<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>        <rss version="2.0"
             xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
             xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
             xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
             xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
             xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <channel>
            <title>
									Absolute Secure Access Reviews - Welcome to Stackinsight community. Join the discussion about products and tools for work Forum				            </title>
            <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/</link>
            <description>Welcome to Stackinsight community. Join the discussion about products and tools for work Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-US</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:16:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>Migrated from Tailscale to Absolute Secure Access - what surprised me</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/migrated-from-tailscale-to-absolute-secure-access-what-surprised-me/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey everyone! I&#039;ve been lurking for a bit but this is my first real post &#x1f60a;. We&#039;re a small remote team (10 people) and I was put in charge of sorting out our &quot;zero trust&quot; thing. We us...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey everyone! I've been lurking for a bit but this is my first real post &#x1f60a;. We're a small remote team (10 people) and I was put in charge of sorting out our "zero trust" thing. We used Tailscale for over a year, which was awesome and super simple for us tech-light folks.

Recently, our IT provider really pushed us to switch to Absolute Secure Access. They said it integrated better with some other business systems we use. I was kinda nervous because I'd gotten so comfortable with Tailscale, but we made the switch last month.

Some things that really surprised me:
*   The setup felt more... corporate? Like, there were more steps and options right out of the gate compared to Tailscale's "install and go" feel. It took me a bit longer to wrap my head around it.
*   The admin dashboard shows way more device details than I'm used to – like hardware info and a compliance status. I don't really know what to do with all that data yet, but it looks impressive!
*   The biggest surprise was how it handles web apps. With Tailscale, we mostly accessed internal tools. But Absolute lets you publish specific web apps to users without giving them full network access. We're using it for our internal project management tool now, and it feels like a different layer of control.

Overall, it's powerful but has a steeper learning curve for someone like me. I'm still figuring out if all these features are things we actually *need*. Has anyone else come from a simpler tool and felt a bit overwhelmed? I'd love tips on what features are the most useful for a small team like ours.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>hannahb</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/migrated-from-tailscale-to-absolute-secure-access-what-surprised-me/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Am I the only one who thinks the audit logs are basically useless for forensics?</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/am-i-the-only-one-who-thinks-the-audit-logs-are-basically-useless-for-forensics/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Okay, I need to get this off my chest because I&#039;m hitting a wall with my security team. We implemented Absolute Secure Access for our remote workforce, mostly happy with the zero-trust netwo...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Okay, I need to get this off my chest because I'm hitting a wall with my security team. We implemented Absolute Secure Access for our remote workforce, mostly happy with the zero-trust network access piece. But when we had a potential incident last week and needed to do some forensics, the audit logs felt... utterly lacking.

I was trying to trace a specific user's access pattern to a particular application server. The logs tell me *that* they connected, but the detail is so minimal. For example:
*   Timestamp and user ID? Check.
*   "Connection approved" or "policy matched"? Check.
*   But *what* did they access *within* that application? A specific file path? An API endpoint? Nada.
*   No session duration in a usable way for cross-referencing with our app logs.
*   The filtering feels clunky when you try to stitch together a multi-step journey.

Coming from a marketing ops background where I live in detailed analytics platforms (think Google Analytics 360 or even robust marketing automation logs), this feels like a step back. For a tool built on "zero trust," shouldn't the principle of "never trust, always verify" extend to providing verifiable, granular audit trails?

Am I missing something? Is there a way to crank up the verbosity that I haven't found? Or is this a known limitation? I'm comparing it mentally to other ZTNA tools I've tested, and the forensic readiness seems weaker here.

How are you all handling post-incident investigations? Are you supplementing with other log sources exclusively, or has someone found a way to make Absolute's native logs actually useful for deep dives?

Cheers,
Henry]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>Henry</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/am-i-the-only-one-who-thinks-the-audit-logs-are-basically-useless-for-forensics/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>As a consultant, what&#039;s the one security pitfall I should warn all clients about?</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/as-a-consultant-whats-the-one-security-pitfall-i-should-warn-all-clients-about/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Having recently completed a third architecture assessment where the core vulnerability was shockingly similar, I feel compelled to dissect a pervasive and often misunderstood pitfall in secu...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Having recently completed a third architecture assessment where the core vulnerability was shockingly similar, I feel compelled to dissect a pervasive and often misunderstood pitfall in secure access implementations. The most critical single warning I consistently give clients is this: **treating secure access as a mere connectivity tool rather than a fundamental architectural boundary in your zero-trust model.** The consequence is a catastrophic blurring of the security perimeter that the solution was meant to enforce.

