Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

I have two primary use cases, one for a bank and the other one for an operator. I will speak about the bank case. The environment is very critical: securing an e-banking server and SMS banking.

This product gives us visibility into what is going on in two servers, including connections and sessions, real-time alerts, very good reporting, and KPIs.

It makes managing security of a critical server very easy with a friendly GUI.

There is no one special feature, but the WAF itself is valuable: user-friendly protection against web attacks etc., authentication, reporting, accountability, alerting, and hardened OS.

This product could easily progress to be among the industry leaders. I think they need to improve enterprise level automation. It integrates with a small number of vulnerability scanners, so report results should be imported manually; same for SIEM integration.

Very stable product.

No issues with scalability.

Best support I have ever seen. I have experience with several products and their support. Barracuda support is very special: efficient, quick replies.

There was some complexity because it requires special configuration in addition to some network changes.

Very good price compared to other products. Some products, like Fortinet, give you good performance as well, and their price is probably lower than Barracuda, but you should pay attention to renewal prices and options. The BWAF license includes everything, even cloud control, which requires a license in other products.

OPEX/CAPEX should be looked at closely.

Fortinet, but BWAF was much better.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10 because all requirements from a product are there: very good performance, robust equipment, pentest/vul scan success, very good support. The cost to value ratio is tops.

If you have a limited budget it’s the best, and if you have an open budget why spend more since BWAF can do the job.

We primarily use the solution to secure most data centers. We also use it for mobile apps for malicious automated attacks. 

The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks.

The API security they offer is quite good.

The technical support on offer is very good.

There's multiple application delivery which is impressive.

The deployment isn't very user-friendly.

There are a lot of up and coming competitors in the space, and there's always new technology coming out. The solution needs to make sure that it keeps up with what's going on in the industry to make sure they don't get left behind.

The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful.

I've been using the solution for almost four and a half years.

The stability of the solution is good. It's pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

The scalability has been fine. It's been quite good for us. We don't have complaints in that regard.

We've always been pretty happy with technical support. We find them helpful and knowledgable.

I also work with Fortinet solutions and I find that sometimes they can be limiting and have their own set of difficulties.

The initial setup is okay, however, it's not particularly user-friendly. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It's more difficult.

We are system integrators. We can handle implementations.

The pricing is okay. Unlike other competitors, you are able to negotiate a little bit, which can help drive down the cost to the company.

We're a solution partner, an integrator. We have partnership-level agreements with the solution.

We have multiple deployment models. We use it on-premises as well as on the cloud using both Amazon Web Services and Azure.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It would be hard for any product to rate a ten out of ten for me. However, to get a bit of a higher mark, it should offer better documentation and be more user-friendly, particularly where deployment is concerned. I'd still recommend Barracuda, though. It's pretty solid.

We primarily use this solution for firewalls.

The features are all fine. We just fixed some bugs from three months ago, and we're waiting now for a final review. They sent us some features to fix the issue.

The solution could use more reports.

I find the solution very stable.

Technical support has been good. Currently, we don't have any issues.

This is the first solution we are using.

The initial setup was very straightforward. We applied what we needed to use and added different features. Each time we need to use a different feature, we go through configuring it and including more features as necessary. 

I used my own team for the implementation. 

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

I manage and operate the device. We are working with the operation team each time applying manual updates, which is continuous. I'd like to see different information, to help handle issues in an easier way. 

I would rate the solution a 9 out of 10.

The primary use case is to protect from DDoS attacks and to protect my backend servers. That was the main concern for me. Barracuda has been very good. I'm very happy with the product.

Previously, attacks would make the systems go down and we couldn't connect with our customers and other things. We need our servers to be online 24-7 which is why I chose Barracuda. Now our servers are running smoothly and I have no problem running my servers.

The volumetric DDoS defense is very good because I had a problem with a lot of volumetric DDoS attacks on my servers. After using Barracuda, those attacks have stopped, all of the traffic is going smoothly to my servers and the system is working really well.

I would like to see better controlling of the traffic. 

The stability is very good. I would give it four and a half stars out of five.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to deploy. It took six to seven hours of work a day to deploy every policy that I wanted. The initial setup went well, there weren't any issues with it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. The attacks that we used to get on servers are gone. My servers are now running 24-7 and I have no problems with them.

We are using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall for website content and front-end web application protection.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for a few years.

I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall has been scalable in my experience.

I have used similar solutions to Barracuda Web Application Firewall, such as F5 and there are not any major differences between them.

The installation is straightforward.

We need a minimum of three to four people to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall a seven out of ten.

The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up.

There should be some some simple case settings offered, as well as documentation and video. 

As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy. 

We implemented Barracuda Web Application Firewall around four years ago. 

The product is stable. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

The technical support is quite good. 

We have primarily been working with Barracuda Web Application Firewall, as we have not yet done much testing of other products. 

It is not easy to implement the solution, although its duration varies with the number of applications that one wishes to deploy. We are talking about a maximum of one hour for a basic configuration. 

The price is reasonable, more so than other products. 

The solution looks good to me. We find that its features provide us with solutions for practically all our needs. 

Our customers run the gamut from small, medium to enterprise. 

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall as an eight or nine out of ten. 

We use Barracuda for all the cloud applications in Azure. 

We use Barracuda to protect the application. That's the main feature we use it for. 

Sometimes when we put it in action, we have some blogs that appear as false positives. I think that it's improving. Barracuda should minimize false positives. 

They should make it easier to learn how to use applications. 

I have been using Barracuda Web Application for five years. 

The stability is okay. We haven't had any issues with stability. 

We don't really scale it. We have around 500 users. 

We don't have issues with support. I had an issue with the console where I could not access the console from the inside network. When I accessed it from the inside network, they kicked me. I opened the case with support, we checked the perimeter firewall, and we tried to fix the problem, but it's still the problem.

Support wants me to check the firewall. I checked the administrator for the perimeter firewall and put all the rules for the communication but they told me to upgrade the version. I did and the problem still persisted.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten. 

We had a partner who did the installation. 

I would rate Barracuda an eight out of ten. 

We use it for website and web service protection.

Its recommendation about the probabilities on the website is great. It also has free probability managers for the website, which is really helpful. 

The protection engine, signature-based protection behavior, and analysis features are also great. It also has an ATP module for sandbox scanning and behavior analysis for file uploads.

Its interface can be better. It is not very friendly.

I have been working with this solution for three years.

They provide great support with a fast response.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us a day to deploy this solution.

I would rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.