FireMon vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

FireMon is best used in a large environment (for example, I have >100
firewalls in my environment). It's best used when trying to improve
security posture and showing changes in firewall security over time. It
might not be the best choice for smaller environments or those that aren't concerned about security management.

Incentivized

If there is any organization who is having more then 10-15 firewalls and from different vendors, Tufin Orchestration Suite can be best suited there as it can manage all the firewalls from one single pane of glass and push the policy, and get the Standard based compliance reports for the rules created on the firewalls.

Incentivized

• PCI Reporting - After identifying which firewalls and rulesets are in scope, producing a report artifact to satisfy PCI requirements on Firewall reviews is literally a two-click operation.
• Storing Rule Metadata - FireMon stores metadata (prefilled fields, standard fields, and custom fields) for each rule in each policy which is valuable for context during firewall reviews in particular
• API - FireMon exposes most if not all of its functionality via REST API

Incentivized

• If you set your zones correctly Tufin will create your network topology map.
• You can find which object or rule you want easily for all firewalls in the network.
• Tufin provides more features for Checkpoint.

Incentivized

• Some features could be added to the existing functionality which include NAT rules usage
• Rule expiration normalization from firewalls rather than entering them in rule documentation
• .csv exports of the files from the firewall pane only gives usage for 30 days by default and that should be increased

Incentivized

• Tufin SecureChange needs to be more agnostic, easy to integrate with Service NOW
• JSON payload identification for Tufin SecureChange while integrating it with SNOW
• customization should be made more easy, like custom dashboarding
• Tufin Orchestration Suite Professional services experience could be also improved overall - Taking more ownership
• API calls to 3rd party tools should be more flexible

Incentivized

Once all the customization has been completed, the business is starting to see the return on investment. The visibility it provides into the network gear that is owned by other IT groups is immeasurable and has allowed us to apply standards across the board. The only thing I have concern with is their support documentation.

Incentivized

It save me time and I'm able to have the review - review the rule independently with using my time.

Incentivized

FireMon has been relatively stable overall. However, there have been a handful of times where we had issues with the console. For example, we couldn't update which devices to include in a security assessment. The initial suggestion from support was to just reboot it. It seems like there weren't many other options available such as to restart services before going to the extreme of a complete reboot.

Incentivized

I'm not sure we have the largest implementation of FireMon out there but we do have a few 1000 devices being probed by FireMon. Overall, the system's performance has been rock solid. The console refreshes quickly and reports are generated within an expected timeframe.

Incentivized

FireMon technical support is awesome! They respond quickly to our requests and they are well trained and very knowledgeable about the tool. Some issues have to be referred to the development team, but technical support largely provides solutions for any issues that we may have.

Incentivized

Implementation is fairly simple. Most issues can be resolved by referencing manuals.

Incentivized

I has worked with AlgoSec and while they are very similar product, I find the FireMon is easier to understand and get rolling with. While both require some learning, FireMon is by far the easier one. Once you have an understanding of how things are arranged and labeled you can easily import firewalls and begin to work on them to improve them

Incentivized

1) Fairly okay overall but definitely needs improvement overall Vs the other products available in the market like Palo Alto XSOAR 2) Cost wise okay at the beginning but when client demands add-ons/ more features/customization tailored to their needs, Tufin Orchestration Suite recommends RFE / custom costs/development costs 3) USP feature is cool to use overall Vs FireMon 4) Tufin ProServ needs to buckle-up/Support compared to other competitors in the market

Incentivized

Firemon Is easily scalable and maintainable with any size team. Although it requires some tech debt, it is well worth the time to invest to ensure compliance is visible and reports are accurate. Although our environment is very large we do not fully utilize the scalability of the Firemon product.

Incentivized

• It helps us save us time in determining what change was made and by whom.
• Real time alerting is a great convenience in helping us know if something went wrong, we can immediately review the last report to determine what has changed.
• Allows us to determine what rules are not used and if said rules are still required.

Incentivized

• Tufin has helped increase firewall migration time letting us build new policies instead of migrating garbage in
• Tufin helps to identify who changed what when so if a change impacts access Tufin can help find what change was made from a single location
• Tufin has a great reporting feature - except for Palo Alto right now - that helps to review and audit policy, flagging overly permissive and shadow or partially shadow policies.

Incentivized