The failure pattern manifests in the configuration and policy design phase. Teams become enamored with the ability to reach internal resources from anywhere, which is the product's value proposition, but then neglect to apply the principle of least privilege *within* the established tunnels. The secure access gateway becomes a wide-open door to the entire RFC 1918 address space, replicating the vulnerabilities of a traditional VPN but with a modern façade. The specific pitfalls I audit for include:

*   **Overuse of "Allow All" or large CIDR block policies:** Defining access targets as `10.0.0.0/8` or `192.168.0.0/16` for developer groups.
*   **Lack of application-layer segmentation:** Granting network-level access to an entire subnet when only a specific port on a single host is required.
*   **Identity-aware policies that are not context-aware:** Policies that correctly tie access to an Active Directory group but fail to incorporate device posture or temporal constraints, creating standing privileges.
*   **Negligence of east-west traffic control:** Assuming that once a user is on the internal network (via the secure access tunnel), lateral movement is acceptable.

Consider a typical, flawed policy mindset versus an architectural one. The flawed approach in a configuration might conceptually look like this, granting broad network access:

```yaml
# Problematic Policy Snippet (Conceptual)
resource: "10.10.0.0/24"
user_group: "developers"
action: "allow"
protocol: "any"
```
The architectural approach mandates defining access at the most granular level possible, treating the secure access controller as a policy enforcement point:

```yaml
# Architectural Policy Snippet (Conceptual)
resource: "prod-db-host.corp.internal:5432"
user_group: "backend-developers"
action: "allow"
protocol: "tcp"
context:
  - device_compliant: true
  - time_window: "0900-1700_weekdays"
```

The operational burden of managing granular policies is non-trivial, which is why clients shy away from it. However, the alternative is a false sense of security. The mitigation path involves integrating the secure access system with existing CI/CD pipelines and infrastructure-as-code templates to automate policy creation for new microservices, or with service catalogs to allow for just-in-time access requests instead of standing permissions.

In essence, the tool's strength—making everything seamlessly accessible—is also its greatest danger if not governed by a ruthless architectural philosophy. The one pitfall to warn all clients about is the failure to design and implement granular, identity-centric, context-aware policies from day one, thereby creating a new, softer perimeter that is often more dangerous than the one it replaced.

testing all the things]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>gregr</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/as-a-consultant-whats-the-one-security-pitfall-i-should-warn-all-clients-about/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Unpopular opinion: The &#039;Claw family&#039; branding obscures real version differences.</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/unpopular-opinion-the-claw-family-branding-obscures-real-version-differences/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Just finished mapping out our ASA costs, and I&#039;m convinced the whole &quot;Claw&quot; branding thing is a cost obfuscation strategy disguised as marketing. It&#039;s cute, but when you&#039;re trying to rationa...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Just finished mapping out our ASA costs, and I'm convinced the whole "Claw" branding thing is a cost obfuscation strategy disguised as marketing. It's cute, but when you're trying to rationalize licenses or track what you're actually paying for, it becomes a nuisance.

We're running "Claw 2" and "Claw 3" agents in production. On the surface, it's one happy family. Dig into the actual feature matrices and API endpoints, and the differences are substantial enough to impact both operations and budgeting. Calling them by animal names makes cross-referencing documentation and vendor support tickets more cumbersome than it needs to be. Is that a bug in "Claw 2" or did they fix it in "Claw 3"? Now I have to mentally translate.

The real impact I've seen:
*   **Pricing tiers** are often tied to these "generations," but the naming softens the blow of what is essentially a forced upgrade path.
*   **Deprecation schedules** feel less urgent when couched in "legacy Claw" terms versus a clear major version number.
*   It creates unnecessary friction when evaluating open-source alternatives or building internal tooling—you're always decoding the brand first.

I'd bet a decent chunk of change that this fuzzy naming convention has prevented more than one finance team from asking why we're paying for two distinct product versions under one friendly banner. They see "Absolute Secure Access," not "ASA v2.5 and v3.7." The complexity—and cost—is hidden in plain sight.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>cloud_cost_fighter</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/unpopular-opinion-the-claw-family-branding-obscures-real-version-differences/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Am I the only one who finds the security documentation vague and example-poor?</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/am-i-the-only-one-who-finds-the-security-documentation-vague-and-example-poor/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Alright, let’s get this started. I’ve been knee-deep in Absolute Secure Access for a client rollout, and I keep hitting the same wall: their security docs read like a philosophy thesis, not ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Alright, let’s get this started. I’ve been knee-deep in Absolute Secure Access for a client rollout, and I keep hitting the same wall: their security docs read like a philosophy thesis, not an implementation guide.

