F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

It protects our public entities. Its use case is very directed at a resolution of security.

It protects our environment. It protects our entities.

Identification, ease of use, and ease of modifying it to most of our needs are valuable.

There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable.

It is a very CPU-intensive application. I understand why, but I'm hoping that they could optimize the CPU utilization a little bit better.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is stable.

It is very scalable for what we need. It is a public-facing service. So, everybody on the internet would be able to utilize this type of service.

We are exploring areas to increase its usage.

I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used other public entities for similar use cases.

It is pretty straightforward. A typical setup for these types of projects takes three months.

It is all done in-house. We do everything in-house. 

In its maintenance, I and other people are involved. The daily operations, which include modifying policies, are up to the individual application owners because they understand their applications a lot better than I or our standard operating team would. So, their usage might go higher than mine.

We have very much seen an ROI. It protects our revenue stream.

The way we deployed it, I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing.

I would advise doing your homework. It could be very simplified, or it could be very complex, but definitely, do your homework with the owners of the application because they understand the application more than certain people.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use F5 Advanced WAF to restrict attacks on our remote access VPN. We've implemented geolocations. Our APIs are exposed over the Internet, so we've utilized F5 Advanced WAF to protect those APIs, and it's integrated with our other applications.

The WAF solution works perfectly fine. If we face any issues, we get hotfixes from the solution experts. It is a little bit difficult to engage with a solution expert firsthand, but once they're engaged, they do whatever is best to resolve the issue.

We faced a lot of outside attacks on our VPNs and APIs, so the geolocation feature works perfectly fine for us. We use iRules as well. Our internal access VPN is advertised from a Cisco firewall, and above that, we have an F5 LTM. We have written some iRules on it to minimize the effects of attacks.

We are a PCI DSS-compliant organization, and we have a lot of security balance to improve our infrastructure. So we use this software to meet those requirements. It works well. So, F5 helped to meet compliance and regulatory requirements.

It's pretty smooth. Whichever load we put on it, we've observed minimal chances of the WAF exploiting the memory or sessions hanging. 

The bot protection aspect works perfectly fine. All the solutions and features are renewed and they're working well. I don't see anything that can be improved.

We also leveraged AI initiatives. 

Support is a little slow, but the solution itself is great. If I compare F5 and Fortinet, the main issue is the support. With Fortinet, it takes less time to engage a support engineer and get things sorted compared to F5.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF since last January.

I work for a US-based firm, and the project I deal with relies heavily on F5 and F5 LTMs.

I work on both F5 BIG-IP cloud and on-premises and F5 LTM.

It is a stable product. 

The physical hardware is not as scalable. We have to decide which version is best for us to procure because it is a costly device. So we try our best to get all the juice out of one box.

There's around 2500 users getting services from the F5. In my team, we are twelve engineers who are managing the infrastructure.

Support is a little slow, but the solution itself is great. If I compare F5 and Fortinet, the main issue is the support. With Fortinet, it takes less time to engage a support engineer and get things sorted compared to F5.

I'll give F5 a five because it is difficult to engage an engineer and get the issue sorted. For Fortinet, I'd give them a nine.

Neutral

The initial setup process of the F5 WAF product is straightforward. There isn't an issue in setting up from scratch. We use F5 with the cloud as well, especially in Azure and AWS.

The deployment took around half an hour for an engineer to get the basic infrastructure done.

It is not difficult to manage bug fixes, upgrades, and everything. It doesn't take much time. The dashboards are good. All the basic information is given to us on the first page, and it's easy to manage.

It brings a return on investment.

It is a little bit costly, but it has all the features that are required.

I would recommend F5 Advanced WAF to other users looking to implement it.

My advice:

A lot of organizations are financially constrained when buying devices. So if the organization is capable of maintaining and managing a device like F5, we suggest F5. Otherwise, we suggest other solutions, like Fortinet or Citrix.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because of the support.

Our client has an internally hosted website, and they wanted us to help them in reducing the attack surface in their web application, so we use F5 Advanced WAF for that purpose.

The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to have a pool of resources that can distribute your traffic, and that is a plus for me. My company tried to look into a competitor, Imperva, but it was lacking that capability, so F5 Advanced WAF outperforms Imperva.

