimes when a new feature is introduced on the firewall side, FireMon may take some time to incorporate it.

If I were to speak to someone looking to buy FireMon Security Manager, I would say the biggest win is the reporting feature. If your environment is not very large and if you don't have a massive amount of rule sets, then you can go with FireMon Security Manager. It works well with the reporting, and you can use it for getting the reports and presenting them for audit and compliance. It can be used effectively, but if the rule count is huge, it is not very scalable. If your environment is large, then you may get some issues with getting the reports; sometimes the report won't load if the rule count is very high.

What I like the most about FireMon Security Manager is the reporting feature; it gives all the rules in one console, so we are able to see all those rules without logging into each firewall. Reporting allows us to fetch the rules, for example, risky rules, and other similar information very easily in one place.

The reports from FireMon Security Manager for communicating risk reduction, compliance status, or overall security posture to my higher-ups are very good. We are actually using it to get the reports and present them to senior officers.

FireMon Security Manager should have tested more use cases. Sometimes organizations will have a larger number of devices and a larger number of firewall rules. Sometimes FireMon could not handle such an amount of rule sets, and it will cause some issues with normalizing flows data.

One thing about FireMon Security Manager is that the releases are quite frequent. We need to upgrade more frequently. They release every quarter, but the frequency is comparatively high when compared to others. For FireMon Security Manager, we don't face many outages, but we need to upgrade it frequently to get the patches and the fixes for the issues.

In my career, I have been using FireMon Security Manager for five years.

I have seen lagging, crashing, or downtime; sometimes some service crashed, and I needed to restart those services, identify those services, and restart them. It is not very frequent, but it happened.

Regarding the overall scalability of FireMon Security Manager, I would say it is not very scalable. If the rule count goes on increasing, sometimes, for example, if we have a firewall and it's used for all the sites, the device count increases and the rule count increases massively, FireMon sometimes cannot handle it effectively.

The speed of support for FireMon Security Manager depends on the severity of the issue. If it is a minor issue, then it will be faster; if it is a major issue, sometimes it will require their development team to get involved. In those cases, it will take a long time; it could sometimes take months to solve the issue.

For the support of FireMon Security Manager, I would give a six or seven on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the highest.

Previously, I used AlgoSec in my previous organization, but I didn't use it as extensively as FireMon Security Manager, so I don't have much to compare the two.

When I first started using FireMon Security Manager, it was moderate. There were people from FireMon giving us the knowledge articles and how to navigate things, so it was not very hard to learn. It is moderate; someone with two to three years of experience can understand it easily.

Overall, I would give FireMon Security Manager a six out of ten for everything.

I am a partner for FireMon Security Manager and typically perform implementations for multiple clients. I use FireMon Security Manager to deploy rules, perform cleanup of rules and firewalls, and create reports based on daily changes or firewall triggers so that administrators and higher management teams can be notified. I can generate compliance reports in a fraction of a second at my convenience. I use the reporting features of FireMon Security Manager to communicate risk reduction, compliance status, and overall security posture to my management. I have scheduled reports for perimeter firewalls that notify the admin and management team when changes occur beyond restricted times, such as during nighttime or in production environments. On a daily basis, these scheduled reports provide details about what changes have been made and which personnel made those changes, with everything delivered to the management and admin inboxes so they are aware of who made what changes on the firewall. This provides evidence for future investigations if any issues are triggered. If someone mistakenly made changes or reverted changes and then deleted the audit logs, I can still map or review what changes were made through FireMon Security Manager for investigation purposes.

I particularly like the SQL query feature of FireMon Security Manager that I can use for rule searches. I can search based on command, source, destination, rule name, or rule number with multiple search field parameters that give me leverage to filter rules and obtain output at my convenience. The output can be delivered via email as well as in PDF or CSV format. This is a very good feature because I have not found this many filters on any other tools to get rules filtered from security devices.

