Imperva Web Application Firewall Reviews

The tool needs to improve CPU and storage memory. 

I have been using the solution for a year. However, my company has been using it for six years. 

Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable. 

The product is scalable, and my company has 20,000 users. One administrator manages the tool. 

Imperva Web Application Firewall is expensive. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

It is complicated to integrate the solution's on-cloud version with other platforms. 

I have been using the solution for six years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. We have 20 applications hosted on its on-premises version and around five applications on mobile infrastructure. A team of three administrators manages the operations.

The solution's technical support is good.

Positive

I have used F5 and Barracuda before. Both solutions are easy to use.

The solution's initial setup is easy and takes two or three days to complete.

We implemented the solution with the help of its reseller.

The solution is stable and easy to manage. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution is used to detect and block application attacks on the internet perimeter. We integrate the solution with SOAR and Phantom to automate our playbook and block URLs.

The solution reduces the risk of attacks and that benefits our clients. 

The solution integrates seamlessly with other tools and has a good alert mechanism. 

The solution provides good protection against OWASP top-ten attacks.

The solution works for particular zones but isn't always the best solution for all zones. 

The solution's pricing could be improved. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

We implemented the SA solution and have not tried to scale it beyond our client's 10,000 users. 

I do not have experience with escalating issues because our internal support team handles vendor support. 

We have not switched solutions but prefer this solution for on-premises. When we need a tool that is cloud-based, we prefer other solutions. 

The initial setup was not complex and integration was easy. 

The solution was implemented by the supplier. 

The solution's pricing is an issue. 

We use many tools for the application layer including Imperva, Infoblox Secure DNS, and Palo Alto. 

The solution is a leader in the market and is easy to use.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Imperva is easy to use and deploy. The UI is excellent.

I'd like the option to pick your bot protection.

I have used Imperva for seven years.

Imperva is stability.

Imperva is scalable.

Imperva support is good. 

Setting up Imperva is easy, and it takes two days.

The cost is reasonable. W have 50 clients and 10 websites per customer. 

I rate Imperva Web Application Firewall nine out of 10.

Imperva Web Application Firewall is used for protecting web applications.

The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are performance and flexibility. We can extend or customize the box itself.

Imperva Web Application Firewall could improve the console by making it easier to use. 

I have been using Imperva Web Application Firewall for approximately six years.

Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable.

The stability of the Imperva Web Application Firewall is good.

We have approximately three or four clients using this solution.

The support from Imperva Web Application Firewall is very good. They are handling support well, giving suggestions, and solving the issues.

The initial setup of the Imperva Web Application Firewall is straightforward. The process for us is simple, we have been doing it for years.

We have one person that does the deployment of the Imperva Web Application Firewall.

We sell three-year licenses for Imperva Web Application Firewall to our customers. The price is a little expensive.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Imperva Web Application Firewall an eight out of ten.

Imperva Web Application Firewall is used for customers who are looking to secure their multiple applications and want to block the threats, such as DDoS and ransomware attacks. Imperva Web Application Firewall delivers three main things, data security, data availability, and access control. For data security, it prevents malware and malicious threats. For the data availability, by preventing threats, such as malware, data can be available each and every time. You are able to have Access control, you have the ability to control the access.

The most valuable features of the Imperva Web Application Firewall are DDoS, malware, and the other malicious threat prevention it provides. Additionally, third-party integration is available. You can forward the log for further analysis.

Imperva Web Application Firewall can improve by providing better features, such as improved prevention of zero-day attacks. Additionally, it should include a VR meta-analysis.

I have been using the Imperva Web Application Firewall for approximately 15 years.

Imperva Web Application Firewall is stable, and the performance is good.

The solution is best suited for enterprise-sized businesses. It is a scalable solution.

The Technical support is good from Imperva Web Application Firewall.

I have used another solution previously which was good. However, Imperva Web Application Firewall had more features.

The deployment of the Imperva Web Application Firewall is simple. However, it is not very user-friendly. It would be a benefit because the customers would have a better time with the installation.

I did the implementation Imperva Web Application Firewall myself and it took approximately three days.

Imperva Web Application Firewall price is higher compared to other solutions. However, everything is included in the price.

I do the maintenance and upgrades of the solution if it requires it. I would recommend this solution to everyone. 

I rate Imperva Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

We have an Akamai cloud-based solution for it. We have an in-house customer, and they have their own Akamai cloud for WAF. As a solution provider, we are working with their private Akamai WAF. 

Configuration for different application sources is most valuable. We can segregate the traffic that an application is carrying and identify the sizing in Imperva.

