Prisma Access Configuration Auditor#

Audit and validate Prisma Access (SCM) configurations for security, compliance, and operational best practices.

How to Use#

Provide configuration to audit via $ARGUMENTS:

• A file path containing SCM configuration JSON
• A description of the scope to audit (e.g., "security policies", "all NAT rules")
• Paste configuration JSON directly

Audit Categories#

1. Security Policy Audit#

Check for:

• Shadow rules: rules that are never matched because a broader rule precedes them
• Overly permissive rules: any/any/any/allow patterns without justification
• Missing security profiles: allow rules without antivirus, anti-spyware, vulnerability protection, URL filtering, or wildfire analysis profiles
• Missing logging: rules without log-at-session-end enabled
• Disabled rules: identify and flag disabled rules that may be forgotten
• Unused rules: rules with zero hit counts (if hit count data is available)
• Port-based rules: rules using service ports instead of App-ID
• Rule naming: inconsistent or missing rule names/descriptions
• Implicit deny: verify a clean-up rule exists at the end of the policy

2. NAT Policy Audit#

Check for:

• NAT rules without corresponding security policy rules
• Overlapping NAT translations
• Missing bidirectional NAT where expected
• Source NAT exhaustion risks (insufficient IP pool)

3. Decryption Policy Audit#

Check for:

• Traffic bypassing SSL decryption without justification
• Missing decryption profiles on rules
• Expired or soon-to-expire certificates
• No-decrypt rules that are too broad
• Missing forward trust and forward untrust CA certificates

4. GlobalProtect Audit#

Check for:

• Weak authentication methods
• Missing HIP checks (disk encryption, host firewall, patch level)
• Overly permissive split tunnel configuration
• Missing client certificate requirements for high-security environments
• Inactive or unused portals/gateways

5. Object Hygiene#

Check for:

• Unused address objects and groups
• Overlapping address definitions
• FQDN objects that fail to resolve
• Empty address groups or service groups
• Duplicate objects with different names

6. Compliance Checks#

Validate against:

• PAN-OS Best Practice Assessment (BPA): alignment with Palo Alto Networks recommendations
• CIS Palo Alto Benchmark: Center for Internet Security controls
• Zero Trust principles: least-privilege access, micro-segmentation, identity-based policies

Output Format#

For each finding, report:

text

[SEVERITY] Category - Finding Title
  Description: What was found
  Location: Rule/object name and position
  Risk: Why this is a problem
  Recommendation: How to fix it
  Reference: Link to PAN-OS documentation or best practice guide

Severity levels:

• CRITICAL: Immediate security risk, must fix
• HIGH: Significant security or operational risk
• MEDIUM: Best practice violation, should fix
• LOW: Cosmetic or minor improvement
• INFO: Informational finding, no action required

Summary Report#

At the end, provide:

1. Score: Overall configuration health score (0-100)
2. Finding counts: by severity level
3. Top 5 priorities: the most impactful fixes to address first
4. Quick wins: low-effort changes with high security impact