Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

I'm using FortiWeb as a web-based firewall.

FortiGate could be improved on the security end because we've had some incidents with the customer. Otherwise, there is no problem. 

FortiWeb is stable.

For scalability, I rate FortiWeb nine out of 10. There's a little room for improvement there.

Fortinet customer support is good. 

FortiWeb offers a good price for the marketplace. In the Sri Lankan market, it's hard to find high-end products that can match FortiWeb's pricing. For high-end solutions, the price is always extremely high. 

I rate FortiWeb nine out of 10. I would recommend it.

The primary use case of this solution is to protect web applications, and stop attacks.

The most valuable feature of this solution is Fail-Open.

Troubleshooting features could be incorporated with this solution.

The reporting could be optimized.

I have been using this solution for three years.

We are using the latest version.

The stability is okay, sometimes. It could be more stable.

In terms of scalability, I have faced some challenges.

We have 50 users in our organization.

Technical support is good.

Previously, I did not use another solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It takes less time to deploy compared with other competitors.

One person is enough to maintain this solution.

We did not use an integrator or reseller. I completed the deployment and implementation.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I plan to continue with my usage of this solution in the future. It's a good product, but if they could better the stability, it would be great.

I would rate Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten.

We were able to protect our web servers from outside attacks. It has really helped us with publishing servers which were published on Microsoft Forefront TMG.

All of its feature are valuable to us. If you ask me which is the most valuable, it is the load balancing, then I would say the security features. Publishing OWA is also a good feature.

We started with FortiWeb400C, then we did an upgrade to FortiWeb 400D. I had some small problems when I was upgrading firmware. After the upgrade, some of my certificates were deleted.

The false positives are also annoying.

We did not encounter with any stability issues.

We did not encounter with any scalability issues.

Fortinet technical support is really good. I would give them a nine out of 10.

We did not use a WAF before. We used Microsoft TMG, but it is not a WAF.

Initial setup is straightforward, and it is not too complex.

It really pays off to buy licences for multiple years.

No.

It is a really good product. It is worth using in your network.

The bandwidth limitation and restriction feature is most reliable and useful, working as expected and hasn’t had any crash or excessive load issues.

Using the interface to set bandwidth limitations and restrictions at the individual IP, group IP, and total IP levels is really useful for allocating dedicated bandwidth for senior users, reducing it for public users, etc.

This product allows our organization to manage each user’s bandwidth limitation for internet service and overall.

The user interface and update/support is not quite user-friendly.

Obviously nowadays these are just normal features, but we are looking for QoS, application visibility, web filtering and mostly threat detection/malware protection/IPS for security side/etc.

We have been using it for five years.

We have not encountered any stability issues. Not at all. We have placed it in our data center, and the equipment’s hardware stability is quite good. The equipment works fine when there is a power outage and comes back. Never had a hardware issue.

We knew the equipment’s scalability and feature range, so it is fair.

There were a few issues with technical support when we tried to extend contract/support.

We used Microsoft ISA software firewall, and we encountered hardware and software failures a lot. We decided to change to a hardware solution because of many power outages.

Initial setup was straightforward and easy to manage.

Pricing is bit high but fair for a hardware unit. However, licensing and benefits for my country and region is not good.

It is an easy-to-manage, great product for a small office.

With other vendors you need to go through a learning period. With FortiWeb you can just apply a high-security profile and move on. It's very easy to reduce false positives.

• Built-in security templates
• AV integrated
• Strong threat intelligence

Also, if you serve files or you accept files with your server, Fortiweb has built-in antivirus. The Fortinet product family also provides good IP intelligence (botnet C&C, etc.).

Requires very little effort to add device to topology or replace existing WAF device with FortiWeb.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Eight out of 10.

F5, A10, KEMP.

It's very easy.

Be sure to look at industry reviews, they have good knowledge about threat intelligence.

We primarily used the solution as a POC to see how effective it is and so far we're happy with it. 

We used it for protecting our web servers and the use of some web applications within a financial institution.

They have a very good graphical user interface. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is pretty good.

We have found the pricing to be pretty reasonable. 

During the POC we did encounter problems. For example, the integration with the HSM for storing keys was not ideal.

The downside is on the security side and is the firewall. When you look at the firewall, it doesn't do decryption and you have to depend on other third-party tools to do that. Or you would have to use another FortiGate product which makes things a little complicated. Today, people look for simplicity in terms of design. That's one downside to Fortinet's Firewall. The downside to FortiWeb is it had issues integrating with HSM. They fixed the issue, however, it took a long time to fix and it wasn't pleasant. I had to work with deadlines and I could not make the deadlines due to the slow timeline on their side.

