F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

We use the solution for load balancing and web application firewall (WAF) balancing. We operate in a data center and use it for web application security and services.

The solution provides strong web security, particularly against web attacks, and has effective bot detection that helps reduce bot attacks.

Web attack signatures are very important for detecting web attacks. The bot detection feature is also crucial in reducing bot attacks.

The product could be more user-friendly, particularly the user interface for administrators. Additionally, configuration can be quite complex and needs improvement to be less complex.

I've been using it for almost three years.

The product is very stable. From one to ten, I would rate its stability at a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. We use it for multiple customers and data centers, and I would rate its scalability as nine.

The customer service is good. That siad, sometimes it takes too long to reach the right person. I would rate their effectiveness as an eight.

Positive

I am familiar with Citrix NetScaler and F5.

The initial setup was not too challenging. Post-initial configurations can be complex.

Two to three engineers are typically involved in maintenance operations.

I don't know the exact pricing. It is not the cheapest yet not the most expensive. It depends on needs, budget, and vision.

I have experience with Citrix solutions.

I recommend this product to others.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

For me, the primary use case is to secure web applications from external threats, including cross-site scripting, SQL injection attacks, file inclusion vulnerabilities, and many more. The tool has simplified protection against web applications and recent threats that might be visible. If your applications are vulnerable, it gets protected by F5.

It is a very flexible solution. iRules is quite appealing when it comes to F5, and they apply it throughout their solution. BIG-IP is a known platform, and it is a part of F5 now. Application delivery or web application firewalls, F5 understands these terms and then suggests better data policies. But you have to do the work on your application's performance first. You have to look in the logs and understand the total attack you should prevent when we put it in the circuit protection mode, which works perfectly well.

iRules truly excites me because it has the ability to prevent the end-user and infrastructure from external threats.

Even if the F5’s default signatures and the default behavior are unable to help you, you can customize iRules to reach the objectives.

I don't like the management control of F5.

Moreover, if you are not an expert, it would be really difficult to set it up.

I have been using the product for fifteen years or more.

It is a stable solution.

It is definitely a scalable solution.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. I didn't experience any complexity. It could be difficult for somebody who is not familiar with application load balancers or web applications. It takes a month to understand the entire architecture. It primarily depends upon how great deployment could be.

It usually takes about five to seven days to configure and deploy the F5 Advanced WAF in production mode. It is essential to ensure that your configuration works properly before putting it into production mode.

When you have already designed it, it takes around five to seven days to set up. But it takes more than a month to understand the entire architecture of the F5.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We host public-facing web applications or APIs. There are web applications that are owned by the company that is exposed to the outside. The internal infrastructure is within the premise. We use F5 to protect them. It's an HA model, and we have two sites.

We need to have an extra layer of protection. We were previously exposed to the public API. The deployment and the rate of deploying web-based applications had increased. After we introduced the web application firewall, it increased our ability to expose more of the services to the public. 

My favorite feature of F5 is the ability to play around with the ciphers. I also like the ability to have an immediate display of the support IDs when a real blockage occurs. The protection offered is great.

The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF for four years, since 2018.

F5 Advanced WAF is a stable solution.

For the initial deployment, from what we were planning to implement, it was scalable. 

We now have other requirements that we need to engage with. They believe we need to increase our license, so we can accommodate more features.

There have been issues in the availability of quick support. For general issues there is no concern. The issue is when you need support right away, but it is not available.

Positive

The solution was deployed using network security. At the time of deployment, the appliance was there, but we did not have any person that was able to accomplish the deployment. It took six months to deploy.

We have definitely seen a ROI by using F5 Advanced WAF.

As far as the pricing of F5 Advanced WAF I would rate it a four out of five depending on what features I am looking for. Imperva is more expensive.

The price has remained consistent at a constant rate. There have not been any increases or any unforeseen increases when we're renewing our license. The price is fixed.

I reviewed Imperva only to compare pricing.

On the initial engagement, you should try to look on how best you can accommodate the quick support features, as this was a big struggle for us.

Overall, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features of F5 Advanced WAF are SSL uploading, signature, and anomaly detection. It is overall a high-quality solution.

The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF for approximately 10 years. This includes my experience when the solution was  formerly named Advanced Security Module(ASM).

F5 Advanced WAF is an extremely stable solution.

I have found F5 Advanced WAF scalable.

Technical support is handy and useful when you have your contract available. Once you lose it, you are all alone and there is a penalty to extend your subscription.

I have used FortiWeb previously.

These products are not meant to be compared, because they are serving in different areas of expertise. When you are low on budget, it's better to use the FortiWeb. When you have a budget and want quality, it's most recommended to use the F5 Advanced WAF. We are talking about different classes of quality.

