01
Ad hoc manual review
Fast for small changes, but highly dependent on individual experience and easy to make inconsistent.
Audit Models
Choose the right audit model
Use this page to compare manual upload, collector-based retrieval, and continuous monitoring, and to see how teams structure review over time.
Common approaches
How firewall audit models differ
Most teams use some combination of these approaches over time.
Capability
ConsistencyHow repeatable the outcome is
SpeedHow fast review can happen
DepthHow much meaningful insight you tend to get
Ad hoc manual review
Low
High
Low
Checklist-based review
Medium
Medium
Medium
Compliance-oriented review
Medium
Medium
Medium
Risk-focused security review
Medium
Medium
High
Repeatable structured analysis
High
High
High
Common models
Five ways teams usually approach FortiGate firewall review
02
Checklist-based review
More consistent than ad hoc review, but still often slow and difficult to scale across many configurations.
03
Compliance-oriented review
Strong for audit readiness and control alignment, but can miss broader operational improvement opportunities if used alone.
04
Risk-focused security review
Useful for hardening and operational risk reduction, but still depends on consistent technical criteria.
05
Repeatable structured analysis
This is where ConfigSentry adds strong value: more repeatable review, clearer findings, and easier comparison over time.
Why the model matters
The right model helps teams answer the questions that actually matter
Can we repeat this review later and get comparable results? Can we show stakeholders the major risks? Can we tell whether posture is improving?
A stronger audit model reduces dependence on memory, personal habits, and inconsistent review quality.
Choose a path
Start with the right review path, then grow into the right review habit
Many teams begin with standalone audits and move into continuous monitoring once they want more regular visibility and stronger repeatability.