# Which SDP platforms are most reliable for handling emergency access revocation across thousands of concurrent user sessions?

Emergency access revocation at scale is a specific test: can an administrator cut off thousands of active sessions with a single action, and does that action propagate immediately rather than on the next sync cycle? Reviewer feedback across SDP platforms is more informative here than vendor marketing, since this is exactly the kind of claim that only appears under real-world incident conditions.

OpenVPN CloudConnexa: Reviewers specifically describe the ability to disable suspicious access immediately from a single central place, which is precisely the revocation speed this question asks about.
Twingate: Reviewers highlight granular, per-resource access control as the reason a support team can be scoped down to exactly what they need, though one reviewer flagged the absence of a graceful way to drain an active connector before maintenance, worth checking against an emergency-revocation workflow specifically.
Check Point Infinity Platform: Centralized policy enforcement across gateways is the strength reviewers cite most, though the same reviewers note that policy changes across many gateways at once require careful coordination, which could matter under emergency time pressure.
Zscaler Internet Access: Centralized policy enforcement at genuine enterprise scale, with over 160 reviewers from organizations above 1,000 employees, though troubleshooting connectivity issues after a policy change is described as more involved than expected in a large environment.
Absolute Secure Access: Reviewers note that device threat detection can automatically trigger an instant access block, which is a related but distinct capability from an administrator manually revoking thousands of sessions on demand.

Has anyone actually tested a full-scale emergency revocation drill, not a single-user disable, on one of these platforms, and did access actually stop everywhere at once or did some sessions linger until they timed out naturally?

##### Post Metadata - Posted at: 8 days ago - Net upvotes: 1 ## Comments ### Comment 1 The bottleneck in an emergency revocation drill might not be the admin console at all, it's whatever session refresh or reauth interval the client already negotiated before the policy update was pushed. A platform that immediately updates its central policy can still leave an already-established connection technically valid until that session's own keepalive or token expiry hits, so the real worst-case revocation time is bounded by that interval, not by how fast the administrator can click a button. Worth asking each vendor directly what that session refresh interval actually is, since that number, not the console UI, is probably what determines whether a session lingers. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 8 days ago - Author title: Tech Consultant ## Related discussions - [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 6 - [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 0 - [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 4