Arbor DDoS Reviews

The solution is used for protection and to review any potential attack.

The solution is flexible, easy to implement and has an efficient technical support team.

The implementation should be made easier. 

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

It is a stable solution. It could be more stable depending on the upgrade of the software. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution.For the cloud version the scalability is ten out of ten but for the on-premises, it depends on the sizing of the file. The solution is best for medium sized enterprises. All our clients are medium -sized enterprises.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is easy. It takes two days to be deployed. One or two engineers are required for the deployment depending on the use cases.

I see a Return on Investment.

The pricing of the solution is cheap.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use Arbor DDoS for network security defense.

The solution has blocked many attacks on our customer's systems that would have disrupted their operations.

Arbor DDoS is easy to use, provides effective blocking of DDoS attacks, and can be used for DNS, web, and main servers. Additionally, this solution is far easier to operate than others solutions, such as Fortinet DDoS.

I have been using Arbor DDoS for approximately four years.

The solution is very stable. In the time we have been using the solution we have not had any incidents.

We have not needed to scale the solution.

The regional support here in African could improve, such as marketing and account managers.

I have previously used Fortinet DDoS.

The solution is easy to deploy and takes approximately two days. It is easier to deploy than other solutions.

The price of this solution is a little high in the African market, it should be lower.

I rate Arbor DDoS an eight out of ten.

We receive work orders and implement them for the client. This we do in respects of MMSP solutions. 

We do not help to integrate Arbor in other companies.

An issue which needs to be addressed concerns information I received of attacks on the radar and Arbor, allegedly, not taking any action. I wish to compare this with Fortinet DDoS, with which I am more familiar. This solution places more of an emphasis on the behavior of the traffic and provides a response in respects of the volume. But, it also learns the traffic behavior of the customer as concerns its response to other attacks.

I would like to see a feature concerning the response or one which addresses the need for behavior learning of the customer's traffic. I am sure Arbor is working on it. 

We've been using Arbor DDoS for three years.

The stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution. 

As I mentioned, we only provide support in the role of technical operators, so the question about plans for increased usage should be directed towards the operator. He is in a position to say whether he has plans to sell more equipment to his customers. While the desire to desire to sell is not at issue, the willingness of people in this country to pay for the security is. 

We received from the customer, who is an operator, all of the technical knowledge needed to support NETSCOUT.

The initial setup was okay and did not take long. 

The licensing of a complete Arbor solution, including fire-walling and unified site management, can get expensive. This is a cost-benefit scenario in which the risk of losing everything must be weighed against the increased expense of the solution. This decision lies with the end customer and it depends on his protection policy. Apparently, taking protective measures is not prevalent in our culture, as people have a tendency to think that they will not be the target of an attack, even though this may be the ultimate result. 

I believe we have 10 or 15 users who are working with the solution. 

I rate Arbor DDoS as a ten out of ten. 

Our primary use case is developing threshold values for all groups. We use it to analyze packets to build a use-case for when a server group hits the limit of incoming traffic. In such a case we suspect traffic.

We use it to build use-case scenarios, based on the server input and a client's requirements. Some clients have a number of users accessing a given server which affects the bandwidth. In each case, we need to tell DDoS what is considered legitimate traffic.

It prevents all unwanted or malicious traffic, using the Threat Intelligence feeds.

There are a number of valuable features in this product, like Cloud Signaling and Threat Intelligence feeds.

There are two modes in the product: The first is a learning mode and the other is a production mode. First, we learn the traffic using the learning mode. We use it to fine-tune what is suspicious data and what is legitimate traffic.

Sometimes it blocks legitimate traffic. If a legitimate user is trying to access the server continuously, the product suspects that this is a DoS traffic file. That is a case where it needs to improve. It needs machine-learning. Self-learning would be an improvement.

The stability of Arbor DDoS is good. It's not that complex as a product and stability is not an issue.

The scalability is good. Configuration-wise, an administrator could create issues. But the product itself is good.

I have implemented it multiple times in industries like oil and gas, banking, and insurance.

The response from Arbor's technical support is good. They respond within two days.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's very simple. I have deployed the product for multiple clients. Implementation takes less than three to four hours, but the fine-tuning takes some time, based on the organization's needs. That can take more than a month.

Our implementation strategy is based on how many servers and groups there are and what kind of traffic is coming to/from the internet. These are the factors that affect how we deploy it. Deployment requires two to three consultants who are security architects. For maintenance, one administrator is fine.

Licensing is based on features, I believe.

Implementation is very easy but making the product work optimally is more difficult.

It's the best product. I would rate it at eight out of ten. There are some minor issues with blocking legitimate traffic and that's why it's not a ten.

I work at the service provider level. I did a deployment at a multinational telecommunications company. They have network separation, and each network has its own SP which is a controller, the "mind" of the solution, and multiple TMS's, which are the scrubbing centers for the illegal traffic. They are forwarding suspected denial-of-service traffic to the scrubbing centers, based on the SP intelligence. It will scrub the data and forward it to the normal traffic after mitigating the denial-of-service attack.