For me, an area for improvement in F5 Advanced WAF is the reporting as it isn't so clear. The vendor needs to work on the reporting capability of the solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of F5 Advanced WAF is threat intelligence to protect your web application, particularly having that capability out-of-the-box, and not needing to pay extra for it, similar to what's offered in FortiWeb, for example, any request that originates from a malicious IP will be blocked automatically by FortiWeb. F5 Advanced WAF should have the intelligence for blocking malicious IPs, or automatically blocking threats included in the license, instead of making it an add-on feature that users have to pay for apart from the standard licensing fees.

I've been using F5 Advanced WAF for about two years.

F5 Advanced WAF is a super stable solution. I've not been aware of any issues with the solution whenever my company uses it.

How scalable F5 Advanced WAF is would depend on what resources your client or the virtual server has. It all boils down to the allocated resources. For me, F5 Advanced WAF is pretty much scalable in terms of the resources I've assigned.

I contact the technical support team of F5 Advanced WAF from time to time, and I would rate support eight out of ten. What the support team needs to improve is the SLA, particularly the speed of response.

Positive

In terms of setting up F5 Advanced WAF, what was challenging was the network part, but the rest wasn't that difficult. It took almost two weeks to complete the setup for F5 Advanced WAF.

We implemented F5 Advanced WAF ourselves.

It's hard to tell if the customer got ROI from F5 Advanced WAF because it's based on the initial deployment and approach. It would've been just a matter of time before the customer enjoyed ROI from the solution. My company never experienced a serious incident with the use of F5 Advanced WAF for the customer, so my assumption is at some point, the customer is realizing the ROI.

The pricing for F5 Advanced WAF is comparable to a Rolls-Royce. Its price is a bit high when you compare it with other vendors. F5 Advanced WAF is a bit expensive. The customer was on a three-year plan and it was around $560,000.

We evaluated Imperva, but F5 Advanced WAF was able to outperform Imperva.

I'm an administrator of F5 Advanced WAF for my customer, so I'm more of a user. I'm not a partner or reseller of F5. I'm just a consultant and administrator.

From what I recall, during the time of deployment, my company was using version 15 of F5 Advanced WAF, but I'm not so sure if there's been a new version or an upgrade after that version.

My company has less than ten users/administrators of F5 Advanced WAF.

My advice for people who want to implement the solution, though I might be biased because I've not used other solutions, but as far as I am concerned, F5 Advanced WAF is one of the most stable solutions I've ever used, so it's good to implement.

My rating for F5 Advanced WAF is nine out of ten.

What a WAF is happens to be exactly what we are using F5 WAF for: a firewall for our web applications. It is a totally customizable solution. You have our signature-based rule sets and then we can customize to our heart's content depending on what our application can and can not do or what we are trying to protect against.  

So we are using this for anything that is internet-facing. We are applying the WAF there and we are putting it in block mode wherever possible.  

The features I think are the most valuable starts with the IP intelligence component. That is separately licensed and it is definitely one component that we have made heavy use of. Geo-blocking is another — which can be done without a WAF because you do not necessarily need a WAF to do it — but the F5 WAF has those capabilities.  

The signature-based controls that F5 has are another one of the heavier-used components that Advanced WAF has. We do not have to worry about updating signatures, et cetera. WAF will automatically update the signatures for us. I think that is a nice feature.  

Those are the biggest things that we are making use of month-to-month.  

I think the contextual-based component needs a lot of help. It is all based on regular-expressions. That is something I think companies like Signal Sciences are doing a really good job with. We are transitioning off to Signal Sciences on some of our WAF components because of the capabilities Signal Science has. I think that contextual-base signatures would definitely help in F5 WAF.  

Within the enterprise, F5 Advanced WAF (Web Application Firewall) has been rolled out for about six or seven years. I have been working on it for about three to four years.  

It is a stable product.  

F5 WAF is a scalable solution. A lot of the employees and other end-users (virtually anybody on the internet who is coming to your site) benefit from the solution. As far as the people who are directly dealing with the administration, maintenance, and deploying the updates, there are maybe two people. But it can certainly scale-out to service passive use.  

The F5 tech supports is fairly decent. It is not the top of the line, but they do their job. They give you an account team. The account teams are normally really responsive. When you need to run something by them, they are unlike some other products. With other products you have to go through opening up a ticket — because that is the only way they will respond to you — and later they might come back and say it is not their problem and you need to figure it out on your own. The F5 is very different from that perspective in providing support. Your account team is your go-to group. They will walk you through solutions, help you design solutions, and it is part of the value add of using F5Advanced WAF. I really liked them for the extra effort they put in to provide good support. They do not upsell professional services or anything like that. Because of that, I would rate them a little on the higher side for support than just your average support experience.  