I dislike that as soon as I upgrade the security devices' version, it takes time to get the device pack for that compatible version. I want to highlight that FireMon Security Manager should work in parallel with the latest version of security devices, such as firewalls, and the device pack should be updated as soon as the OS is released. For example, with the device pack, we pull data from security devices and based on that analysis, FireMon Security Manager provides us with reports. As soon as the security device's OS gets upgraded, such as with Check Point, when a client is running on R81.20 and upgrades to R82 or R82.10, there is an error pulling the configuration that was working previously on R81.20. In that scenario, I have to log a case with technical support, which takes time for analysis, and it takes more than a month to get the compatible version of the device pack to pull configuration from the upgraded OS of the firewall.

I have been working with FireMon Security Manager for more than two to three years.

Downtime in FireMon Security Manager is not significant. I can say that quarterly, once in a while, it is not accessible, but most of the time it is accessible with no crashes. I have seen improvements since I implemented FireMon Security Manager. It has improved quite a bit from previous versions. The page loading time is very minimal now, whereas previously it took more time to load the pages.

The scalability of FireMon Security Manager is good.

I have contacted the technical support and customer support of FireMon Security Manager. The quality of the support is good and the speed is also good. I receive responses within a timeframe, and as soon as I send an email, I get a response within the next day if analysis of logs is required, or the same day if it is not.

Previously when I was not working on FireMon Security Manager, I used to work on AlgoSec. As per my convenience, I can say that FireMon Security Manager is better because it gives me filtering of rules at my convenience, which is not possible in AlgoSec.

The initial deployment of FireMon Security Manager is easy. Everything is visible in the GUI and documentation is readily available. If someone reads the documentation, they can complete the setup. However, they should be aware of how to access the console. Basic knowledge of networking is required to complete the setup.

The pricing structure for FireMon Security Manager is good. FireMon Security Manager is much better than AlgoSec.

I would give FireMon Security Manager a rating of 10 for support. For everything related to FireMon Security Manager, I would give it a 10. My overall review rating is 10.

Our customers have different use cases with FireMon, and I won't disclose names. They want a tool that offers a single pane of glass for rule set visibility, understanding policy compliance, and how compliant they are with various policies such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, or NIST. Another use case involves Security Manager rather than Policy Planner and Policy Optimizer, as these are designed for change automation.

Regarding centralized visibility of firewall rules across multiple vendors for a customer, they sometimes want to know who owns a particular rule, its function, and its deployment location. For risk and compliance, the focus is on identifying risky firewall rules and assessing them against organizational standards. Additionally, they use network path analysis to understand connections between applications, which aids network security teams in troubleshooting.

FireMon Security Manager acts as a network security policy management layer above core infrastructures, offering centralized policy visibility across platforms including Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point. It interfaces with ITSM tools, facilitating workflow automation. However, it complements rather than replaces existing security technologies.

Transitioning from a manual and time-consuming process to one utilizing Policy Planner and Optimizer has improved visibility and confidence in policy changes, reducing manual efforts, and enhancing governance and auditability.

The console GUI disappoints me because it lacks customization. I cannot remove or add widgets, similar to how iPhone locks app placements. The non-customizable dashboard annoys me as it shows unwanted information. However, Insights with AI integration offers customizable dashboard visibility once opted in, which addresses this limitation.

I have been with the company for twenty-two years, and with FireMon Security Manager, I have been using it for around two years now.

A specific collector issue affected traffic log collection and config retrieval. It was not a total crash, but a process issue. This is the first occurrence in two years, and we are working on pinpointing the problem. Overall, I rate the stability at nine out of ten.

FireMon Security Manager uniquely supports Strata Cloud Manager for Prisma Palo Alto devices and facilitates Azure firewall configurations and Illumio integrations. It integrates with various solutions such as ServiceNow, SIEM, or SOAR, showcasing superior integration and scalability among vendors.

As a user for two years, I recently opened my first case with FireMon's technical support, which was handled promptly. Unlike other vendors with long response times, FireMon's support quickly engaged, offering screen sharing sessions to resolve issues efficiently. I have found their support exemplary.

I have experience working with several network security policy management solutions, including Tufin, AlgoSec, and previously Skybox. Skybox offered a high degree of dashboard customisation, but the company subsequently went into liquidation in February 2025. Tufin and AlgoSec both have their own strengths, and my experience with FireMon has led me to favour it for my current requirements, particularly around centralised policy visibility, compliance, policy management, and integration capabilities.

