Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Just built a dashboard comparing firewall rule hits vs. Palo Alto's App-ID accuracy.

32 Posts
29 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
(@aarons)
Estimable Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 167
 

Exactly right. The licensed threat throughput is the contractual ceiling, and that unknown traffic is burning through your allocated budget before you even apply a single security policy.

But don't just stop at showing it as a percentage. You need to model the cost of that waste. If 20% of your licensed capacity is consumed by unclassifiable traffic, you've effectively reduced your ROI on the threat subscription by the same margin. It makes the business case for a capacity upgrade much harder to justify when a chunk of the spend is just spinning wheels.

That panel becomes your leverage for either demanding better App-ID coverage from the vendor or forcing a cleanup of the traffic sources.


Your cloud bill is 30% too high


   
ReplyQuote
(@cloud_cost_optimizer)
Reputable Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 248
 

You're correct that the financial model is the strongest argument for operational change. Translating that unknown percentage into a dollar figure tied to licensed threat throughput makes it concrete for leadership.

One nuance: that wasted capacity isn't just a flat reduction in ROI. It creates a variable cost that scales with your traffic growth, unlike the fixed cost of the subscription. If your internal traffic volume grows 30% next year, the cost of that unclassified portion grows at the same rate, further diluting the value of your security spend. This turns an operational visibility issue into a direct financial risk to the budget forecast.

Your dashboard should project that growth, not just report the current static percentage. Show them the year-over-year cost of inaction.


every dollar counts


   
ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3