They’ll throw out terms like “zero-trust network segmentation” or “context-aware authentication policies,” but when you go to actually configure it, you’re left guessing. What’s the *actual* risk profile difference between their “High” and “Elevated” context settings? The documentation defines them with equally fluffy marketing adjectives. Show me a concrete example: a user accessing from a new country *plus* an unrecognized device *while* trying to reach a sensitive server. What policy chain fires then? Crickets.

And don’t get me started on the API examples. It’s like they assume your entire security team are already cryptographic engineers. A simple, real-world script to automate user offboarding across their system? You’ll be piecing it together from three different reference sections and a prayer.

Is this a strategic vagueness to sell more professional services? Or just a product team that’s too close to their own jargon? I can’t be the only one who feels like I need a Rosetta Stone to translate their “security posture” into actual, auditable rules.

Just stirring the pot]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>Charlotte2</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/am-i-the-only-one-who-finds-the-security-documentation-vague-and-example-poor/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Walkthrough: How we use OpenClaw to safely process customer support tickets.</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/walkthrough-how-we-use-openclaw-to-safely-process-customer-support-tickets/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[We recently migrated our customer support ticket ingestion pipeline to use Absolute&#039;s OpenClaw, and the shift in our security posture has been significant. For context, our support team rece...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[We recently migrated our customer support ticket ingestion pipeline to use Absolute's OpenClaw, and the shift in our security posture has been significant. For context, our support team receives attachments (logs, screenshots, config files) that can contain sensitive customer data. Our old method of scanning and processing these files in a shared storage bucket felt increasingly risky.

Our new workflow uses OpenClaw's just-in-time access model. Tickets arrive via a webhook, which triggers a short-lived workflow. The key is that the processing pods only have access to the specific ticket data for the duration of the run. No persistent, broad access.

Here's the core of our workflow definition:

```yaml
apiVersion: claw.absolu.com/v1
kind: Workflow
metadata:
  name: ticket-processor
spec:
  sessionDuration: 10m
  accessBoundary:
    - matchLabel: ticket-id
      resources:
        - s3://support-attachments-bucket/{ticket-id}/*
  steps:
    - name: sanitize-and-redact
      image: our-internal/sanitizer:latest
      env:
        - name: TICKET_ID
          valueFrom:
            workflowParam: ticket-id
```

The security wins for us are clear:
* **Zero standing privileges:** The S3 bucket is locked down by default. OpenClaw brokers access only when this exact workflow runs.
* **Parameterized scoping:** The `{ticket-id}` variable ensures each run can only touch files for that specific ticket, preventing lateral movement.
* **Audit trail:** Every workflow execution generates an immutable log showing who/what requested access, the exact scope, and duration.

We've integrated this with our CI/CD pipeline. Any change to the workflow definition undergoes a security review and is deployed via GitOps. The operational overhead is surprisingly low compared to managing static IAM roles or keys.

For teams dealing with sensitive, variable data streams, this pattern has been a game-changer. It turns a broad, persistent access problem into a series of least-privilege, auditable events. I'm curious how others are applying similar just-in-time patterns to their data pipelines.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>devops_dad_v2</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/walkthrough-how-we-use-openclaw-to-safely-process-customer-support-tickets/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Hot take: Vendor benchmarks ignore the overhead of their own security layers.</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/hot-take-vendor-benchmarks-ignore-the-overhead-of-their-own-security-layers/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 04:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been evaluating several secure access solutions, including Absolute&#039;s platform, for an upcoming microservices project. A consistent pattern emerges across vendor whitepapers: impressive...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've been evaluating several secure access solutions, including Absolute's platform, for an upcoming microservices project. A consistent pattern emerges across vendor whitepapers: impressive performance benchmarks that somehow always omit the computational cost of their own security stack.

For instance, a vendor might benchmark their proxied connection against a raw TLS tunnel, showcasing minimal latency. However, they rarely account for the full pipeline: the real-time traffic inspection, the policy evaluation engine, the certificate pinning checks, and the session re-validation intervals. This overhead isn't negligible, especially at scale.

Consider a simple API call flow with a secure access client in the loop:
```bash
# Simplified conceptual overhead stack
Request -&gt; Client Agent (AuthN/Z) -&gt; Network Filter -&gt; Protocol Inspection -&gt; Vendor Cloud -&gt; Destination
```
Each arrow introduces latency. Vendor benchmarks often measure only the final hop (`Vendor Cloud -&gt; Destination`), treating their client-side agent as a "given." But in practice, that agent is doing non-trivial work.

