What advice do you have for others considering F5 Advanced WAF?

I recommend this product to others because of its effectiveness in mitigating threats. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I recommend this product to others. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would recommend F5 Advanced WAF to other users. It provides excellent features, flexibility, and support. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The solution mainly provides automated responses; once the solution is set up and trained properly, it requires minimal intervention. As the solution is completely automated our company team has to only check the reports. But there is an elaborate setup process where, as part of our company, we deploy applications in an environment, implement work policies, and use automated software to simulate multi-vendor attacks and web hacking to test the solution's ability to detect attacks and, accordingly, we make adjustments to the flexible solution. After the simulation testing, the policy implemented for the solution is put in a station period where it won't be flexible initially, and then reporting is implemented, which will escalate to the anticipated restriction level soon. After the policies' staging period, when the solution has completed learning through simulations and our company feels confident with the test product in the active environment, the solution becomes automated from that point, and manual intervention is not necessary. A highly skilled team is needed for the abovementioned solution training process. Our company develops multiple applications internally as our work sites are not ready, and varying results are expected from different work sites, webpages, or newly added features. When a new feature is added to the solution, we revert back to the deployment process to test it. Our company needs to ensure that the in-house developed features that are integrated into the solution are not prone to attacks through simulation testing every time. Our company feels confident when the solution's policies are developed through the staging, simulation and rule enforcement process. The aforementioned process helps with reports and also with performance. In our company, we have also encountered websites that didn't function well with the solution; even though the websites were functioning properly, the performance deteriorated slowly. Many attackers nowadays venture beyond the threshold, which might be difficult to capture. If we consider any service or web applications over the internet that is attacked beyond the threshold, it wouldn't be a blind attack for the application owners as it would get blocked immediately, but instead, they progress slowly with the attack and ramp up once they can change the IP addresses and identify a suitable angle of attack, until these attacks get blocked they can affect your service. Sometimes, a few of our organization's clients complain about the solution working slowly, even without apparent attacks. For example, if you're a trader, the website might function well enough most of the time, but sometimes you have to buy or sell within minutes, whereas if it doesn't work, you need to visit a different website, which can also be the goal of attackers. F5 Advanced WAF also allows you to write your own code for the interface. F5 Advanced WAF specializes in behavior identification, which helps in superior attack mitigation. I would advise others to get the solution setup only by specialized or professional services. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because I have seen that not too much customization is required during setup. The change requests we submit are usually clear and easily applied. Overall, the policies work well, and the threat detection is good. It catches deviations and anomalies effectively. From a recommendation standpoint, it's a fairly easy tool to use. However, you definitely need some knowledge about scripting, OWASP fundamentals, threat detection, and general cybersecurity principles to get the most out of it.

Whatever you are looking for can be done on the platform. Some features may not be available with IO components. A few features give you the flexibility that no other product can. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF as a nine out of ten.

F5 Advanced WAF has good capabilities, powerful tools, and professional services. I advise others to compare pricing with vendors in terms of their use cases before purchasing the product. I rate it a ten out of ten.

If you are looking for a really good product, you should consider F5 Advanced WAF. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

This is a mature solution and a very powerful device for protecting web applications. I rate this solution eight out of 10.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

We use one person for the maintenance of the solution. I would advise new users to familiarize themselves with the overall functionality of the solutions. Understanding F5 Advanced WAF is crucial to accessing the full range of its capabilities. Without this understanding, you may be limited to only using it for your initial intended purpose. I recommend taking the time to learn more about F5 Advanced WAF and its capabilities, as it can provide solutions for many other needs in addition to your initial use case. It's also suggested to get certified and familiarize yourself with the product portfolio. I rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

The solution is not about improving functionality but about improving the security of an infrastructure itself. You are improving the security profile so that data is not exposed to an attacker. I definitely recommend that everyone use the solution and rate it a nine out of ten.

It is important to know your network and assess your needs such as dust protection, VAT, and load balancing before deciding if FortiADC or F5 are the best solution. F5 is expensive so is only appropriate for large companies with high-level use. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I can recommend F5 Advanced WAF to any customer because we have experience, and referrals from customers using it within different models. If it comes to WAF, LTM, or whatever. I'm very happy to sell it because it is one of the leading vendors within its line. Our customers within the financial market, such as banking organizations, are very happy with it. I rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten overall.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

My advice to others would be to define the parameters well in the beginning, and then they will be fine. They could define it as a regular canned solution and go from there, instead of working it as not a canned solution. Define the environment and what you need to protect, that way you can build a base protection profile that you could deploy elsewhere instead of building the policy to the environment first because then customizing cannot be deployed easily. I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