I work as a security consultant and integrator. We deploy Arbor for our customers. Arbor is a great network service solution. Most of the bigger enterprises or service providers use Arbor. I don't think there's another option.

The DDoS mitigation. There is no other feature.

It's just one dashboard with mitigation. You decide which mitigation you want and at what threshold to do this or that. Its operation is pretty simple. It's easy. Once you deploy it, you're optimizing your network and using the solution to its fullest.

For troubleshooting problems, it's not so intuitive. It's not straightforward. This is the core of their kernel, so they need to improve it a little bit. I don't have a specific example, but I don't feel comfortable troubleshooting Arbor issues. You don't have full control of the system. I also work on F5 in which you have access to the kernel, bare-bones Linux, so you can do whatever you want. Maybe this is a security hazard. Someone may miss something with F5, but for me, as troubleshooter, I have full control of everything. On Arbor, you don't have the same type of control.

But otherwise, from a user perspective, it's pretty straightforward.

It's pretty stable. Every now and then you'll hit a bug, but it's pretty stable.

Scalability is pretty good because you have the SP, which is a controller, and you can add TMS's based on your needs.

There's a problem when using Arbor, but it's mostly not related to Arbor itself, it's connected to scaling. What happens is, you will design a deployment and, after some time, you find that the deployment is not enough for the throughput of your network. Then you have CPU spikes, memory spikes, and some other issues.

Tech support is very good. On a scale of one to ten, they are a seven to eight. They're very responsive. Compared to most of the vendors, they're pretty good. The quality of the people handling the tickets is high.

I used Juniper and F5, but F5 is not an on-premise solution. They have multiple protections but it's not a full-blown solution. We still offer F5.

When I joined this company I found that they work with Arbor. They told me there's something called Arbor and I had to do a deployment and start working with it.

The complexity of the initial setup depends. If you have a simple network, the deployment will be easy, but if you have something more complex and you are trying to inject Arbor, it won't be easy. Most likely, you'll do it as Layer 2, and you have VRFs and VLANs. After the design is complete, the configuration will be straightforward, but the design part is not easy. That's not about Arbor itself, it's about how big networks work.

The implementation strategy also depends. Every service provider and big enterprise has its own type of networks and its own type of logical flow. So there's no standard strategy.

The last implementation I did took about two months. But again, it's not about the deployment itself, it's about the meetings, the design part, meeting with other teams. After two months it was up and running. Before that, the first one I did, took three months, but we had two SPs and eight TMS's in different data centers, so it was quite a big implementation.

When it's a service provider, multiple teams handle multiple things, so you have to have one person from every team to sit in a meeting; everyone has his own concept or his own ideas. After a couple of meetings, after a couple of suggestions, and after checking if what was discussed is possible, if it is the better option, it can go well.

In terms of staff for deployment, it's mostly a one-person job. For day-to-day administration, it takes three to four people. They would need security backgrounds, SOC or security device managers.

I don't have visibility into customers' ROI but the potential is there for ROI because denial of service is the number-one attack that can destroy your reputation and destroy your business. If you're safe from that type of attack, it's really good for your business and your investment.

To be honest, I don't care about numbers. I'm a technical guy. But I know it's expensive compared to its competitors. After you have the on-premise solution, for your solution to be effective you have to subscribe to an "upper level," so there's another cost. There is also a subscription to cloud services, which is another cost.

Try to design it properly for injecting it into a network. If not, it could be that when you deploy it you will cause a "black hole" in your network and everything will go down. That has happened. In the case where it happened, it had something to do with routing. Arbor was injecting traffic to the TMS's but the TMS's were not able to forward the traffic to its original source.

I rate Arbor DDoS at eight out of ten. For me, that's a pretty high rating because nothing is a nine. It's still a new solution and they're developing it. Every couple of months there's a new release with bug-fixes or some new way to do stuff. They're investing in the solution. Symantec Blue Coat is good, for example, but for quite some time there has been no development. Even with the recent version, there is nothing that different in Blue Coat. For a dynamic environment, you have to have a vendor that you can trust.

• As an ISP, it is important to know from where the traffic comes so as to neutralize any attacks.

• The Arbor Networks SP device provided great visualization of the network traffic.

• Arbor Networks TMS is for cleaning the DDoS traffic, which is used sparsely.

The Arbor Networks SP device allowed us to optimize the network traffic. For example, it helped us to find the best IP network route to reach certain countries with low latency.

My opinion is that these Arbor devices should be scalable, in terms of the hardware.

Network bandwidth is rapidly increasing. Therefore, it is not practical to predict the network traffic as what it will be in five years time and also, to accordingly plan the required hardware specifications.

I have been using this solution since 2009.

We have been using the Arbor Peakflow SP CP-5000 and Arbor Peakflow TMS 2700.

Both the devices were very stable at the operation.

Unfortunately, these devices are not scalable and we have to upgrade to the next model in order to increase the threat mitigation capabilities.

