Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

We used Barracuda Web Application Firewall to protect the banking system. There were cyber drills where we had to find some logs, share those logs, and identify the attacks.

What I like most about Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its availability. I also like that it's an easy-to-use solution.

An area for improvement in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is attack identification. Other banks identified attacks and tracked logs that the solution wasn't able to identify because of its ready-made rules pre-deployed by the vendor. My organization raised this issue with the technical support team.

Another area to improve in Barracuda Web Application Firewall is its service desk. The team resorted to stonewalling because they couldn't accept that a feature was missing in the solution, and it was only after a lot of drilling down that the service desk team accepted that, and would be adding that feature in the future.

My organization had to submit a report to the Reserve Bank of India with information on the logs identified and the attacks that happened, and that there was a failure on the part of the Barracuda Web Application Firewall. The Reserve Bank of India conducts a tri-monthly cyber risk audit in all Indian banks. Even smaller banks identified and caught attacks that my organization wasn't able to do, so I was looking into other solutions that competitor banks could be using because Barracuda Web Application Firewall failed to identify some of the attacks.

I've used Barracuda Web Application Firewall for six months in the past year.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall is a stable product.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall is a scalable product. Scaling it up isn't an issue.

I wasn't happy with the technical support for Barracuda Web Application Firewall, particularly because of the intentional stonewalling by the team. The support team should accept if a threat wasn't caught by the solution. Support should accept that there's a problem in Barracuda Web Application Firewall and improve or fix that problem. My organization had to do a lot of drilling down before the technical support team accepted that the solution was lacking, and that was frustrating.

My rating for the Barracuda Web Application Firewall technical support team is a two out of five.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall was easy to set up. It's a physical appliance, and I only needed one engineer to do the setup. My support engineer set the product up remotely, and it wasn't difficult.

I don't remember how long the deployment took for Barracuda Web Application Firewall because it was done by one of my engineers, but the solution was easy to deploy.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall was implemented by a support engineer from my organization.

I don't remember which version of Barracuda Web Application Firewall I used, but it was the latest at the time.

My organization has a few people using Barracuda Web Application Firewall. Only four or five people use the product.

What I would tell people to do before using Barracuda Web Application Firewall is to first have a POC with different vendors and solutions and even use one or more open source firewalls and WAFs before making a decision. You have to first do a lot of research before installing Barracuda Web Application Firewall because even some open source WAFs can identify some attacks that Barracuda isn't able to identify.

My rating for Barracuda Web Application Firewall is six out of ten.

I'm a product user and not a reseller or partner of Barracuda Web Application Firewall.

Typically these web application firewalls act as an additional layer primarily for traffic. The web application firewalls are more of a safeguard if a company still has legacy technologies, for which they don't have the patches. It's basically used for the protection and security of web applications.

The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

I wouldn't say that the solution is flexible. The technology is moving towards having the firewall, which is distributed to each workload, rather than having a static firewall pertaining to a particular application or a cohort of applications. There are other solutions that are much more flexible in this regard. VMware, for example, gives good flexibility in this regard.

The solution needs to leverage some additional features to a broader scale of software-defined networks.

Given the distributed computing and decentralized architecture with people working in hybrid modules, there'll be lesser and lesser control. People would like to have, for example,  edge computing, et cetera, which is going to be the future for computing. Hence every organization would like to scale the design to the extent where they would like to have their defenses also go along with their workloads. 

If, for an SDN, I need to go to VMware, and, for WAF, I need to go to Barracuda, or different other firewalls, the company is losing market share. They need to increase flexibility, agility, scaling, et cetera, as that is going to be the new normal, maybe in the next two to five years. 

We've been using the solution for close to two years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

I'm not sure about the scalability. I would need to explore it more. The most scalable products are likely VMware's NSX, as it is a company that's bit on cloud migration cloud transformation strategies. They'd like to ensure their workloads are safe and secure. I don't see this in traditional RAFs or even firewalls. 