The installation of F5 Advanced WAF is complex. Any WAF that you put in takes a lot of time to install correctly. You never really just drop it in and have it working right off the bat. The only exception I can say that I have come across to that right now is Signal Sciences. You can literally drop that solution in place and put it in blocking mode within the same day. With F5 there is a learning period where you allow it to learn and then you go back because it is based on regular expressions. So you have to go through and check to see that there is normal traffic going through your site, et cetera. In other words, there is training involved. It can take from seven to fourteen days before you get a good signature set up.  

If you just need to turn on the licensing key, that might take 10 seconds to do and that is available essentially immediately when you implement WAF. But when you are talking about implementation — and this is true with any WAF — it is time-consuming. You are integrating a piece of technology with applications that have already been written. It might be a legacy app, it might be a new app or whatever that you use for whatever your use case might be for that application. You are using WAF in order to protect that app. You have to invest time in creating the signatures. That period of time where you are creating the signature is what is complex and extends the period of the implementation.  

That is what I think the true difference is between F5 WAF and the new-gen stuff like Signal Sciences is. With Signal Sciences you literally can just drop in and turn it on.  

F5's licensing varies. I do not know exactly what the individual WAF component costs because they bundle up services and the bundle is what I pay for. I do not pay for individual components.  

Advice that I would give to people considering F5 WAF is to look at and consider other products as well. They have to make sure they know what they are getting into. That is key to finding the right solution. I think WAF requires a lot of time and patience as well as an understanding of your applications in order to make the best use of its capabilities.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the F5 Advanced WAF as a solid eight-out-of-ten.  

We use F5 Advanced WAF to protect web applications on HTTPS, APIs, and portals.

F5 Advanced WAF helps our engineers to learn the complete configuration, including fundamental and advanced policies.

Most customers encounter stability issues with the product's Big-IP logs. It works slowly while retrieving logs.

We have been using F5 Advanced WAF since this year.

The product is more stable than Fortinet.

The product has modular appliances. It works well, scalability-wise.

The technical support services are good. The team includes professional engineers to communicate with the customers regarding cases.

It is easy to set up F5 Advanced WAF. Although, it is difficult to deploy and maintain compared to Fortinet. The deployment process involves gathering customer information regarding virtual servers to be protected. Later, we select the best design suitable for their requirements and start with license provisioning. Further, we configure LTM with special servers and nodes and proceed with configuring the security policy and advanced directory. It takes a week to protect the infrastructure fully. Once we have license provisioning, it is good to run.

F5 Advanced WAF's pricing is high. Fortinet and some other vendors are more affordable.

F5 Advanced WAF has good capabilities, powerful tools, and professional services. I advise others to compare pricing with vendors in terms of their use cases before purchasing the product.

I rate it a ten out of ten.

Our clients mostly have their own applications, such as banking apps, and use F5 Advanced WAF to avoid vulnerabilities and threats on both the application layer and transport layer. 

We create web policies for their apps and configure ASM signatures to prevent vulnerabilities. After configuring the policies, I monitor logs continuously to block vulnerability attacks and assist clients in addressing any issues.

One of the things that surprised me the most about F5 devices is their compatibility with the existing infrastructure of most customers. They can be easily integrated between the main firewall and back end servers, making it a seamless addition to enhance security.

The traffic learning feature stands out as the most valuable. When an app is accessed, the log generated in F5 Advanced WAF provides suggestions on what actions to take. This feature is particularly beneficial in new vulnerability scenarios, offering guidance based on learned data. 

Additionally, I appreciate the way F5 Advanced WAF builds policies by configuring a basic policy and queuing it in learning mode. The solution learns from logs, and based on that learning, I configure ASM signatures.

The GUI interface can be confusing due to similar-looking tabs for policy building, traffic learning, and event logs. A more explanatory GUI would be beneficial. However, F5 solutions are a bit expensive compared to others, although they provide the best service and options.

I have been working with F5 Advanced WAF for around six months.

The solution is very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

F5 Advanced WAF is very scalable, and I would rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

F5 support is excellent and deserves a ten out of ten. Their technical support is responsive and helpful, making the overall experience very satisfactory.