Initial deployment is extremely easy. If a connector issue arises, FireMon sends a device pack to address specific issues, avoiding full software upgrades. This expedites resolutions, such as with Check Point or Fortinet firewalls. Furthermore, bulk uploading capabilities streamline implementation without management stations.

As a partner, I have experience working with multiple network security policy management vendors, each with different pricing, licensing, and deployment models. I have found FireMon's commercial offering to be competitive, with the overall value depending on the organisation's requirements, scale, functionality, and support needs. I would recommend evaluating the complete solution and its capabilities rather than looking at licensing cost in isolation.

I regularly design, deploy, and support FireMon Security Manager instances, receiving daily reports. These reports are valuable for customers, particularly for C-level presentations, offering insights into compliance, security, and change activities. I give FireMon Security Manager a rating of ten out of ten. I have worked with many solutions, including Skybox, Tufin, AlgoSec, Check Point, and Palo Alto, but FireMon Security Manager truly stands out for its willingness to assist quickly.

We use FireMon Security Manager for managing the rule base on our various multi-vendor firewalls.

We did not use the policy manager, but with FireMon Security Manager, we checked for logging disabled. We used overly permissive features and ran SQL queries to find the overly permissive rules and conducted remediation based on those findings. We ran FQDN queries to find out which rules were using FQDN instead of URL filtering. Without FireMon Security Manager, the vendor did not have any such features, so FireMon Security Manager was the only tool we could use to get our retrievals. We use CLI scripts and GUI, both of which are doing something that no other tool can do as far as we have seen.

What I like the most about FireMon Security Manager is that it can go across a whole rule base and get the items we need, like rules that have a specific characteristic, such as logging disabled, and we can find which rules are there that match that criteria for any vendor. It can do this very quickly. Whereas, if we have to log into all the vendor websites and try to get access to all the infrastructure for every single vendor separately, it is a very time-consuming task. We can export results in CSV, and there are some good features that we can use right away.

What I dislike about FireMon Security Manager is that I use the Insights add-on option, which does add a visual dashboard. I would prefer more of a visual dashboard that I can customize. Right now, we have the visual dashboard in Security Manager, but it is not customizable, and the same applies to Insights. The AI feature is very useful in Insights, but the visual dashboard which can be customized is not there to track our progress if we are trying to mitigate any security blind spots.

I mention more customizable visual dashboards because every organization has different priorities. Sometimes our management asks us to prioritize and look for different items, and suddenly they change the direction. If you have a tool that does not customize a dashboard, then you cannot make graphs or visually represent over the past three months or six months how we have progressed. Have we gotten worse or better?

I think the pricing for FireMon Security Manager is fair. However, it could be better if you could have more customization options, such as medium and large firewalls. You could have different categories; small firewalls exist, but medium is no longer in the licensing. That would help save money.

FireMon Security Manager requires maintenance on my end. We have to pull retrievals, and the retrievals fail many times, and sometimes they succeed. Sometimes we have to investigate, troubleshoot, and do packet captures. There is a lot of work that management does not understand, and it is very difficult to convince them that we are actually working. They do not realize that we are actually working on many tasks just to keep things running and pulling reports. We need fresh retrievals, and sometimes things break. We have to remove devices and add devices. It is very difficult to portray to management that we are actually working, and it takes a lot of effort to manage the database server and keep things running smoothly and update licenses. A lot of background effort is involved, though it does not appear that way to management. It is very difficult to convey the efforts involved at performance evaluation time.

I have just used Panorama with FireMon Security Manager. However, my colleagues have used other tools, and they said there are advantages and disadvantages in every tool. FireMon Security Manager is a very good tool to do what we want to do, but it can be improved, as can every other tool.

I have been using FireMon Security Manager in my career overall for about four years.

I think stability is very good. FireMon Security Manager is pretty stable. Sometimes we had issues, but we resolved those issues and restarted the server. That part is good.

I think scalability with FireMon Security Manager is pretty easy.

Our TAM helped us a lot and was very useful to have. He customized many features that were not customizable. He wrote custom scripts and did a great job customizing everything and keeping our management happy. We had very customized requests, and since we could not customize anything, our TAM helped us maneuver around the rigid dashboard display limitations. He wrote custom Python scripts and did a lot of effort behind the scenes. I am not even aware of how much effort he took to do all that work.