It's difficult to found how many users are on the solution at this time as we use multiple web application firewalls on different applications. It is not every application however, there would be certain applications that would have a WAF. Likely, it's around 10,000 users across applications.

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future.

We haven't really had to engage with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in general.

We did use a different solution before switching to Barracuda. Typically, we run a POC first before moving onto anything new, which is what happened in this case.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. However, it does help to have some depth of knowledge with the solution. 

I cannot recall the exact amount of time the deployment took.

While I don't have dedicated staff on the solution to handle maintenance, I have about six people on my team that can cover whatever needs to be done when something arises.

Licensing is something the procurement team takes care of. I don't have any insights in terms of the licensing agreement or costs that may be involved.

We are customers and end-users.

Typically, we keep updating our infrastructure, and therefore, we are likely using the latest version of the solution, however, I do not have the version number on-hand.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, we've been quite satisfied with the capabilities of this product. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

Our customers value the solution's simplicity. 

Occasionally, upon installation of the Energize Updates, the plans will go off track, something which necessitates us calling up their support team for another update. 

The frequency of the release of the updates is also an issue. In the production environment, Firmware cannot be frequently updated. It would be better if their updates would be released annually. 

We have been dealing with Barracuda Web Application Firewall for more than four years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

Our experience with technical support has been very positive. 

The initial setup is easy.

While I would have to check on the price of the solution, I feel it to be okay and it matches the market price.

F5, Imperva and RedBear are the main competitors of Barracuda in our area.

I do not know if they possess certain features which Barracuda Web Application Firewall lacks. I would have to check. 

I would recommend the solution to someone looking for a new web application firewall.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall as an eight out of ten. I do not give the product a higher rating because there are other solutions in Sri Lanka of which the vendors are aware through the Gartner Reports. I believe the solution is not not counted amongst the Gartner leader Quadrant.

Our primary use case is for banking compliance. I'm a presales engineer. 

I like the dashboard. 

The policy updates could be improved. 

I've been using this product for four years. 

Scalability is good but could be improved. 

The initial setup isn't too complex, we have a master plan when we implement it for our customers and deployment usually takes around three months. We have several people on our team involved with maintenance; usually, our customers also have maintenance staff. 

The most valuable features are the client VPN and content filtering.

This solution is simple to manage.

The interface and the dashboards are ok.

The incident reporting needs to be improved.

The local technical support in Poland is not very reliable.

I have been using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall for three years.

This solution is very stable. It is great.

I have only the single web application firewall running on-premises, so I cannot comment on scalability other than to say that I haven't had any problems.

We have 18 people who are being protected by this firewall and we do have plans to increase to approximately 100.

I have been in contact with technical support and while I feel that they are not very reliable here in Poland, they are good enough and I am satisfied with them. The escalation was okay and the troubleshooting was also okay.

The price of this solution is okay.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to find a good partner to assist with the implementation.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for mail protection.

It has helped the organizational function because we do not have an application hosted product. 

It mainly provides good support, and it is a good web application for us.

It is not stable nor mature, though it is not a problem for us.

We have had scalability issues. However, since we do not have that many applications, it is not an issue for us.

Technical support is very good.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

The pricing is less compared to other web applications, which is important to us.

We compared the solution to Imperva because of the support. Support is important to us.

Just do it. We run it with no downtime, because it has good support.

We use it for low balancing phase servers.

It allows us to scale out to multiple phase servers.

It is a great product. We are very pleased with it.

It works exactly by design. It works very well.

There are no stability issues.

There are no scalability issues.

Their technical support is great.

If you are a networking guy, the initial setup is straightforward. If you know nothing about networks, then you can't set it up.

They have competitive pricing.

The updating and signature features are my primary use case for the solution. These features are beneficial to my organization.

I would like this solution to be more detective of the needs of the organization.

I encountered issues with the stability of the product.

I encountered issues with scalability.

I would rate the level of tech support a six out of ten. 

I would suggest that someone implementing this product is knowledgeable in the IT field and with the network needs. It is complex.