When you are using the F5 Advanced WAF for any reason, you have to employ an expert. It's not the same as other solutions, such as FortiWeb, it is not easy to use. It's an advanced device, and you have to have an advanced person to operate it. This is the biggest problem that F5 Advanced WAF.

The price of the solution is reasonable when compared with other products, such as FortiWeb. I am very satisfied with the price.

My advice to those wanting to implement F5 Advanced WAF is they will need to have an expert on any stage of operation. Then once they decide to use the F5 Advanced WAF they have to have very good expert advisors for choosing the product because there are a variety of license options, and you may spend more than what you need. 

In the implementation stage, you have to have experts. At least three experts for the implementation phase. When it comes to the operation, you can't have a temporary expert that comes and goes, you have to have the F5 Advanced WAF expert in your company. It's an advanced device. It's completely different from the FortiWeb and the other devices. It gives you lots of options but it's complicated to implement. You have to have an expert to support you.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

I use F5 Advanced WAF to secure web applications and load balance for connectivity.

F5 Advanced WAF secures our connectivity and combines both the main functions of WAF (balancing and web application security).

F5 Advanced WAF's best feature is that it's a combination of LTM and ASM in one license.

It's sometimes difficult to customize APIs with F5 Advanced WAF, which could be made easier.

I've been using F5 Advanced WAF for three-and-a-half years.

F5 Advanced WAF is stable.

I previously used FortiWeb, but after comparison, I preferred F5.

The initial setup was moderate, and I would rate my experience as four out of five. Deployment took a month because we had to put it in learning mode, customize policies, and get the security signature.

We used a third-party team.

A yearly license for F5 Advanced WAF is expensive. I would rate the pricing at two out of five.

I would give F5 Advanced WAF a rating of nine out of ten.

We use the solution to secure web applications running in the organization.

F5 is one of the best products. We use it for multiple segments within our organization and applications. It is a central point of all the applications being scrubbed and checked.

The customer service could be improved.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF for more than ten years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

Our entire organization and clients use the solution.

The initial setup is easy since I have used the technology for almost 20 years. Some applications require more attention depending on what you are doing and trying to achieve with the particular module. You need some assistance from the team in configuring the different components within the application through the web.

The solution is worth the money that you spend.

The solution is expensive.

Whatever you are looking for can be done on the platform. Some features may not be available with IO components. A few features give you the flexibility that no other product can.

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

We use this solution for web application protection. The solution offers layer seven protection of the applications and can be configured against attacks.

There are a lot of good features.

I would like for there to be a cloud-based solution, this would also help to improve scalability.

I have been using this solution for about a year or so.

This solution is quite stable.

Scalability is limited since it is an on-premise solution. You will have to size your box properly, based your throughput and capacity. Our company uses it to protect all traffic of out 5.5 thousand users and we have plans to expand the usage.

Support was helpful when we reached out.

We used Kona Defender and Akamai Web Application Firewall for about a year prior to using F5. The main reason that we switched was due to costs.

The initial setup was rather complex taking a lot of time and information to be configured. We have two administrators for maintenance. 

Our consultant was able to help us integrate the solution in a day or two.

There is a perpetual license that comes with your hardware. There is also an additional fee for support.

When you choose to go with F5, be sure to size your box properly so that the capacity is taken care of. From there, you will be able to easily configure the platform to provide you with a lot of value. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I was working in sales. We would provide more corporate products. I am not implementing or deploying this solution. I would sell it for projects in the enterprise direction, but it was mostly for financial institutions and some government companies.

It usually used for e-commerce and financial services. Products that banks provide to their customers. It also offers protection of the services.

It is easy to use, and it's also easy to configure. 

The most valuable feature is that it is secure.

The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use.

I would hope that they provide some updates sooner rather than later.

I have used F5 Advanced WAF for three months in the last year.

We were using the latest version and we update on a regular basis.

It's a very stable solution.

This is a scalable product.

Our customers are in the banking system and we have approximately 200 to a few thousand customers.

We have official support from the distribution channel. One of our distributors is in Ukraine.

They have their own support definition provided with some certifications who are responsible for providing support at the vendor level.

We usually ask for their support and they provide it to us.

Previously, we used BIG-IP and we used Web Application Firewall.

I was not involved in the installation.

I am currently working on a B2C channel, which is more for retail companies.

I have also been working with Apple company for a little bit more than a month.

I am working with all-in-one products with all services included.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It's not popular in our country but it's unique in itself. There are some segments that became more important on a regular basis, especially for large companies and enterprise segments.

It's a secure product. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.