I have just used Panorama with FireMon Security Manager. My colleagues have used other tools, and they said there are advantages and disadvantages in every tool. FireMon Security Manager is a very good tool to do what we want to do, but it can be improved, as can every other tool.

I was not there when they did the initial deployment of FireMon Security Manager, but I was involved in an upgrade, and the upgrade went smoothly.

I was not there when they did the initial deployment of FireMon Security Manager, but I was involved in an upgrade, and the upgrade went smoothly. Our TAM helped us a lot and was very useful to have.

I have just used Panorama with FireMon Security Manager. My colleagues have used other tools, and they said there are advantages and disadvantages in every tool. FireMon Security Manager is a very good tool to do what we want to do, but it can be improved, as can every other tool.

Overall, I would say FireMon Security Manager is hard to beat, except the AI features have been recently introduced in Insights. I would rate FireMon Security Manager 9 out of 10. There are hardly any tools that can do better, from what I have known. Perhaps there are some other tools, but I have not had experience with any of them. FireMon Security Manager is one of the best that I have seen so far. However, everyone has their own opinion, and management has their own expectations. They expect a miracle, so I cannot speak for management. We have told them that this tool does a lot of good work and it is very difficult to beat. The reporting features are very stable and reliable. It may not present the appearance of the latest or a shiny tool, as some tools are flashy. This is not the flashy tool, but it does a lot of basic reporting work and allows you to do all the queries. I think FireMon Security Manager is a well-rounded tool.

I have used the reporting capabilities of FireMon Security Manager to communicate risk reduction, compliance status, and the overall security posture to my higher-ups. We use it on a regular basis.

I have been using FireMon Security Manager for approximately one to two years, but we are not utilizing it extensively, so we are not running all our tickets through it.

The intended use case is to have every firewall opening ticket processed through FireMon Security Manager. To accomplish this, we need to integrate it with ITSM, a ServiceNow tool, which is currently not implemented on our side. We have been waiting for this integration for a very long time and are awaiting support from FireMon Security Manager team to work with us and integrate it into our ITSM system. Currently, the way we would use it would be to manually enter all the data into FireMon Security Manager and then run it over, but this does not save us any time, so we are not currently doing that.

We have the topology built and are using FireMon Security Manager from time to time, but not for every use case. We sometimes use it for topology checks and rule verification, so we are using the secondary functions rather than the main function. The ideal scenario would be to have users enter information into ServiceNow that would be automatically populated to FireMon Security Manager, and then FireMon Security Manager would push the changes.

We are currently in the middle of changing our infrastructure. Previously, when we purchased FireMon Security Manager, we were using Cisco ASAs. Now we are migrating to FTD and next-generation firewalls from Cisco, and those devices are not yet integrated. Our engineer is working with the system, and we are seeking help from FireMon Security Manager in order to assist us with this transition.

FireMon Security Manager itself is very similar to Tufin, which I have previously used. The tool itself works well for its intended purpose and I do not think it needs improvement. FireMon Security Manager fulfills our requirements, although we are still working on integrating it with ServiceNow.

AlgoSec is another tool we considered, as Tufin is a popular comparison. However, FireMon Security Manager is cheaper and fits well with our needs. The logic of these tools is mostly the same, with differences coming down to specific extra features available with each one.

What I do not like is the time until support is provided, especially regarding the integration with ServiceNow. We asked about it a year ago, but we still do not have a date for when this work will commence. Better support is essential, as we are waiting an unreasonable amount of time.

Waiting one year to get help is unacceptable, particularly regarding the new setup and integration with ServiceNow. We need to pay extra for it, and it is frustrating to wait for an engineer from FireMon Security Manager to assist us.

We have never seen any instability, such as lagging, crashing, or downtime with FireMon Security Manager.

We did not experience scalability issues, but since we were never using or putting in more devices, I cannot adequately answer this question regarding scalability as I have not had a lot of experience with it in this regard.

The initial deployment was managed by an assigned person who was amazing and really helpful. However, getting in touch with an engineer now is a terrible experience, which I would score at five. The speed of support is slow; for instance, a question raised a week ago has not received a reply yet, although it may not have been an official ticket.

