AWS WAF Reviews

When customers onboard a web application and want a WAF to protect it, they ask us to configure AWS WAF for them.

AWS WAF is very easy to use and configure on AWS. It is easy to make rules and very fast to set it up on AWS.

AWS WAF provides only basic protection, and they should provide more features like other third-party competitors. The world is now moving towards managed services. It would be good if the solution provided managed WAF services. If AWS WAF could detect that some attack is about to happen and alert the user, we can write some rules and stop that from happening.

I have been using AWS WAF for five years.

We have never faced any stability issues with AWS WAF.

I rate AWS WAF ten out of ten for stability.

AWS WAF is more suited for small and medium businesses.

I rate AWS WAF a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is simple.

AWS WAF has reasonable pricing.

Third-party competitors like F5 and Imperva have more features than AWS WAF.

Overall, I rate AWS WAF a nine out of ten.

The solution protects my customers’ web applications hosted in AWS.

The ease of deployment of the product is valuable to me. AWS WAF might be one of the easiest WAFs that can be deployed. The only constraint is that our application must be running in AWS.

The default content policy available in the tool is not very strong compared to the competitors. Most of the WAFs will have a default set of policies and rules that we need to enable, which will satisfy our requirements. However, for AWS, we must put some time and effort into creating our content policy to get optimal protection.

I have been providing the solution for a year or more.

The product is stable. I have no complaints. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The product is scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is good. I have no complaints. The support team is fast, knowledgeable, and customer-friendly.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes merely half an hour or less to deploy the solution. The solution is deployed on the cloud.

Whether we need a consultant to help with the deployment depends on our knowledge of the cloud platform and our applications. It is a complex solution. We can do it ourselves if we know about WAFs, rule sets, and deployments. It is not a solution for a novice or someone unfamiliar with the security and application firewall. Such people might need the help of an administrator or consultant. We deployed the solution ourselves.

Depending on how our AWS billing is configured, we are billed on a monthly or yearly billing cycle. The product is moderately priced. It is not too cheap but not too high either. There are no additional costs associated with the product.

I would recommend the solution to others. If a web application is completely hosted in AWS, then AWS WAF is a good choice. We can easily adopt it. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We faced many potential threats, such as hackers flooding in the requests, so we started using AWS WAF to block those IPs and stop those attacks. If multiple IPs are trying to attack our product, we'll also use AWS WAF by selecting the endpoints the hackers were attacking and then blocking those endpoints. Our cybersecurity team primarily uses AWS WAF.

What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours. From the start, I know its purpose and its use case.

AWS WAF also has documentation. It's a user-friendly tool, and it's easy to know how to block the IPs and endpoints.

AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process. I want an AI feature in AWS WAF in the future.

I only saw how AWS WAF works for seven months when the cybersecurity team used it, so my knowledge of the tool is basic. I'm not an expert on AWS WAF.

AWS WAF is a stable product.

I have yet to contact the AWS WAF technical support.

As the company is an Amazon customer, the company looked into what other Amazon services could prevent the attack and came across AWS WAF when the attack happened. The tool was also easy to use and could prevent attacks and safeguard the company's product, so the company decided to use AWS WAF.

The initial setup for AWS WAF was simple. It was a basic setup process, though I have no idea about deployment time.

AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money.

AWS WAF has three users within the company.

If I were to advise you on using AWS WAF, I'd tell you first to understand how the attack is happening. For example, is it a single server attack or multiple servers or regions? It would be best to find out which target is being attacked. You need to know the basics before using AWS WAF. You also need to know the rules. You need to understand how to secure your endpoints. Users should have a basic understanding of AWS WAF and its purposes before using it. You need basic cybersecurity knowledge.

I'm new to cybersecurity, so AWS WAF is the first cybersecurity product I used and based on my experience and usage, it's a ten out of ten. AWS WAF is a user-friendly, on-point tool, and I could understand it easily.

My company is an Amazon customer.

We use the solution to secure our public web server and run our document management process. We have service-oriented web servers and interactive web servers.

Custom rules are valuable to us. We have country-specific rules that we apply. The solution meets all our requirements. We never had a problem with the tool. The interface is good. We never had downtime. The solution does its job.

The price could be improved.

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

The tool is highly stable.

The tool is highly scalable. Almost all AWS products are highly scalable. I am the only user in my organization. The solution is running regularly. We check the logs whenever we have some issues. We do not include it in our security management system. It's a very small application. We use it to manage some documents.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment took an hour. The setup and maintenance is easy. We do not face any issues with configuration.

We deployed the solution in-house.

The solution is reasonably priced.