Positive

I have not worked with many other vendors as extensively as F5, but I have some knowledge of FortiWAF. FortiWAF has fewer options compared to F5, particularly in features like iRULES, which offers more flexibility for traffic management and coding.

The initial setup is not very lengthy. Once the device is on-premises, configuring and managing it is quite efficient, though the entire project from start to end may take about a month to a month and a half.

I work with a team of five to six network engineers across different cities, providing support and collaboration for client deployments.

The return on investment is quite high with F5 solutions. Customers prefer F5 for their superior service and features, despite the higher cost.

F5 is on the expensive side but offers superior solutions and options. Customers are willing to pay for the quality and features provided.

I have some knowledge of FortiWAF, but F5 provides more options, especially with features like iRULES for managing traffic.

I would recommend F5 Advanced WAF to other users. It provides excellent features, flexibility, and support.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

It's considered one of the modules for the LTM box. It's all modules for the LTM box.

It is actually to protect the customer web application which is published on the internet. It's actually to protect that, and nowadays, we also have this threat intelligence. You will link to the F5 centra, the depository of the threat intelligence database. We always have the latest update on the common threat that is happening currently. You will notify the customer if there's an issue.

The threat intelligence function is great. Nowadays, there is more awareness on the security side. They'd have a real-time update from F5. It provides peace of mind on the security side for the customer.

It is an add-on module to protect the web application.

The solution can scale with planning.

The solution is stable.

Support is helpful.

The deployment side is quite complex. We'd like them to simplify the implementation process. I'm not sure whether they can do that, however, they have to be very detailed on configurations, and sharing of the policy. Anybody that configures this box, the WAF, they have to have knowledge of the application and some of the security portions there as well.

We've had the solution since last year. We have deployed it to a customer.

It is stable. Actually, it evolved from ASM, what they call the Application Security Manager, and now they name it Advanced WAF. It's been around for a while. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We'll size up based on the customer requirement with some buffer, maybe 20% to 30% for the future extension. There is also some consideration on the capacity planning and the size of the box. You can scale. You just need to plan ahead. 

In terms of users, with Advanced WAF, normally their role is more related to the security side.

We just implemented the solution recently and we'll have to wait another three or four years before we change or upgrade the solution. 

I've dealt with technical support. We're quite satisfied with them. They're good. 

Positive

F5 WAF is a web application, in the firewall domain, they have been in the market for a very long time. They know the requirements and the market trends very well. This is the reason why we normally chose F5.

The solution is pretty difficult to set up. You really have to have a grasp o the product to configure it correctly.

The setup takes approximately two months. It's quite a long time. If the application is not ready, then the dependency will be on the application side. Therefore, the cycle is quite long. It depends on the application readiness.

We just need one to two people to handle deployment and maintenance. 

The licensing is charged yearly. It's considered expensive, however, there are more expensive WAFs on the market - like Imperva. F5 is second after Imperva in terms of cost. L1 to L3 support is included in the cost.

I'd rate the price of the solution at a four out of five in terms of how expensive it is.

We tend to stay with F5, however, we will look at pricing and try to negotiate based on that. We'd like to get a discount and look at the market to see the costs. 

I'd advise that new users need to know the requirement expectations, and then the criticality of the application that they're going to let the user use. Sometimes the application is public to the internet for a public user to log into and query the database. In that case, we're exposed to all kinds of external parties. So if you put something that is cheap in place, something that is not able to do the protection properly, then it will be a very big risk to the company. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. Our clients have been very happy with it.

We use this solution for load balancing and web application firewall (WAF) services. We use the solution standalone and not integrated with other solutions.

It provides web application security and reduces bot attacks.

The web attack signatures are very important for detecting attacks, and the bot detection capability is an important feature that works well with F5 Advanced WAF.

The product could be more user-friendly for administrators. The user interface could be easier.

I have been using it for almost three years.

The solution is very stable. I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.

Very scalable. We use this solution for multiple customers and across data centers.

The solution offers good support. That said, sometimes it takes too much time to reach the right person.

Positive

I have also worked with Citrix NetScaler and F5 products, depending on customer needs.

The initial configuration is not too difficult, but subsequent configurations can be complex because they depend on customer needs.

I don't have direct knowledge of the pricing. From what I know, it is not too expensive compared to other solutions.

I am familiar with F5 and Citrix NetScaler solutions.

I recommend this product to others because of its effectiveness in mitigating threats.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.