From their side, there was one person, and if he had some issues, he was reaching out to the developers to solve the problems we faced. This implies a level of dependency on their internal team which can cause delays.

Better support is needed as waiting a year for assistance is way too long. We have known we wanted this setup from the start, but it has not integrated as expected.

In my previous work, I used Tufin. Tufin and FireMon Security Manager were very similar in functionality, only with minor differences. While FireMon Security Manager is cheaper, I never directly dealt with the support of Tufin, as my role was limited to using the tool as a network engineer.

We were also considering AlgoSec, which has similar logic to FireMon Security Manager and Tufin. However, slight differences exist in potential extra features or what they support, but nothing was significant enough to impact our decision.

The initial deployment was acceptable because the assigned person was helpful. It was not the easiest process as we needed to import devices and adjust settings, but his assistance made the process manageable.

I remember the timeframe for fully implementing it from start to finish was three to six months.

There was one person from their team. When issues arise, he connects with developers to find solutions, rather than an entire team being dedicated to it.

Unfortunately, we have not realized return on investment because we did not fully implement FireMon Security Manager and are not fully using it, so it does not bring us the benefit so far. To realize benefits, we need more support for full integration.

The initial attraction to FireMon Security Manager was primarily due to its pricing. While it is cheaper than Tufin, I do not recall if AlgoSec was cheaper. Pricing strategies depend on individual agreements.

AlgoSec and Tufin were also evaluated by us along with their pricing.

We considered Tufin and AlgoSec alongside FireMon Security Manager. Each has a similar baseline logic, but FireMon Security Manager was more cost-effective. Tufin is known as a popular comparison, and AlgoSec was part of the evaluation during proof of concepts.

If comparing them, depending on the use case and device compatibility, all three could potentially meet our needs.

The same reasoning applies to questions about measurable improvements, integration effects, and specifics about FireMon Security Manager identifying or preventing risks because of insufficient utilization.

I do not want to blame FireMon Security Manager for this because our failure to use it is partially their fault. They are not giving us the engineer support we need.

We view this as a new setup issue requiring financial support. This is not directly a support problem for an existing issue, but more about expected availability to facilitate implementation.

My overall review rating for FireMon Security Manager is seven.

FireMon Security Manager is mainly used for analyzing firewall configuration and rules. It is primarily for firewall analysis and configuration analysis of the firewall.

We work with FireMon Security Manager as a service provider. Our customers have it, but we use FireMon Security Manager on behalf of them.

We use FireMon Security Manager mainly for the on-prem environment, and we primarily use it for our on-prem firewalls.

We are not using FireMon Security Manager for SASE integration right now. We are just using it for firewall management.

We do use FireMon Security Manager for real-time compliance management primarily for that purpose, so we do have a positive impression of that because it can map the compliance against various standards available such as ISO 27001 or PCI DSS. That helps us in automating that compliance check on these firewalls.

We are not using FireMon Security Manager in an automatic fashion for compliance checks. We run it manually and run the tool periodically. We have not kept it for continuous scanning of the environment. However, whenever we run the tool, we do get a warning or an alert saying that this is a firewall rule that will potentially violate, for example, PCI DSS compliance.

FireMon Security Manager does affect our cleanup of firewall rules in a large enterprise environment because it helps us in identifying which rules are remaining unused since the previous FireMon Security Manager check. That helps us in prioritizing and saying that these are so many unused rules and why don't we clean them up.

One advantage of FireMon Security Manager is that it analyzes the firewall configuration against known standards. If there is a known firewall standard or configuration standard in NIST or any of the audit or compliance requirements such as PCI or ISO 27001, it can analyze the firewall configuration against those standards and give us a report of where we are missing so that we can comply with those standards as well.

FireMon Security Manager can also connect to multiple types of firewalls with different vendor firewalls. We use a multi-vendor firewall environment, and the advantage of FireMon Security Manager is that it can connect to different vendors that we use in the environment.

FireMon Security Manager helps to prioritize risks and prioritize fixes. When it points out errors or misconfigurations, it gives us a rating saying that this is a high critical misconfiguration which needs to be fixed first, versus a low-rating misconfiguration which might have a less or reduced impact and which we can fix later on.

