I worked with these organizations for implementing Secure Service Edge and SASE solutions, including Cloud Access Security Brokers, such as Netskope and Zscaler.

Zscaler and Netskope are the main solutions I work with for various use cases.

Based on my experience, I have worked at the enterprise level only, for large companies such as banks and financial institutions that are transitioning from traditional solutions to new secure service edge solutions.

Zscaler has three components. Specifically, Zscaler Internet Access for secure web access, Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) that is a replacement of traditional VPN solution for securely accessing internal private applications without giving access to the whole network. It works by giving access to the particular application the user wants to access, and it checks numerous factors before granting access to the particular application, including posture checks, authentication, and authorization. Zscaler Digital Experience is a monitoring tool that monitors all application performance, network performance, and more. It helps us troubleshoot issues in a very short time.

When discussing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) mainly, it is very helpful as a replacement for traditional VPN. In traditional VPN, we used to give access to the whole network, which increased attack vectors. Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) is more secure than these particular VPN solutions. We have implemented this solution for enhanced security. As a cybersecurity professional, I approach these answers from a security perspective.

Micro-segmentation, authentication, and authorization are key features in Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). We can implement role-based access and limit user access by creating different groups. For example, if the HR department needs access to only HR applications, we can create specific groups with appropriate access levels. This segregates access and makes it more secure. They also provide features such as browser isolation, which creates a separate browser when users are accessing content, thus creating an isolated environment to prevent attacks.

They provide integrations with various other security tools. The solution utilizes AI capabilities for various detections and responses. The solution has inbuilt AI for all detection capabilities.

Sometimes the team takes more time to provide responses on certain issues, which is why I do not rate it a perfect 10 out of 10.

Overall, with Zscaler, I have worked for around five years, and particularly with Zscaler Private Access (ZPA), I have three years of experience.

The deployment took approximately six months.

Sometimes connection errors occur when users are unable to connect to the particular cloud.

These connection errors started occurring post rollout, not just during the implementation.

For small and medium enterprises, it will be too expensive.

I have worked with the Zscaler technical team.

I would rate them around eight as they were pretty good.

Positive

The traditional solutions were still in use when we migrated to the current solutions. The migration process required extensive documentation and multiple testing phases.

Prices for Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) are higher than traditional solutions, but it provides enhanced security.

Product-wise, I would give Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) a seven. The overall rating for the solution is eight out of ten.

Neutral

The main use case is to access the local network or the customer network, the servers, and applications. This is the primary use case for Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) as we use it. Additionally, we use it to access cloud resources such as Microsoft Azure, as it's the easiest and most secure way to access these servers.

Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) is much more secure than VPN because users are only allowed to access specific applications rather than the whole network. The seamless operation ensures users don't experience any issues or the need to sign in separately. It's very comfortable to use, especially with remote work, as there is no difference whether users are in the office or working from home.

The rollout process could be much easier, and the configuration of identity providers like Azure is more complicated than with other zero trust network providers. This can be a pain point. Additionally, the software rollout process needs improvement as it requires knowledge of Linux command lines.

We have been working with ZPA for about four to five years.

Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) is highly stable, and I rate it ten out of ten.

I rate the scalability of ZPA as ten out of ten because it's a cloud service and can scale as needed.

The technical support for ZPA is excellent, rated ten out of ten. We have a perfect support system, and they are always helpful.

Positive

We started using ZPA because it was the leading solution on the market, although we reviewed other options.

The initial setup is rated as three out of ten because it involves Linux and command lines, making it relatively difficult.

One person is usually enough for deployment, depending on the time slot available. We conduct onboarding workshops to define use cases and server access needs.

The pricing of ZPA is rated five out of ten, which I consider to be in the middle. I believe it is justified for the capabilities provided.

We reviewed other solutions, but Zscaler offered much more features and configuration options tailored to customer needs.

ZPA is rated eight out of ten due to deployment complexity, but it's a very good solution overall.

Most of the users are using this because of the migrations from the traditional VPN to this next generation of GP services.

It provides national security and a great user experience. It's very beneficial.

It provides security and has a great service user experience. The scalability is amazing. Whenever we need to upgrade the users, it increases immediately.

There are some bugs in the solution, which they are clearly working on, and they are still not resolving them. So it's taking some time.

We have been using it for the last two years.

The stability is good. It's average, you can say. There are some bugs which need to be resolved.

The solution is highly scalable.

The customer service is really good. It's about nine out of ten, you could say.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy.

The cost has increased now. Before, it was less expensive. Now it's higher. I would rate it a seven out of ten. It is expensive.

Since it is an estimation solution, we have to use it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.