Imperva Web Application Firewall Reviews

Data masking is the most valuable feature of this solution. 

Most of the clients are new to this solution and don't have an in-depth knowledge of the solution. It's not so well-known in Ethiopia. Imperva has only been around for a year. 

Licensing should be improved. Most of the clients aren't happy. It's expensive. 

Some of the features should be included in the next release is a file integrating monitoring tool. This feature should be improved. Also, it should have a privileged account option. In the solution, if you put it there, that would be a very nice feature so that the clients could get all those solutions in one box. It will be easier for support and for clients. 

It's a relatively new product but from the information I got from the Bank of Ethiopia, the stability is okay. They are getting what they are expecting from the product.

Scalability is good especially compared to IBM. It's not so easy to integrate with another solution from another vendor. 

The initial setup was complex. 

The company has to deeply work on it. Also, with regard to support for the distributor, distributors have a big problem. We got the wrong consigning. It was kept for more than three months in a customs warehouse because of the issue of the problems on the distributor side. That is a big problem.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Imperva is good because it doesn't also only monitor but it also does acquisition.

The dynamic profiling of websites is the solution's most valuable feature. The security is also good.

It would be useful if the solution used more intelligence in attack protection. For example, firewalls are to be dependent on the configuration, but if they could have some data science around it the solution would be even better. The profiling of the traffic, and making decisions surrounding that should be intelligence-based, instead of being based on the configuration of the firewall itself.

The solution is scalable, however, in terms of scalability, you're required to change the appliance, as it's not like a cloud, which is easier to scale. I would not rate it very well when it comes to scalability, because a model of license-based upgrades would be better. They could give you a bigger box to make it easier to grow if you needed to.

The solution's technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, when you move to more advanced configurations, you require more expertise.

We are an integration company, so we are providing this as a solution to other customers. They're mostly enterprise-level clients.

I would recommend the solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

• Bad-IP blocking and signature-based blocking for web application security

• Security compliance and temporary remediation of application vulnerabilities

Management of policies and rules can be complicated and the physical setup of the product has implications on HA.

I have used SecureSphere for 3-4 years.

Performance of the smaller boxes can be sluggish depending on the load.

We haven’t had any scalability issues.

We did not have a previous solution.

Initial setup was straightforward, but ongoing management of rules and policies are time-consuming and complicated.

Try to use a cloud-based and/or managed solution instead of managing a WAF internally; that should be the first preference.

Before choosing, we also evaluated F5 ASM.

While implementation is not hard, the process and resources for ongoing management should be thought through and agreed to before implementation.

Data marking is the solution's most valuable feature.

The firewall aspect of the solution needs improvement.

The GUI is not as intuitive enough. It should be more user-friendly, especially for end-users. 

The initial setup could be simplified. Every time you have to install the solution you have to get in touch with support or somebody that can to do that for you. 

The core functionality of the solution has been met. We find it stable enough.

The solution is very scalable. It is one of the most important features. You can also expand resources and features as well.

Customers actually require a lot of support. They want an easier channel that can provide support. The solution should offer a monthly check-in with clients. Other solutions offer this, and it's helpful for the clients, just to make sure everything is running okay.

In general, however, technical support has been good.

The initial setup required a lot of help. It took a month or two to deploy so it wasn't exactly straightforward. However, it was not as difficult as other solutions either.

I handle the on-premises deployment model. We have the latest version of the solution. We also sell the product.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.