NordLayer vs. Zscaler Private Access

NordLayer has become an invaluable resource for our security posture and day-to-day activity. The primary use case is preventing staff members from accessing sensitive resources on an unencrypted connection, applying NordLayer and conditional access policies in congruency. The ability to create teams and assigned them to specific dedicated servers is also helpful and allows for further security segmentation

Incentivized

Zscaler Private Access works really well in environments setup for FQDNs and where you know what users should/shouldn't be accessing on what ports. You can use Zscaler Private Access to figure out these kinds of features but that doesn't always mean you'll be correct. It also provides a consistent experience for users as they can access their materials anywhere. It also makes the user the last line of defense. If a user's account is compromised then the attacker has access to everything they already did. It doesn't work great in OT environments or Server based environments. Flows have to be initiated from the client and not the server for stuff to behave properly.

Incentivized

• Easy to use
• Simple user interface desgin
• Support many VPN protocol
• Fast and reliable connection

Incentivized

• Allows strong cyber security corporate policies
• Very reliable VPN application that operates at 100% efficiency
• Very easy to be configured with friendly user interface

Incentivized

• The browser plugin needs some work, or some research about what browser/OS restrictions may limit its functionality. Ours does not work at all even after contacting support so we do not use it
• Toast/Windows notifications scheduled or deployed through admin center would be amazing. The ability to remind a user who has been disconnected for X hours would be a great feature

Incentivized

• Granularity and Complexity of Policy Enforcement
• Application Segmentation and Listener Configuration - The way applications are defined and listened for is fundamental to ZPA, but can be a source of frustration, especially when dealing with legacy or non-HTTP protocols
• The ZCC is the user's primary gateway, but its control over local system network behavior can sometimes clash with enterprise requirements.

Incentivized

The environment feels more secure, and we are seeing that users are adapting to it fast. The fact that we have tools to assist the users with their day-to-day access helps, as we can hand it off to the helpdesk without any escalations to the Network team. It is a work in progress for our agency, but we are seeing the benefits from the solution.

Incentivized

easy configuration and use case

Well ZPA is a good solution, however everyone has their own advantage and disadvantages, with ZPA you can deploy ZTNA model, which will help you better control on access, however Palo Alto, Fortinet they are also market leading firewall solution, and you can not deny if they are not providing the same features.

Incentivized

• Improved sercurity
• Incresed productivity
• Performance impact

Incentivized

• Positive: We have now charged users internally for the service
• Negative: Dealing with users who also have the Zscaler Client Connector for their company, can cause confusions
• Negative: Enabling the Zscaler Internet Access entitlement has been a major headache for us because Zscaler Private Access users can't autheniticate through ZIA on a non corporate device.

Incentivized