We’ve received technical support mainly from Thailand. The guy who supported us was very competent with the products.

We were not using any other solution before.

The initial IP configuration has to be done in a command line, but the rest you can do via the web interface.

As a comparatively medium-scale ISP, we struggled with the license restrictions. By default, the Arbor SP device has only five licenses, which means only five routers can be integrated.

At that time (2008-09), when we checked the other options, there was not even a single product vendor that had the ability to do both network traffic analysis and DDoS traffic cleansing.

There were other proposals such as Radware and Cisco Guard for DDOS protection.

It is vital to identify the number of routers that are going to be integrated and the scrubbing capacity required for the expected lifetime of the product, as it is not scalable once you have purchased it.

For others who expect to implement Arbor, the key prerequisite is to identify the network devices that are going to integrate, since it will dictate the licensing. Since it is not scalable, so users should have to get this right before purchasing the product.

Arbor DDoS is used for network protection if you have a DDoS attack, it keeps the session or information moving.

Arbor DDoS is a combination of a physical appliance and the cloud, and it's combined in their subscription.

Arbor DDoS could improve out-of-the-box reporting, it could be better.

I have used Arbor DDoS within the last 12 months.

Arbor DDoS is highly stable.

Arbor DDoS is able to increase your bandwidth. You can scale less than 50 percent, but if you are scaling above 100 percent it will not be flexible. You have to get a bigger appliance, which will be at a discount rate. It is scalability in the technical and commercial sense.

The technical support of Arbor DDoS is good.

The initial setup of Arbor DDoS is straightforward, and it took approximately five days to implement.

The price of Arbor DDoS depends on many parameters. It depends on the physical capacity of the environment, and it is not a straight-line price. It's fairly competitive in the market on the price.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Arbor DDoS a nine out of ten.

The main focus was DDoS protection.

Some months ago, in Mexico, we had presidential elections. At that time it was very important to deny DDoS attacks, especially on the platform for counting votes in the election. This solution was good for our customers.

• AIF
• Cloud Signalling - In my previous environment, we worked with Arbor as a carrier but in my current company some of our customers have the solution on-premise and we have to synchronize the solution with the Arbor solution that our customers have in their enterprises. The ability to work with the Arbor solution on the carrier side and on-premise provides solutions for both types of customers.

The look and feel of the management console is a little old, excessively simple. If you compare it with other solutions, the look and feel of the console is like you're using technology from five or six years ago. It doesn't show all the technology that is actually behind it. It looks like an older solution, even though it is not.

The first impression needs to be more mature. It needs to be something that you would be proud to show someone. If you have a visitor to your SOC and you show him your installation, you need something more impressive. The look and feel of other brands is really nice, while Arbor is really simple. It's a good solution but not as spectacular as others. It's a matter of marketing, not performance.

The product is very stable. 

The scalability is really amazing. That was part of the equation for one particular customer. When they understood how the bandwidth can be shared between different branches of their backbone, that they could really grow by correctly re-routing traffic, they were really happy with the solution.

My interaction with tech support was really nice. I used to be part of HPE some time ago and I understand how those kinds of companies work. You have to have all the requirements before you make an appointment with the engineers. When we followed up with all the requirements that Arbor needed, the process was very straightforward.

In terms of submitting a ticket, they are responsive and knowledgeable. They are very experienced people.

My former company didn't have a previous solution. The company was new in Mexico and there were many considerations regarding government involvement in the industry, so security considerations were not there at that time.

Arbor is the official solution for my former company, worldwide. Also, Arbor was sold as OEM as part of Cisco, and Cisco has a very strong position in that company. Both of those facts helped push the Arbor solution there.

The setup is very straightforward, once the final architecture is decided. 

However, the decision regarding the final architecture was not very simple because the carrier environment is very complex. In addition, at the time, the carrier I was working for bought another small carrier and was doing the integration between both their installations and backbones. That was very complex. But once all those details were decided, the placement of the Arbor solution was very straightforward.

The setup work and testing of the Arbor solution took about three to four weeks, not including all the pre-planning and architecture discussions.

I played a part, but Arbor engineers do the whole installation process. I helped as much as I could but Arbor wants the implementation done by Arbor techs. I helped with some minor activities.

For the deployment, there was one senior engineer and one junior engineer. On our side, there were a number of people, me and a couple of other engineers. And when we tested the mitigation between different branches, there were three Arbor engineers with us.

Because the solutions from competitors are very different, it's not easy to compare. However, the licensing from Arbor is clear and understandable and the pricing is reasonable when looking at the market, in general.

Don't worry that it is complex because, out-of-the-box, it protects you from the basics. Just open it and connect, that's all you have to do. But if you are making an investment of this type because you have to be protected against all scenarios, you have two options: close support from Arbor or a specialized engineer. If you have those resources, all the rest is very straightforward. It becomes a simple solution that can give you good results.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. I try to put myself in the shoes of our company's owner. If a solution is simple to operate and gives good results, it's good for me. The solution needs to do what it's supposed to do and be simple to manage.