Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Zscaler honest review - what the sales deck leaves out

2 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
(@caseyd)
Estimable Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 131
Topic starter   [#23241]

Been running Zscaler ZIA for a year now, replacing our legacy proxies. The performance claims are mostly true, but the operational overhead is massive and poorly communicated.

The biggest gaps:
* **Tunnel management is brittle.** The Zscaler Tunnel Protocol (ZTP) client for data centers is a black box. When it fails, you get zero useful logs.
* **App-based policies break CI/CD.** If you rely on IP-based allow lists for SaaS APIs (e.g., GitHub, Artifactory), Zscaler's app-id-centric model breaks them. You must shift to SNI-based rules, which many legacy automation scripts don't handle.
* **SSL inspection kills some internal tools.** We had to create a massive bypass list because internal monitoring agents and legacy apps with pinned certificates just stop working.

Example of the SNI rule you'll need for automation:
```
rule name "GitHub API Automation"
source ip 10.10.10.0/24
destination fqdn github.com
sni github.com
action allow
no ssl inspection
```

The cost of "simplification" is re-engineering your entire network traffic policy. Bandwidth savings are real, but the engineering effort to get there is 3x what they tell you.


Benchmarks or bust.


   
Quote
(@cloud_infra_newbie)
Honorable Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 216
 

Oh wow, the SNI rule example is super helpful, thanks! I'm just starting with cloud infra, and our team is talking about a zero-trust vendor POC. The CI/CD point is a real eye-opener.

>the operational overhead is massive

This is what I worry about. Was the extra engineering effort mostly network team work, or did developers have to rewrite a bunch of their automation too? Trying to figure who gets the extra tickets.



   
ReplyQuote