Imperva Web Application Firewall Reviews

I was involved in the deployment and found that all the features in this product are fantastic, especially the correlated attack validation, threat radar (reputation, fraud), and virtual patching. Those are features that are very useful in day to day operations.

Using WAF in an organization means we can quickly see the attacks that the environment is suffering and take action to mitigate the threat(s). It is possible to view traffic and analyze it to determine if it is legitimate traffic or not, using features such as threat radar and geolocation, helping the security team in the company.

I've been using the WAF component for over a year.

I had no issues with deployment.

I had no issues with stability.

I had no issues with scalability.

I didn't use the customer service, but all the teams in Imperva have a deep knowledge about the product to support customers for any issues they have.

The technical support team at Imperva have a deep knowledge of all their solutions, and they are ready to support any customer with any problem.

The initial setup is different for each environment. You need knowledge of the environment and application, to make a good schedule of activities. Make sure you validate the requirements, and the setup will be simpler to do

I work as a System Engineer and part of my role is to help the partners do deployments for our customers. I participated in some deployments, and I can say the partners I have worked with have good knowledge about deployment and support for all solutions.

All products are good, and I believe narrowing the choice of manufacturer is best done when you do proof of concepts in-house and you can see which of your choices is best matched to your needs.

Our primary use case for the solution is securing our applications and customer-facing website.

The Imperva Web Application Firewall feature I have found the most valuable is the ease of deployment. The solution's customer service is good as well. 

The Imperva Web Application Firewall automations are good, but there is still room for improvement with them. Fast rule propagation could also be improved.

My company has been using Imperva Web Application Firewall for four years. But, personally, I have been using it for three years. It was already operational in the organization when I joined. 

We have not had any issues with stability. 

I think Imperva Web Application Firewall is scalable. 

I have had a positive experience with Imperva Web Application Firewall's tech support so far. They are knowledgeable and respond on time. 

Positive

I was not with the company when Imperva Web Application Firewall was initially deployed but I believe the process was straightforward. 

F5 firewalls are clunky and that is why we do not use them. They are good and powerful, but it takes quite a bit to set them up. They are not as easy to set up as Imperva Web Application Firewall.

I would say: take Imperva Web Application Firewall into consideration because of its simplicity. 

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. 

We are an implementer for clients within the financial services looking to protect their internet, mobile devices, etc.

There are a number of features that are valuable such as the account takeover and various antivirus features.

It would be nice to have more security control over mobile applications so I would suggest adding more mobile security features. 

It would also be beneficial to see improvements in regards to interface bandwidth performance, CPU time, and RAM size.

Learning capability of the device is quite weak.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable and has strong performance.

The solution is scalable and is currently being met with high demand on the clients side.

Support response time to a given problem could be much faster. This may be due to time zone limitations as well as the amount of time it takes the representative to understand the scope of the issue.

Initial installation requires a lot of customizations that depend on the environment and use case of the client. For clients looking to maximize all policies, settings, and features provided, their setup could take up to one year.

Two engineers are required for deployment.

Licensing can range from one to twenty thousand dollars annually. Additionally, some features, including software support, require an annual subscription as well.

This is a good WAF solution that I would rate a nine out of ten.

The product is very good. 

It's so easy to do the deployment. The installation is very straightforward. You can't even compare it to others on the market. It's that easy.

The features on offer are very nice.

The solution is stable.

The licensing setup makes the product easy to scale. 

The pricing is very good. 

I loved the approach of the cloud. The cloud has a lot of new features, like advanced web protection and DDoS protection. If those could also be on-boarded onto the on-prem versions, that would be ideal. They need to pay attention to both deployment options and not just favor one. 

I've been using the solution for the last five years. I've used it for quite a while now. 

The stability of the product is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We typically deal with medium-sized organizations.

The licensing model makes the solution very simple to scale. If a company wants to expand, it's not a problem.

We need an improvement in the support. We need a lot of turnarounds. Whenever is a ticket open, it's something that has become a concern. 

I'm not currently working with any other solution. I just use this product. 

Previously, I did work with F5 and Fortinet. However, Imperva is superior to both of these products.

The initial setup is easy and the solution is very simple to deploy.

The solution is very affordable and the cloud is making it even easier in terms of cost savings. 

We are resellers and we are based in Kenya. We're actually doing the whole suite. I'm working with Database Security and I'm also doing the Web Application Firewall, both of which are on-prem and on the cloud. I'm also doing the DRA.

It's the best in breed in terms of a solution you can put in place.

I'd rate the solution at an nine out of ten. We're quite happy with its overall capabilities. 

Protects and secures all our web sites.

• Learning mode.
• Custom policies.
• Very intuitive and granular configuration - It does not require much time, or advanced knowledge, for configuration and maintenance.

The reporting is missing some features, such as: only two export formats, and the time period does not include the last day, week, year.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

10 out of 10 for local support, seven out of 10 for Imperva Professional Services.

Straightforward. Easy to install and config.

F5.

I rate it a 10 out of 10 because of the ability to apply real-time changes or creations, export and import applications learned, and it's very easy to use. It also features system logs or incidents, granular configuration in relation to a SIEM. It is the best product on the market, in my opinion. Cyber security leader.

I really like the profiling section. I mean that signature based policies are ok and they are maybe the most widespread and common kind of security policy in security appliances, but, the profiling policies are custom tailored on a specific web application. I guess it’s the most valuable, and fresh, aspect about SecureSphere.

It has helped a lot with working among, and creating a link between, different teams in my organization, of course I’m referring to security, networking and system application teams. It’s important to find the right collaboration in order to secure the applications from the beginning of the deployment process.

I guess the GUI could be improved a little, as it’s not always simple to get. The most important aspect to me that needs improvement though, is that, by default, if you put activate and protect a server group you created, all the web applications lying on the same group of physical machines, inherit the same policy rule set. This means it’s not so easy to different policies and cut them on a specific application (maybe I’ll ask the vendor support).

It’s been one-and-a-half years.

Not in particular, once I understand the network behavior and the different types of the WAF deployment it was pretty simple and fast.

Not so far. It must be said, though, that It’s a relatively a new installment in our infrastructure, and maybe it’s too soon to say.

It’s an ongoing process day to day, working alongside systems and application engineers to adapt the WAF to better meet the applications characteristics. I guess it depends a lot on the application features and software implementation.

I would say that they are pretty available.

They are reliable and ready to solve your issues.

To be honest, we have been supported by a professional services engineer who showed us the peculiarities during the initial setup, so it was a good experience. I would say that it’s straightforward if you are in good hands.

I would say to focus on the most convenient area for positioning the WAF in order to take the get the best out of it. In my case, we chose a WAF appliance, and it’s crucial where to put it. For instance, we chose to deploy it downstream from the load balancing network infrastructure for various reasons. One of them was to enable the WAF to see the private IP addresses that a vulnerability assessment tool in the private DMZ would see in order to use the WAF as an application firewall and as a virtual patching tool either.

We use the solution for traffic inspection. 

The solution is cloud-based and offers us good uptime. It has combined web and API security. Therefore, with one license, you access both application security and also API security.

I would like to improve the tool's turnaround time in terms of support. 

I have been working with the solution for three years. 

I have never had any issues on stability. 

The tool is scalable. 

The solution's setup is straightforward. 

The tool is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is very mature and covers everything for its use cases.