SecurityNot yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher2 min readPublished
Ørsted centralized its scattered network data before it automated firewall requests
Ørsted picked Nautobot to centralize network data held in spreadsheets and API-poor systems before it automated firewall rule requests. Network World reports the company put data control and consistent compliance ahead of speed.
The Watch · Security desk
What happened
- Before the project, engineers moved regularly between systems, copying information and updating spreadsheets as part of their processes.
- Soares said Nautobot gave Ørsted the granular permission controls and validation it needed, and that it was built as an automation platform with a real roadmap.
- The old firewall path ran from a ServiceNow request to a security engineer's check of IPs, domain names and directory groups, then change board approval for some types, then another team.
- A problem at any stage sent the request back to the customer and review started again; Soares said the loop could run across days or weeks.
- Ørsted is a regulated energy company that undergoes audits, so it had to be able to show that network changes followed required controls.
Why it matters
- constraint Soares said a centralized platform with granular control over who can access and change network data had to exist before automation could be built. A team with data in spreadsheets cannot skip that step.
- decision Ørsted's first target was firewall rule management. In our view, that suits any team with a multi-team review path, because the hand checks are already defined and can be written down as rules.
- contradiction Network World's headline says the automation speeds firewall changes, while its opening says speed was not the primary goal. The source supports the compliance claim directly and the speed claim only through the old days-to-weeks loop.
The enforcement point is data entry. Ørsted wrote custom validators that control how new data enters Nautobot, and built applications that model network zones and their policies [9]. Those applications link an IP address to the zone and policies that govern it [9]. Nautobot is the open-source network automation platform developed by Network to Code, and Ørsted chose it after evaluating commercial and open-source alternatives [7].
The firewall checks were the obvious candidate for a machine. Soares said, "A lot of the validations we were doing was something that a machine could do much better than us." [12] The teams on that path had no spare capacity, and there was a limit to how much the existing process could be streamlined [13]. The published excerpt ends before it describes the new workflow, so it does not say which checks the validators now run or how long a request takes today.
Soares tied the compliance case to who does the work. He said: "The only way you can 100% ensure that it's always compliant, regardless of who does the task, who's involved, is if the process is automated and the automation forces you to be compliant." [1]
That was hard to claim before the data work. Network information sat on platforms with no APIs, on platforms whose APIs did not suit automation, and in Excel spreadsheets [5]. In our view, a record kept that way is a weak basis for showing an auditor that every change followed the same controls.
This is one company's account, given by its own security lead to Network World. Nothing in it is an incident or a vulnerability. João Soares joined Ørsted nearly five years ago to work full time on network automation, and little was in place then [15].
What to watch
- Any published before-and-after turnaround time for Ørsted firewall requests, which would settle the speed claim in the headline.
- The section of the Network World article on how network zones and their policies feed rule approval, where the supplied text ends mid-sentence.
- Whether the change advisory board still reviews certain request types once the validators run.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence45
- Adoption40
- Hype gap−5
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence55
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Soares said: "The only way you can 100% ensure that it's always compliant, regardless of who does the task, who's involved, is if the process is automated and the automation forces you to be compliant."
ReportedSupportedSource: João Soares, lead IT security consultant at Ørsted2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source - [2]
Network World's article opens by saying that when Ørsted set out to automate its network operations, speed was not the primary goal.
- [3]
Soares said that before Ørsted could build network automation, it needed a centralized platform that provided access to network data while supporting granular controls over who could access and change it.
- [4]
Network World's headline for the article reads: Ørsted builds compliance into automation, speeds firewall changes.
- [5]
Ørsted network information was distributed across multiple platforms, including systems without APIs, systems with APIs that were not well-suited for automation, and Excel spreadsheets.
- [6]
Engineers had to move regularly between systems, copying information and updating spreadsheets as part of their processes.
- [7]
Ørsted evaluated commercial and open-source alternatives before selecting Nautobot, the open-source network automation platform developed by Network to Code.
- [8]
Soares said Nautobot provided the granular permission controls and validation capabilities Ørsted needed, and that it was an automation platform with a real automation roadmap.
- [9]
Ørsted developed custom validators to control how new data enters Nautobot and built Nautobot applications to model network zones and their associated policies, connecting information such as IP addresses with the zones and policies governing those resources.
- [10]
In the old firewall process, an internal customer submitted a request through ServiceNow, a network security engineer checked IP addresses, fully qualified domain names and directory groups, the request went to the change advisory board depending on type, and another team then implemented the rule.
- [11]
If a problem was found at any stage, the request went back to the customer for revisions and review began again; Soares said this loop could happen across days, weeks.
- [12]
Soares said: "A lot of the validations we were doing was something that a machine could do much better than us."
- [13]
The teams involved in the firewall process were already at capacity, and streamlining the existing process could only go so far.
- [14]
Ørsted is an energy company that must comply with regulations and undergo audits, so it needed processes that could demonstrate network changes followed required controls.
- [15]
João Soares, lead IT security consultant at Ørsted in Copenhagen, joined the company nearly five years ago to focus full time on network automation; when he joined, there was little network automation in place.
- [16]
Firewall rule management was one process Ørsted initially targeted for automation.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- networkworld.comØrsted builds compliance into automation, speeds firewall changes (7 minute read)
1 article · October 13, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.