Vulcan Cyber (discontinued) vs. Zscaler Private Access

It's really challenging at times to contend with multiple vulnerabilities on a daily basis, and having a way to make sense of what actually needs to be prioritized and what can be shifted further down the task list is extremely helpful. Because the solution suggests what your next step should be in mitigating a specific vulnerability, it helps us save time and research by enabling us to immediately take action after being informed about an issue.

Incentivized

Zscaler Private Access works really well in environments setup for FQDNs and where you know what users should/shouldn't be accessing on what ports. You can use Zscaler Private Access to figure out these kinds of features but that doesn't always mean you'll be correct. It also provides a consistent experience for users as they can access their materials anywhere. It also makes the user the last line of defense. If a user's account is compromised then the attacker has access to everything they already did. It doesn't work great in OT environments or Server based environments. Flows have to be initiated from the client and not the server for stuff to behave properly.

Incentivized

• Identifies vulnerabilities and they are easily understood.
• Easy to identify remedies in an instant.
• Campaign feature is a true time saver
• Our CSM, Nino, is the best I have ever worked with!

Incentivized

• Allows strong cyber security corporate policies
• Very reliable VPN application that operates at 100% efficiency
• Very easy to be configured with friendly user interface

Incentivized

• Deduping of assets could be better.
• The weighting of vulnerabilities is hard to describe to non technical executives.
• The Business Groups and Tagging needs improvement. Or at least allow tags to be removed if not needed. Now they are static from the API feed.

Incentivized

• Granularity and Complexity of Policy Enforcement
• Application Segmentation and Listener Configuration - The way applications are defined and listened for is fundamental to ZPA, but can be a source of frustration, especially when dealing with legacy or non-HTTP protocols
• The ZCC is the user's primary gateway, but its control over local system network behavior can sometimes clash with enterprise requirements.

Incentivized

The environment feels more secure, and we are seeing that users are adapting to it fast. The fact that we have tools to assist the users with their day-to-day access helps, as we can hand it off to the helpdesk without any escalations to the Network team. It is a work in progress for our agency, but we are seeing the benefits from the solution.

Incentivized

I wasn't here at the time when the company compared different vulnerability management platforms so I'm not sure on the reasoning and difference between the 2. It could be that the team went through different choices and found Vulcan to be the best fit. It's hard for me to say why Vulcan was specifically chosen

Incentivized

Well ZPA is a good solution, however everyone has their own advantage and disadvantages, with ZPA you can deploy ZTNA model, which will help you better control on access, however Palo Alto, Fortinet they are also market leading firewall solution, and you can not deny if they are not providing the same features.

Incentivized

• Allows much better prioritizing of which assets are most vulnerable
• Allow a better understanding of what assets are actually under real threat vs. what is assumed to be vulnerable, but the real world fact is the system would be hard to reach internally, so it's not as vulnerable.

Incentivized

• Positive: We have now charged users internally for the service
• Negative: Dealing with users who also have the Zscaler Client Connector for their company, can cause confusions
• Negative: Enabling the Zscaler Internet Access entitlement has been a major headache for us because Zscaler Private Access users can't autheniticate through ZIA on a non corporate device.

Incentivized