Hey folks,
Looking into alternatives for Absolute Secure Access for a client's hybrid cloud environment. They need solid ZTNA, but the big names like Zscaler and Cisco are either overkill for their scale or don't fit their existing compliance workflow (think PCI DSS with specific logging requirements). They're also a bit AWS-heavy, so I'm keen on options that play nice with IAM and security groups.
I've been doing some digging and hands-on testing. Here are a few contenders that have come up, each with a different angle:
* **Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access:** Strong on the security front, obviously. Their integration with cloud-native controls is decent. However, I've seen some... interesting... default security group configurations come out of their automated deployment that needed tightening. Always check those egress rules!
* **Cloudflare Zero Trust:** This one's gaining a lot of traction. The appeal is the "start from the network layer" approach and their global edge. For a cloud-centric team, the way they handle DNS-based policies and integrate with IdPs like Okta is pretty slick. Pricing is transparent, which is a plus.
* **Twingate:** Very developer-friendly and simple to deploy. It creates a software-defined perimeter without needing a public-facing VPN gateway. From a cloud security perspective, I like how it can enforce access based on device posture. One pitfall to watch: make sure your resource-level tagging in AWS/Azure is on point, as that's often how access gets scoped.
A real configuration watch-out I've seen across some PoCs is over-permissive initial trust policies. For example, an early Twingate setup might have a resource policy that looks too broad:
```hcl
# Too permissive - allows any authenticated user from the engineering group
resource "twingate_resource" "prod_db" {
access {
group_ids = [twingate_group.engineering.id]
}
}
# Better to scope to specific needs or add additional conditions
```
Has anyone else evaluated these or other platforms (like Perimeter 81 or NetFoundry) in a production context? I'm particularly interested in:
* How they handle logging for compliance audits (CloudTrail integration depth, log granularity).
* Any surprises with egress traffic costs or architecture when connecting to VPCs.
* The actual day-to-day management overhead compared to the marketing claims.
Real-world pitfalls and architecture lessons are worth more than any datasheet.
security by default
> Cloudflare Zero Trust: This one's gaining a lot of traction.
I've been looking at this too. Can you say more about the DNS-based policies? Is that basically just steering traffic to their edge, or is there more to it? Trying to picture how that replaces a traditional VPN setup for internal apps.
Containers are magic, but I want to know how the magic works.
You're right about Prisma Access needing a hard look at the default configs, especially in AWS. Their Terraform modules for the cloud connectors can be aggressive with security group egress, and I've seen them create rules you wouldn't want for PCI. The integration feels bolted-on, not native.
For an AWS-heavy shop, I'd push you to look at AWS Verified Access and the Private CA integration. It's not a full third-party ZTNA suite, but if the goal is to protect web apps in AWS with your existing IAM and logging already feeding into your compliance workflow, it can be a cleaner fit. You avoid the data egress costs and config drift of an external proxy. The logging is native CloudTrail, which your auditors might already be signed off on.
The catch is it's obviously AWS-only for the backend, and you'll still need something for the user/client side, like a client connector or WAF rules. It's a build versus buy decision.
Been there, migrated that
You've hit on a key operational pain point with Prisma's default configurations in AWS. The Terraform modules often assume a permissive stance to guarantee connectivity, which directly conflicts with PCI's requirement for least-privilege network access. That mismatch creates immediate technical debt.
Your point about Cloudflare's DNS-based policies is crucial. It's not just traffic steering; it fundamentally changes the access model. The policy engine evaluates user identity and device posture before a DNS query is even resolved, so unauthorized requests never get an IP address to attempt a connection. This can simplify logging for compliance, as you're logging policy decisions rather than raw traffic flows.
For an AWS-heavy environment, I'd add that Twingate's resource-centric model can map very cleanly onto security groups and VPC concepts, which might ease the transition for your cloud team. However, its logging granularity for PCI might require a deeper look compared to a platform with a more established enterprise audit trail.
Agree on the logging simplification for PCI. Policy-based logs are easier to audit than traffic flows. Watch the lock-in though: you're now dependent on their policy engine's interpretation for your compliance evidence.
Twingate's mapping to security groups is solid, but you'll often need to feed their logs into your own SIEM for the full audit trail. Their native log retention might not meet PCI's 12-month requirement out of the box.
That's an excellent point about lock-in and evidence. It shifts the compliance burden from proving your own configs to validating their platform's integrity - which is a different type of audit. Have you seen many orgs get pushback from their QSA on accepting a vendor's policy logs as the definitive source of truth? I'm curious how that negotiation usually goes.
Keep it civil, keep it real.
Exactly. That's the compliance trade-off. The policy logs are cleaner, but you're now auditing the vendor's black box instead of your own firewall rules. I've seen QSAs get hung up on the mapping between the vendor's "allowed/denied" flag and the actual PCI requirement.
For PCI's 12-month retention, most SIEM integrations handle it fine, but you're adding another point of failure and complexity. If the log stream from Twingate to your SIEM breaks for a week, you've got a gap in your evidence. It's a solid solution, but it trades one type of operational overhead for another.
✌️