I liked the original name, but since I've already sold my boss on the project, I'm just glad to see this go live.
Dennis Cox
· 1 year ago
Looks nice - I wish I could see it better, perhaps you could make the images clickable (and with that full screen versions) so that I can see what's on the actual screenshots?
Max Caceres
· 1 year ago
@Dennis: will do, we are putting together a set of bigger screenshots, we are just excited to announce :-)
Ted J
· 1 year ago
Congrats guys!!!
Tom Watson
· 1 year ago
Congratulations! I did like the original name a bit better, but I'm just happy to see the design go live!
AMZN
· 1 year ago
Looks like the Amazon logo upside down.
David Mortman
· 1 year ago
Congrats! It's awesome to see this finally available...
Anonymous Coward
· 1 year ago
Is this Solsoft all over again? One UI to control many different firewalls? Were they sold for like, $5m?
Please explain - I am really curious?
Hernan
· 1 year ago
Congratulations!, specially to Max but just because I know him better! :).
Thomas Ptacek
· 1 year ago
This is much, much simpler than Solsoft. We're not even slightly interested in giving you a graphical map of your firewall rules and routing tables. I'm not even totally sold on the idea that you need "rule optimization". The companies we've worked with? They have 10's of thousands of rules. They have a week-long review process for changing one of them. We're not yet crazy enough to suggest they run their rules through a compiler.
There are just a couple key problems we're starting out trying to solve:
1. Too many companies have no "track changes" functionality for their rules. When they do, it's a different regime for each firewall vendor they work with. Most of those regimes suck.
2. If you have 500 firewalls, it's not reasonable to eat 41 hours at 5 minutes per device to make simple changes to all your rules.
3. No system we've seen has reasonable support for documenting rules.
Our answer:
1. A web console that backends all content to Subversion, and still supports command-line svn editing with your favorite editor.
2. A job management system that will push rules to firewalls.
3. A content system built on a solid Wiki engine, which can be integrated into firewall rules, and which also backends in to Subversion.
We didn't take $15MM in VC money. We don't care about our "position" in the "firewall ecology". We don't care about how "defensible" our ideas are. We just want to solve the core operational problems that make firewall management suck, and *then* move on to designing the Rube Goldberg features that nobody uses. I know that sounds backwards. Welcome to the upside-down topsy-turvey world of Matasano!
Nate
· 1 year ago
Congrats to all on shipping your first product! Looks like it's very useful.
Anton Chuvakin
· 1 year ago
Wow, this is cool ...
>We just want to solve the core operational problems
Is this, like, the only way to go, which actually passes the common sense test? :-) Is this why this way is so unpopular?
Along the same line, there is got to be some GRC angle with it, isn't there? :-)
Thomas Ptacek
· 1 year ago
All I know is, as a result of not taking VC and therefore not having been ousted from the board of directors, I can speak in my role as a company director when I say: if you call us a GRC solution, I will punch you in the nose.
PaulM
· 1 year ago
Congratulations on launching Playbook. I noticed on the site that it doesn't list (at least not that I can find) the supported firewall platforms.
Max Caceres
· 1 year ago
@PaulM: We will be updating the site with more information very soon, stay tuned!
JR
· 1 year ago
Congratulations on shipping!
This blog has some of the best (i.e. clear, insightful, grammatically correct, and concise) writing on security issues; please don't let your product focus slow down the blogging. Best wishes for continued success and keep up the great work.
All Comments
Please explain - I am really curious?
There are just a couple key problems we're starting out trying to solve:
1. Too many companies have no "track changes" functionality for their rules. When they do, it's a different regime for each firewall vendor they work with. Most of those regimes suck.
2. If you have 500 firewalls, it's not reasonable to eat 41 hours at 5 minutes per device to make simple changes to all your rules.
3. No system we've seen has reasonable support for documenting rules.
Our answer:
1. A web console that backends all content to Subversion, and still supports command-line svn editing with your favorite editor.
2. A job management system that will push rules to firewalls.
3. A content system built on a solid Wiki engine, which can be integrated into firewall rules, and which also backends in to Subversion.
We didn't take $15MM in VC money. We don't care about our "position" in the "firewall ecology". We don't care about how "defensible" our ideas are. We just want to solve the core operational problems that make firewall management suck, and *then* move on to designing the Rube Goldberg features that nobody uses. I know that sounds backwards. Welcome to the upside-down topsy-turvey world of Matasano!
>We just want to solve the core operational problems
Is this, like, the only way to go, which actually passes the common sense test? :-) Is this why this way is so unpopular?
Along the same line, there is got to be some GRC angle with it, isn't there? :-)
This blog has some of the best (i.e. clear, insightful, grammatically correct, and concise) writing on security issues; please don't let your product focus slow down the blogging. Best wishes for continued success and keep up the great work.