Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

• Security profiles with application control & web filtering. You can filter which applications are allowed or blocked inside your network, according to the port they are using. Web filtering - which can be applied to Skype for example, prevent botnets, and P2P - also is very helpful when you want to control what is allowed inside the network.
• QoS. You can set QoS according to application priority.
• Antivirus from end to end
• Remote and site-to-site VPN

We have minimized our expenses for internet security/antivirus in host-side products such as FortiClient installation, which has antimalware/web security/antivirus and protects the host from vulnerabilities while connected to the server.

I would like to see support for throughput up to 10 gbps and WAN support. Depending on your device’s design, I’d like to see throughput support up to 2 mbps for SSL, 3 mbps for IPS, and 1.5 mbps for applications. This might already be offered with newer versions.

I haven't used the latest release of device. From my current device perspective, reporting is good, but I want to see, in the future releases if they haven't done yet, is the total traffic alert (highest peak) that could receive on mobile or email. This is very helpful if you could set in required interval to monitor the total traffic that could feel the traffic in your hands.

I have used it for five years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I rate the level of technical support 9/10.

It was straightforward for minimal configuration and requirements, CLI for complex configuration.

Pricing and licensing is good and it depends on what the business solution requires.

FortiNet shows me the health of the entire network. Evaluate how you would use FortiNet UTM. Look for the solution which fits your business infrastructure requirements such as VPNs, firewalls, application and web filtering, throughput, and most of all, which device which gives you the best performance.

The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention. 

In my experience, Fortinet FortiWeb could improve the intelligent features to acknowledge whether any threat or incident that's running happened. Then give us the ability to escalate it to layer 2 or layer 3 in the network operations.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately two years.

I have found Fortinet FortiWeb to be stable.

The solution is scalable, but it can only scale at a medium level.

We use the technical support from the system integration, not directly with Fortinet FortiWeb. It takes them a lot of time to solve an issue when we submit a complaint.

in Indonesia, we need more knowledgeable local support.

The initial implementation is simple and the configuration is straightforward.

The price of Fortinet FortiWeb is reasonable. This is one of the key factors of why we use this solution.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten.

Security.

• Web application security features, because they are more effective
• Stability 
• Auto Learn feature: Makes policy additions or deletions for my customers very simple

HA Architecture. I would improve it by working on AP HA.

No issues with stability.

No issues with stability, with the true network topology.

I am Fortinet expert, but L4 support is working very well.

Previously used F5, NetScaler, Imperva. Other products feature LB WAFs, so a limited WAF feature. This product's primary feature is WAF. I chose this product because it prioritizes security.

Very complex. More security features.

Cheaper than others.

F5, NetScaler, Imperva and Squid.

Here's how I would break down my rating of this product:

• Session Management: 10 out of 10 
• Security: 10 out of 10 
• Stability: 10 out of 10
• Health check feature: eight out of 10.

If your goal is security, FortiWeb is your best choice.

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.

• It supports OWASP top 10.
  As you can see, the attack types are mapped to OWASP top 10. The policy creation always follows the procedure:

1. Create first the objects needed.
2. Assemble the policy.

• The GUI interface is intuitive. I have never needed to use the CLI
• It has good reports.It is easy to manage.

The portal has a lot of vulnerabilities, which are not easy to solve quickly. The device has helped us to prevent exploitation of them while we are working on the code.

The signatures are very basic and prone to firing false positives. For example, FortiWeb detects this string as an attack because it detects "perl" in it:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; PaperLiBot/2.1; https://support.paper.li/entries/20023257-what-is-paper-li)

This is a false positive. If the signature was more complex, that would not occur.

I have been using it for four years.

I have not encountered any stability issues, but it always consumes a lot of memory.

Technical support is 7/10. We had a pair of cases without solution; one URL-rewriting related and another one Lync Enterprise-related. In both cases, we had to search for alternate solutions.

ISA Server was working as a reverse proxy, but it lacks web attack prevention. Also, because the platform is dedicated and the OS is hardened.

It has an auto-learn module that makes it easy to establish the first policy, after which you can customize it. It is straightforward to configure the FortiWeb. We have encountered that it is especially difficult to work with URL rewriting, because of regular expressions.

Price and licensing is fine; it is one of the cheapest solutions and does its job.

We also evaluated F5 and Imperva. Fortinet won because of its price. It has done its work for the last four years; the only problem that I have seen is the high false-positives rate which prevents us from focusing on the real attacks.

It has a good quality/price relationship. The web vulnerability scan module is useless.

We are a product reseller and this is one of the solutions that we provide for our customers. At this point, we have only implemented it for one customer.

The GUI is user-friendly.

It is easy to configure compared to solutions by other vendors, such as F5.

The integration with other products should be improved.

This product does not come with bare metal protection, so we need more network features. We don't want to be as dependent on a separate next-generation firewall.

The pricing could be made more competitive.

So far, the stability has been okay.

We have not had a problem with scalability but we have only deployed it for one project.

The technical support is very good and they are fast to respond.

I have also worked with similar solutions by F5 and Barracuda. FortiWeb is easier to configure because the F5 product requires more technical knowledge. The Barracuda solution has the advantage that DDoS support is built-in and there is no need to integrate with other products.

The initial setup is straightforward, although integration is more difficult. For example, if you want to have DDoS attack support then you need to integrate with the firewall. With the solution from Barracuda, the DDoS capability is already included.

FortiWeb is more expensive than some competing products.

We have a lot of requests for Barracuda solutions from our customers. One of the reasons for this is that the pricing is cheaper by quite a lot.

While I have not done comprehensive testing with FortiWeb, I have no complaints so far.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that if they are not very advanced in terms of technical training, this product is a good choice because it is very simple to implement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Other than the additional security with exploit protection, we have simpler certificate handling, as we can keep internal servers using internal certificates continuously distributed and updated by Active Directory Group Policy, while the public certificates become updated only in a single place, FortiWeb itself.

SSL Offloading, as it simplifies the public certificate handling and brings additional protection features. 

Also, L-7 protection, as it makes possible to protect legacy/not up-to-date servers/applications without changing the application code.

• Centralized management of multiple devices, and GUI improvement, could reduce the learning curve. 
• The interface could have the interdependent elements arranged sequentially and wizards that go through most common deployment actions. 
• Centralized configuration using FortiManager – like what exists for NGFW FortiGate appliances - would improve the configuration.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability. (Actually, our traffic usually does not reach 50% of unit capacity).

Good. Usually takes one day to get over all the assessment procedures to start to handle the issue.

The previous vendor discontinued its product.

A little bit complex, as understanding the GUI arrangement and terms took more time and effort than we expected.

Keep a loose margin between your actual bandwidth and the product sizing when using hardware appliances. Only virtual machines are upgradable to larger sizes.

We acquired a Fortinet-based project, so we didn’t evaluate other ones.

I rate it eight out of 10. I understand that a 10 is for products that not only execute smoothly but are also easy to use and manage, even when used on a multi-site corporation.

Take at least the Fortinet online course, or make sure that your reseller has experienced professionals.

We use this product for load balancing and for their firewall. We are partners with Fortinet. 

I like that the GUI makes it easy to scale in terms of learning and utilization.
We chose this solution based on the online training and materials they offered. It's easily available on the web. 

There are specific functionalities that I'd like to see improve and that would basically bring it into line with what is being offered by solutions such as F5 and Imperva.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward, the deployment took us about two hours. We currently have 16 users. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10.