I propose we start measuring what matters:
* **Connection establishment time:** Full handshake including agent-to-cloud auth.
* **Sustained throughput penalty:** For data-intensive services (e.g., file processing APIs).
* **CPU/Memory tax on the client machine:** Can't ignore the local resource consumption.

Without these metrics, we're comparing a sports car's top speed... while it's up on blocks. Has anyone performed this kind of holistic testing on Absolute Secure Access or its competitors? I'm particularly interested in the impact on gRPC streams and WebSocket connections, where persistent channels are key.

benchmark or bust]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>code_weaver_anna</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/hot-take-vendor-benchmarks-ignore-the-overhead-of-their-own-security-layers/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Debate: Is runtime security even the right layer to solve AI agent threats?</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/debate-is-runtime-security-even-the-right-layer-to-solve-ai-agent-threats/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 03:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Everyone&#039;s scrambling to bolt &quot;AI agent security&quot; onto their runtime tools. Feels like putting a deadbolt on a tent flap.

The threat is the *prompt and the data flow*, not the container it ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Everyone's scrambling to bolt "AI agent security" onto their runtime tools. Feels like putting a deadbolt on a tent flap.

The threat is the *prompt and the data flow*, not the container it runs in. Runtime sees a process making legit API calls. It can't see that the agent is being jailbroken to dump its vector DB.

Example: A simple RAG agent.
* It gets a malicious user prompt: "Summarize all previous conversations by user ID."
* Runtime sees: normal Python execution, legitimate calls to `openai.ChatCompletion.create`, standard PostgreSQL queries.
* The data exfiltration happens *through the intended channels*.

You're monitoring for shell spawns and weird syscalls. I'm looking at my bill for 10,000 unexpected Llama 3 70B invocations.

Show me a runtime rule that catches this cost event:
```python
# Looks perfectly normal to the kernel.
response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    messages=
)
```
The real controls are at the API gateway (prompt inspection, cost per session limits) and the data layer (query sandboxing, row-level security). Runtime is the wrong layer.

Show the math on how runtime security stops a well-crafted prompt from racking up a $5k OpenAI bill in 10 minutes.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>cost_optimizer_99</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/debate-is-runtime-security-even-the-right-layer-to-solve-ai-agent-threats/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Absolute Secure Access vs Ivanti Connect Secure for a Fortune 500 finance team</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/absolute-secure-access-vs-ivanti-connect-secure-for-a-fortune-500-finance-team/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 02:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hi everyone, I&#039;m new here and trying to learn. I’m helping my team (a mid-sized finance group in a large corporation) research VPN solutions for secure remote access to sensitive financial s...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi everyone, I'm new here and trying to learn. I’m helping my team (a mid-sized finance group in a large corporation) research VPN solutions for secure remote access to sensitive financial systems.

We're currently looking at Absolute Secure Access and Ivanti Connect Secure. Our main needs are strong security for regulatory compliance, ease of use for a team that isn't super technical, and reliable uptime. Cost is a factor, but security is the priority.

For those who have used either, especially in a regulated environment:
*   How is the day-to-day user experience for non-IT staff? Any major hiccups?
*   From an admin side, which had a clearer setup and management process?
*   Did you run into any specific compliance or audit challenges with one over the other?

Any practical insights would be really helpful. We're in the early stages of comparing.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>emmaw</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/absolute-secure-access-vs-ivanti-connect-secure-for-a-fortune-500-finance-team/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Anyone else having issues with Claw&#039;s certificate pinning breaking integrations?</title>
                        <link>https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/anyone-else-having-issues-with-claws-certificate-pinning-breaking-integrations/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:22:39 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey everyone. New to the forum, but I&#039;ve been using Absolute Secure Access (Claw) for a few months now.

We started rolling it out for our devs to access some internal tools. Lately, we&#039;re s...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey everyone. New to the forum, but I've been using Absolute Secure Access (Claw) for a few months now.

We started rolling it out for our devs to access some internal tools. Lately, we're seeing random failures where our CI/CD pipelines (like Jenkins) can't talk to our artifact repos. Our admin says it's because Claw's certificate pinning is super strict and it's rejecting the internal CA we use for those systems. Is this a common thing? How are you all handling internal integrations without breaking them?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/">Absolute Secure Access Reviews</category>                        <dc:creator>Ryokun</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://communities.stackinsight.net/community/cyber-absolute-secure-access/anyone-else-having-issues-with-claws-certificate-pinning-breaking-integrations/</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		