We do observe a decrease in errors and misconfigurations that increase risk in the environment with FireMon Security Manager. It points out errors, so we mainly use it for that purpose. We don't use it to manage the firewall, but we use it for analyzing the firewall configuration that will reduce the risk and any kind of errors that are there in the firewall. We could say there is about a twenty percent decrease in errors and misconfigurations due to FireMon Security Manager. The reason is we were using some other tool earlier, so we had done quite a bit of improvements on the firewall. Once we introduced FireMon Security Manager, it found new areas where we could improve and there is about a twenty percent improvement.

FireMon Security Manager does affect our compliance reporting processes. It helps us automate reporting and prioritize all those compliances. This way, it is quite useful.

I think there are some disadvantages and areas for improvement. What is limited or has no capability in FireMon Security Manager is integration with all the cloud-based firewall native vendors. For example, in Azure or in AWS, if you have a Palo Alto firewall, FireMon Security Manager will work fine. However, if you use Azure's own native firewall or AWS's own native firewall capabilities, FireMon Security Manager does not have the ability to analyze the policy of such native cloud-based firewalls. That is a disadvantage that we are seeing because we are also using more and more native services rather than going for third-party services in the cloud environment.

The second disadvantage we see with FireMon Security Manager is some vendors which are now becoming popular, such as Cato Networks. We have one customer who uses Cato quite extensively, but we are not able to use FireMon Security Manager for them to do the policy analysis because it doesn't work with Cato.

I started working with FireMon Security Manager approximately a year ago.

Stability-wise, FireMon Security Manager is not a problem. It is approximately a ninety-nine percent stable product.

We haven't used FireMon Security Manager in a highly scalable manner, so when we factored it in, we haven't really tested its scalability. I am not aware of the scalability of the product or whether it can support thousands of firewalls. We do use it for hundreds of firewalls today, but not in the thousands. I am not sure on scalability.

Customer service from FireMon Security Manager is good in terms of responding to any issues or any errors that we face. In terms of using the product as is and its customer support, I would say it is good enough. I would rate support at about an eight on the scale from zero to ten, with ten being the best.

We were using some other tool earlier. We had done quite a bit of improvements on the firewall. Once we introduced FireMon Security Manager, it found new areas where we could improve and there was about a twenty percent improvement.

Deploying FireMon Security Manager is quite easy to deploy.

We bought FireMon Security Manager directly from a reseller. We did not buy it through AWS Marketplace.

FireMon Security Manager is worth buying and worth its money in terms of return on investment. As long as you have the firewalls in your environment which are supported by FireMon Security Manager, it is worth the investment.

It does save time and money both because otherwise you would have to review the firewall configuration by hand or manually, whereas FireMon Security Manager automates it. In terms of money, you will have to reduce the number of people who are involved in the firewall review. FireMon Security Manager is also a lower-cost product than AlgoSec.

I am comparing FireMon Security Manager to a product such as AlgoSec, something which operates in the same market. AlgoSec is one big example where we did an evaluation.

Cost-wise, it is very competitive if I compare it with its peers. The pros are that in terms of the tool capability, it is as good as any of the best of the market tools and cost-wise, it is lower. FireMon Security Manager is affordable compared to its competitors.

Time-wise, I am not sure how to measure it, but from a procurement perspective, because this is procured by the customer directly, we don't have visibility in terms of what was used and what was the cost of AlgoSec versus FireMon Security Manager. However, from a product perspective, our recommendation was that both were equal, and FireMon Security Manager slightly better. Cost-wise when FireMon Security Manager was better, I think the client went with FireMon Security Manager itself.

When I mentioned time saving, I meant that it saves time for when accurately creating, approving, and deploying firewall policies.

What organizations should remember is primarily to look at the compatibility of FireMon Security Manager with the firewalls that they have in their respective environments. In their environment, if they have only, for example, Palo Alto, Cisco, or FortiGate firewalls, and all of them are supported by FireMon Security Manager, however, if they use a very unusual firewall or a cloud-native firewall, they should check whether FireMon Security Manager supports those firewalls and then take a call accordingly. My overall rating for this product is eight out of ten.