For the firewall, when you deploy IPS, the IPS doesn't have visibility into encrypted traffic and 70% of traffic these days is encrypted, and that's the conservative figure of the actual percentage. If your IPS doesn't have that visibility, then it is not really doing the job that it has to do. In comparison, Palo Alto is the best firewall in terms of performance and has the technical specifications that we need. 

The support side of things can be improved. They need to quickly tend to issues and resolve them as soon as possible. Those are the expectations.

We've only used FortiWeb for a POC. 

The stability of the product has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. When you look at the specs and if you do what they say in the specs, in terms of ensuring that you're not overlooking anything, it's a good product. 

The solution can scale. That's not a problem at all.

Technical support could be more responsive. They need to address issues faster. I'm not completely happy with the level of support we receive.

Generally, the solution is easy to set up. It's not overly complex. 

The pricing is pretty good if you look at other top options in this space. They are reasonable. 

I've also looked at Palo Alto, and it has the specifications that we need, however, the pricing is quite high.

Our company is a Fortinet partner.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

In terms of functionality, it does a perfect job, however, when you have to integrate with third-party tools, that's where you might have issues. Going forward, maybe what Fortinet needs to do is to ensure that they don't have integration issues with the other big vendors that are common in terms of what's deployed out there. Someone might want FortiWeb, however, for example in my case where a bank needed to integrate that with Jamalt or HSM for description, they have to do their homework. 

When you're dealing with financial clients, they need to have seamless integration and not to have these challenges where it would take time to fix as an issue. That should be figured out pre-deployment. Companies in banking can't wait for clients to point out that this is an issue. They have to attend to it beforehand and resolve issues to meet expectations. 

We primarily use the solution for configuration and structuring policy.

The solution has a very simple deployment.

There are lots of great features within the product. Even though I don't personally use too many of them, it's nice to have them available.

It may be better if it were easier to create roles.

The interface could be a bit better.

Everything is pretty manual. We do need to improvise a bit. Automation might make it easier.

The pricing is a little bit high for us.

I've been using the solution for about one year.

The solution is stable. I don't recall dealing with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable.

The solution is scalable. We always check our information before we hit any limitations. I just need to assess my servers and the amount of traffic. I believe it to be scalable enough.

We have about five users on the solution currently. They're engineers. We have one box. Many users just need one box. If you want a firewall, or you want various applications on a firewall, you need another box.

We don't have direct experience with their technical support team. If we need technical support, we get it from the distributor. If we do reach out to them, it's typically for diagnostics. So far, we've been satisfied with the level of support we've received.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward. The product has a model deployment. You just need one port. After that, access is simple.

The deployment and installation took about one day. It is pretty fast because the setup is pretty easy to execute on.

For deployment, you just need two people. You don't need a bunch of staff to handle it.

We're an integrator. We just appraise the distributor behind us in order to help us in the deployment. It's a really simple deployment though. An organization most likely wouldn't need assistance. A solution like Cisco may require assistance as there would need to be adjustments done on it. It's a bit more complex.

The solution can be a bit expensive. It's not a product line. We use other devices as well as it's not a one-stop-shop. If you need a firewall, for example, you need to buy another product, like Fortinet. FortiWeb doesn't cover things like firewalls. 

The license itself is also quite expensive.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

Usually, for our security programs, I'm using on-prem. For now, in my experience, the typical Indonesian customer is using on-prem, as they worry about using the cloud, as the data cannot be stored in HR and it's actually often stored in another country. 

It's my understanding that we'll continue to use the solution for a while to come.

Overall, I would recommend the product. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at an eight. If it had a better interface and/or better pricing, I might rate it a bit higher.

The most valuable features of the product are its IPS and VPN server.

The device is very handy and it helps us to protect our web and database servers from being penetrated from outside the office.

The antivirus and the IPS can be improved in the future.

I have used it for about two years.

Fortunately, we have not yet encountered any stability issues!

With the 600-C model, we had some scalability issues.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Initial setup was very straightforward and simple.

These devices, especially the 1500-D model, are really worth purchasing and using.

Before choosing this product, we evaluated many products such as Cisco, Juniper, Cyberoam, and Sophos.

In my opinion, the FortiGate appliances, and especially the D series, are really powerful ones and worth providing for your network.