We never had DDoS attacks. We do not check logs deeply. The service is a very small portion of our application server. It is not a business-critical service. We check logs only when we have any performance or connectivity issues. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our applications. We have deployed multiple applications on the AWS platform. We use the tool to provide additional security to our applications.

The product’s availability, ease of configuration, and documentation are valuable.

The product has fewer features. It didn’t fulfill all our requirements when we installed it. It is getting better now, though. The product must provide more features.

I have been using the solution for a few years.

I rate the product’s stability a nine out of ten.

The product is highly scalable and highly available. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have deployed three applications. We have two administrators for our infrastructure. The number of users varies according to our customers. We provide the user interface to our customers.

The technical support team is good. The support persons provide prompt responses. They are always available and provide solutions to our queries.

Positive

The setup is very easy. We have proper documentation, so we have no issues. We have deployed the tool for additional security. It is a cloud solution. We need two members from the cloud infrastructure team and eight from the application support team for the deployment and maintenance of the tool.

We deploy the tool ourselves.

The solution provides an additional layer of security.

The solution is affordable.

If a company needs an additional layer of security, it can use AWS WAF. I recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We partner with many banks in India, and many partners use our portals to access their credit card or debit card information. So we use AWS WAF to protect our web application servers, app servers, and API servers from any malicious attacks which arise from the public internet. We also use AWS WAF for virtual patching of our servers to prevent any malicious requests from reaching the gateway to our internal systems.

I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through. 

It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic.

Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications.

In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation.

I have been using AWS WAF for a couple of years.

We haven't faced any issues over the past couple of years, so I believe AWS WAF is a stable product.

Since we are AWS-native, it's very scalable. It can handle almost any infrastructure running within the AWS public cloud. We have around 20 portals, and about 20 products usually use AWS WAF. I'll say that about 15 people use AWS WAF to manage the traffic and filter out security issues. Those people are security analysts, SOC analysts, and layer 1 network analysts.

In our business use case, sometimes it has triggered a false positive where it blocks some of our legitimate traffic. So we contact support to ask if this is legitimate and if we have to implement a new rule or if we have to allow such traffic and not mark it as a false positive. We have contacted them only for such occasions, and their support was really good.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a four.

Positive

The initial setup was very simple. It's just a click of a button.

We already have web applications running on an AWS account, so it probably took about two minutes to implement this solution.

For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey

I would say that I think it's easy to use, easy to deploy, and has all the basic WAF features. It has no advanced features like bot mitigation or DDoS protection built-in. If it had bot mitigation or advanced security filter patching features, I would probably give it a higher rating, like a nine.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give AWS WAF a seven.

We primarily use the solution for load balancing. 

We have some microsites exposed through the AWS cloud. These are some sort of pilot and we are using WAF to learn how this new product fits with us, and are mostly in the testing phase with a limited impact application. We are obviously not migrating core applications or those which have a significant impact on availability or on integrity and confidentiality. Mostly we have it on microsites where we don't see a significant risk, and it is more of a learning exercise for us.

The most important aspect for us is that AWS WAF is easy to deploy. The ease of implementation, ease of management, and flexibility are great. We like the potential for pay as you grow as you have instant deployment, infrastructure as a code, or any other automation tools that can leverage these deployments. The most important thing for us is that it stays flexible and scalable. That is true not only with WAF but with all the cloud services where you can provision any product in minutes. 

With the cloud, you have these integrated tools that provide a single glass pane. 

You have automation, ease of export, or ease of seeing the logs and exporting to a SIEM; these aspects are also great. The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general.

Usually, if we're talking about standard WAF, this is easy to deploy and is good at protecting low to medium applications.

As of now, regarding WAF, I'm not sure what the minuses or pluses are. You have the native WAF, which you can deploy directly on the load balancer. However, you also have that store where you can actually deploy some other vendors' specifics. At this point, feature-wise, I don't see anything lacking, more or less. Obviously, if we want to migrate, which is not yet the case, there might be a significant impact.

For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends. If every company is building its own framework based on their experience or their past experience, this might be subjective, and it'll end up with each company having its own framework, which can be good. However, it'll be better to have a standardized baseline that every company could build on. 

We've been using the solution for more than a year at this point. 

You have multiple availability zones and regions. The availability or durability is not something that we need to concern ourselves with very much here. Regarding the availability, I don't think this is something that the average company could match. They have a lot of availability zones, redundancy, and all the other things like that.

It's scalable. Mostly, what I would look into is having cloud resiliency in the sense that we want multiple vendors, so if something happens with AWS, you'll need some sort of strategy and you'll need some other vendor to provide you with similar services. 

