Azure Web Application Firewall Reviews

We use this solution as a reverse proxy and for log analytics of the workspace.

One of the past organizations we have worked for was able to get up to approximately 400,000 users. It was a huge use case with this solution and was successful.

We have found the most valuable features to be the web application, minimal skills required for management, control through policies, and automation.

The support for proxy forwarding could improve.

I have been using this solution for approximately six years.

The stability is really good.

The scalability is good. However, this depends on how many subscriptions you have and how many you can actually deploy. We have a workaround for our architecture to scale up, we do not have a problem at this time.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, we have never had an issue with the technical support.

The initial setup is very easy.

The price of the solution depends on your architecture and how you manage it. You can control the cost in Azure quite well. The costs do not directly correlate to expenses in the features we are using.

When using other solutions there can be many complications when integrating. I would definitely prefer only Azure native solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

I use the solution as an internal dashboard app for internal customers. We use its different automation features. 

We mainly implemented it since it was easy to use and deploy. I was new to Azure and we had to deploy something quickly. The automation gives us a quick turnaround. 

The time to deploy is very important. It's very fast.

It's a complete package.

The integration it has with GitHub is great. 

We can have different production versions and development versions. By default, we're given a URL which we can access.

The integration with the entire Azure ecosystem is seamless. 

It's great for new developers who don't need to be concerned with the internal nitty-gritty information. The CI/CD part of it is very easy. If a developer wants to turn out a website in a few days, this is a great way to do it. 

The documentation needs to be improved. It's not ideal. 

There are multiple deployment options. However, there is a lack of clarity around them. There's no real community to reach out to and no videos or tutorials that can explain how to deploy. Users have to figure it out on their own. It took me, for example, two days to do a simple web app since I had trouble understanding what I needed to do. 

Support could always be improved. 

I've been using the solution for seven or eight months. 

The stability is good. I would rate it nine out of ten. 

The solution is only deployed in a single location. 

Its scalability is excellent. I'd rate it ten out of ten. 

I contacted technical support when I was working on the deployment. It was good. They offer multiple support levels, depending on the severity of the case. Typically, they reply within 24 hours. 

Positive

We developed and ran it for five or six months, and then the team moved over to Kubernetes. 

I did not use a different solution previously. 

The initial setup is difficult. It took me a couple of days to set it up. 

Once it is set up, no maintenance is needed. 

I was the only person working on the deployment of the solution. I did not have outside assistance. 

The pricing is quite high. It's not cheap. The free version doesn't have the capability a user would need. 

Before choosing this solution, I looked at AzureVM and Load Balancer. 

I'm a customer. 

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. It's quite easy to work with, and if you have to work in a lab, with solutions like GitHub, it's quite useful. They just need to understand web development. 

Our primary use case is to protect the service from outside, as well as for our connectivity within the branches.

We already have some of our workloads published outside of Azure, and this allows them to connect to the database.

It is helping us to build a managed service model for our clients.

The most valuable feature is that it allows us to publish our applications behind the firewall.

We are able to synchronize all of our common threads.

Any new security features that are released in the future will help us.

The management can be improved.

We have been using the Azure Web Application Firewall for two years.

Stability-wise, this service is good.

The scalability is very good. We do plan on increasing our usage in the future.

We have brilliant support from Microsoft, and I would rate them as very good.

We were using another solution but it was not cloud-based. We implemented the Azure WAF because more of our workloads are moving to the cloud. Ultimately, we want all of our workloads to be on the cloud.

The initial setup is straightforward, and not complicated at all.

We deployed this solution ourselves.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the pricing is good.

We did not evaluate other options before implementing Azure WAF.

In summary,l this is a good product, although I would recommend using FortiGate over this solution for a web application firewall.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases of this solution are mainly for UPII, DDoS phishing and spam. This is the first VAP solution that I've used. I'm group CIO and we are customers of Azure. 

The solution has good dashboards.

I think deployment should be simplified so that a non-techie can handle it. I also have concerns about the impact of the firewall on performance. I haven't fully experienced the solution yet, but it's an issue with every firewall and something that needs to be evaluated. 

I've only been using this solution for a couple of weeks. 

The solution is stable but having not used it for very long, there might be issues with how it pushes back on performance. We'll have to wait and see. For now, it's stable. 

I haven't had any issues with technical support. 

For now, we have a prime account. We have to see what pricing will be based on what we deploy and how it's done. A regular license fee looks better than AWS just in terms of simplicity.

I evaluated Symantec to see how they use machine learning and the loss created from the logs. 

One should be cautious when comparing it with a third party that's more into AI and machine learning. It's important to study the solution and its governance.

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

There is a need to be able to configure the solution more.

In the future, I would like to see the ability to activate using a public or private IP.

I have been using the solution for approximately three and a half years.

It has been a stable product in my experience.

The solution is scalable. We have many clients using this solution.

The setup was easy, it took 45 minutes for one administrator.

The price is for this solution is fair and there is a license needed.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Web Application Firewall an eight out of ten.