It is quite proficient in terms of logs reports, and it provides tight control for policy configuration. So, there can't be any unwanted applications on the internal LAN site. It is quite restrictive, which is a plus point. The sizing of an application is quite easy to understand while we are configuring and deploying Imperva.

It should be more user-friendly. Like other web solutions, it would be helpful to be able to easily do policy configuration and identification inside the application. Understanding the in-depth configuration of a policy is somewhat difficult for an engineer, and they can improve that. 

I have about two to three years of experience with Imperva. I'm working as a GA consultant for cybersecurity and information security. I'm working on different security solutions such as WAF, IAM, DDoS, Azure firewall proxy, and antivirus. I work with different customers, and I also do the architecture review or assessment.

Its stability is quite good. It is not at all an issue. 

It is also quite good performance-wise. We are confident about its performance.

It is for large-scale enterprises where the traffic is huge, and there are many internet-facing applications, which is a plus point of Imperva.

We don't have the HA mode for the respective solution in Imperva, which has to be there when we have the DC and DR locations. We can activate only one solution at DC, but while we are conducting the drills between DC and DR, it is quite difficult to import all the configurations at the DR location in Imperva. It takes time.

Their support is good. It is not an issue. Whenever we have any questions or concerns, we're getting an appropriate solution for our queries. 

Some of the clients have had direct support from Imperva, and some of the clients had a third-party vendor. We also get support from a local Imperva employee. When I was working for a bank, there was good support from this person who was working with Imperva. 

The support for the setup is very good from the provider, but it can be difficult for an engineer to have an in-depth understanding of the configuration of a policy for an application.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

The most valuable feature is the grouping of multiple targets via the scan policy. It is valuable because of the large number of targets and governmental requirements to conduct periodic scans.

With acquisition of a license to use the product, we received the ability to standardize database scanning and data protection across the enterprise around one product.

Many features are buried under not-straight-forward options and, at times, hard to find screens. Very few import features have clearly defined format requirements. Agent installation for data usage/blocking activities on target boxes requires the involvement of OS admins and DBA’s, which complicates coordination of installation and delays implementation. The discovery feature does not accurately discover the instances and instead identifies auxiliary end points (SQL – 1434) and TCP listeners (Oracle – 1521).

I’ve used and administered Imperva SecureSphere for 2 years.

Periodically, the site stops functioning and the appliance requires a reboot to restore functionality.

Scalability capabilities are well thought through by product development. Installation of additional MX servers and gateways on remote networks ensures coverage of scanning and data usage monitoring/data protection capabilities.

Technical support is probably the biggest drawback. No contact with technical support ever results in an immediate response and the solution is usually preceded with series of emails, going on for up to a week, before a live person gets on the phone. But, even then, their task is to observe the manifestation of the problem and request a collection of additional information (logs, traces, etc.) without any attempt to solve the problem during the call/WebEx session. Their technical support staff has at most two or three engineers that have a good working knowledge of the product, but most of the time, a level one technician is running the case. When support staff finally gets on the phone, their first statement is a disclaimer that they are on the call ONLY to collect information and that the customer should not expect any resolution.

This pattern of providing technical support greatly differs from what IBM offers for their Guardium product (competitor solution).

We attempted to use several previous solutions. One was Tenable SecurityCenter with its custom, XML-like scripting where each check had to be written by the Database Security Specialist (myself). We also attempted to use AppDetectivePRO, though its performance, lack of customization, scalability, and licensing costs prevented us from continuing with it.

The setup is very straightforward considering that it’s either a physical or virtual (OVF template) appliance. The wizard-like initial setup and configuration are somewhat awkward, but can be completed after reviewing the instructional videos available to the customers.

Licensing should be chosen based on the current infrastructure setup and growth plans. Purchasing appliances of different types may lead to unnecessary/unjustified expenditures and ultimately lead to complications in administration.

The product that was evaluated and was chosen as the recommendation was IBM Guardium. Unfortunately, its licensing cost was a lot higher. Therefore, the management decided not to proceed with the purchase.

Be prepared to obtain every piece of documentation that comes with the product. Thoroughly research it to obtain a clear understanding of how to implement the product and ensure you have a dedicated Imperva first-response engineer that can answer your questions without going through a normal support channel. Be patient when encountering a bug or a feature failure, as well as discrepancies between the product interface and/or behavior with the accompanied documentation. Their support is not prepared to jump in and start working on a fix or update the documentation.

In many cases, the documentation remains outdated referring to old releases regardless how long you’ve been asking for an update. Their instructional videos are also out of date, but references to them are consistently sent by their support whenever you may have a question. And finally, thoroughly document your deployment and license-related information, because every email to technical support is responded with an automated reply requesting this information. Not replying to this automated email with correct info will lead to further delays.