We have a number of users per application. It's hard to quantify how many users are on the solution in general. 

For us, it's a bit of a different model where we have services provided by one central team or central entity. The others will have some sort of hub and spoke with the central entity providing or re-providing services to the other network units. The relationship with AWS is maintained by our central unit, and we somehow take services from the central unit and customize them per our needs. However, if we have some issues, this will be raised by the group. Issues may be resolved by AWS or an SME that works with us. 

In terms of the initial setup, from what I heard, it initially being a new technology, you want to deploy it in a correct manner. Therefore, it will need more diligence in the first deployment as security is not something you can learn and adjust. You need to make it right from day one in order to avoid breaches. However, after that, with infrastructure as a code and the automatic deployment, it's easier. You just create your setup, and you use the rules and go. You have network access to a security group, which provides you with very general filtering for problematic traffic. 

From my experience, the cloud provides everything we need; however, we still lack the knowledge and framework in terms of who is doing what, et cetera.

It's quite different between on-premise and cloud. In the cloud, DevOps is doing a lot of things. On-premise, you have someone from infrastructure, someone installing the OS, and someone doing the vulnerability and patch management.

Depending on how you deploy, the activities need to be revised. You need to have this framework to work in the cloud, and it's more of a challenge in company philosophy rather than technical capabilities. Companies can find it challenging to migrate to new tools. Sometimes existing teams need to be re-educated. 

We have multiple applications, so usually, it takes a while to refine the framework with the responsibility inside the company. It's to be optimized. However, in terms of actual deployment, security-wise, it takes some time to do the security checks, including the scanning and vulnerability asset inventory. It might take two or three months per application.

I definitely recommend not only AWS. I also recommend Azure as an option. We have the integration with Office and the entire portfolio. The cloud, in general, it's a new thing to consider. For example, you have this GDPR with data in Europe. However, in the case of most of the clouds, you can select your regions and you have some control. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

There are a huge amount of products. I'm not saying it's a bad or a good thing. However, it can be quite confusing. There are VPC, EC2, and other instances, and there are a lot of other services that you can use like Macie, where you can filter sensitive information. There are a lot of tools that require hands-on and new capabilities. For me, being at the beginning of this journey for cloud migration, I've been mostly quite happy with the results.

For AWS WAF, currently, we use this new application. This is another service provided by AWS for the sales business, and it's used for education. So, AWS WAF works in conjunction with AWS Cognito.  We observe this when there's some kind of bot attempting to access our application or when you're trying to use a bot as a control mechanism to transcribe or manage a high volume of traffic through our endpoints. 

AWS WAF manages both human traffic and bot-controlled traffic, and it can redirect you to a catch-up mechanism or sometimes simply for use. So, we've implemented different kinds of mechanisms within AWS WAF.

We use it in the production environment. From time to time, we can see the metrics for the generated traffic on both the WAF and the infrastructure

These metrics are presented on the dashboard. We review this information and conclude that regular monitoring, along with dashboard evaluations, reaffirms the effectiveness of the system. This allows us to ensure that the investment we're making is justified and worthwhile.

The most valuable feature is that it is very easy to configure. It just takes a couple of minutes. 

There is room for improvement in pricing. 

The pricing for each rule group is a bit too high. It's a monthly subscription, and it can get quite expensive for rules that I won't use for my application. For example, I might create a rule group that costs $10, and I only use one of the rules in the group. That's $10 for a rule that I'm not even using! So, the pricing could be more flexible, or there could be a way to get discounts for unused rules.

So, AWS WAF should have a pay-as-you-go pricing model, where I can only pay for the rules that I use. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

It is a stable solution to some extent.

For my use cases, it is a scalable solution. There are less than 2,000 end users using this solution in our organization.

I reached out to support when I was setting it up initially, I had some questions. And we have some kind of first-line support with AWS. So I reached out to them whenever I had questions.

However, the support depends on the support we are paying for. The support we are paying for is cheap support. I'm on the standard support plan, so my SLA is four hours. There's a phone queue, so I can't always get through right away. But the support engineers are knowledgeable and can usually point me in the right direction. 

Neutral

The initial setup is fairly easy. AWS does everything for us—just some clicks. 

There is no maintenance required. AWS also upgrades new offerings. AWS does all these things. Like, it does why it's very expensive.  And they give us the metrics.

Just evaluate these simple things you need. And don't try to put too many features at the beginning because you might not need them. Every application is designed differently. 

Every business and customer is also very different, so if your application is more susceptible to some kind of engineering traffic then it's going to be very expensive.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.