On the initial engagement, you should try to look on how best you can accommodate the quick support features, as this was a big struggle for us. Overall, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

When you choose to go with F5, be sure to size your box properly so that the capacity is taken care of. From there, you will be able to easily configure the platform to provide you with a lot of value. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I work with F5 Advanced WAF (Web Application Firewall). It's hardware-based and VM-based. We are a partner of F5 as a technology vendor. Deployment of this solution could either be on-premises, via cloud, or both. F5 and VMware has a partnership, so our infrastructure is based on the VMware environment which comes with the F5 capabilities for the WAF. The technology is evolving every day and vendors are doing well. Each technology has its pros and cons, and it will take a long time to discuss areas for improvement. One of the issues of this solution is that it is complex. How long deployment will take will depend on the customer's environment and use cases. Maintenance of this solution requires patching the vendor update which is most important for product maintenance or solution maintenance, and doing monitoring for availability and performance. F5 Advanced WAF works among all segmentations and all market size: small, medium, or large companies. However, I am seeing based on my experience, that Fortinet's WAF technology: FortiWeb, is now doing much better than F5. Fortinet is doing much better in all aspects: in the protection itself, user-friendliness, threat intelligence, etc. The capabilities of FortiWeb is doing good in the market. Both pricing and delivery models are also more competitive than F5 Advanced WAF's. My advice to future customers of F5 Advanced WAF or to people thinking of using it is that there is a much better product in the market. One of the better products is Fortinet (FortiWeb). I'm rating this solution a six out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others that are satisfied with the load balancer provided. If not then they could go to another solution with different load balancers for their needs. I rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

This is a good solution, it's very useful and offers easy application management, which is good to have at the perimeter level. It provides good security against threats and attacks. From a security point of view, I rate the solution eight out of 10.

I am not sure about recommending solutions. I would rate F5 Advance WAF a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to other users. I will advise others to learn a little bit about how the HTTP protocol works. They should be familiar with the functionality of the product. They should not use it without understanding what they are actually doing. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine out of ten.

I am currently working on a B2C channel, which is more for retail companies. I have also been working with Apple company for a little bit more than a month. I am working with all-in-one products with all services included. I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It's not popular in our country but it's unique in itself. There are some segments that became more important on a regular basis, especially for large companies and enterprise segments. It's a secure product. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution because it is overall a very good solution. As a company, they are very established and stable, and they have a long legacy in the industry. They have been there in the industry for a long time. On top of that, they have very good solutions. They can just improve their offerings and marketing in terms of the new rebranding. I would rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

We're an integrator. We have a big customer base, therefore we always have to be up to date with the latest versions. We feed to constantly look at things so that we know the new features. I highly recommend the solution to other companies. F5 has a huge portfolio of plug-ins. You can add it to the top of the web. On the same appliance, you can have your balancer, you can have your application authentication, and those things that turn on. You can have multiple other features on the same hardware. It is definitely a technology that adapts. I can use the application in different ways beyond just security. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a perfect ten.

Advice that I would give to people considering F5 WAF is to look at and consider other products as well. They have to make sure they know what they are getting into. That is key to finding the right solution. I think WAF requires a lot of time and patience as well as an understanding of your applications in order to make the best use of its capabilities. On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the F5 Advanced WAF as a solid eight-out-of-ten.

If I would compare F5 with other solutions, the main differences are the support and the stability of the code, it has fewer bugs. For on-premises deployments I would recommend F5, but for the cloud, it would be questionable. I would rate this solution a seven of ten.

My advice is that if you need a web application firewall you should go for F5. It is one of the best solutions in the past six or seven years. F5 has been the leader in this field. It's a stable solution. One just has to decide their organization's goals in the beginning for the next five years or so. Because if they wrongly select the hardware module, they cannot do the scalability if they want to add a number of modules in the future. So selecting the product should be done with great care. Otherwise, I guess it's okay. If you want a good web application firewall go for F5. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to have clarity with respect to their own scenario, or application. They have to know what they are expecting out of this deployment. As the system integrator, I may not be sure about the client's applications or how they work internally, so I have to rely on them. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're using several versions of the solution; anything between versions 12 to 14. I would recommend the solution. It's the best option for WAF, at least in the last year or so. I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

I would want to use ASM, or Area Security Manager, which I would rate as seven of ten. That offers lending passability, where the device should be able to lend or call the application and know the component of an application.

We currently deal with the on-premises deployment model. I would recommend the solution for use as an efficient firewall. Security is a complex thing, however, and I would advise others to use multiple vendors for different layers. I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

I definitely recommend this solution because of the time you save on analysis. It is a stable program and you get additional features. The more you work on it, the more features you discover. I rate this solution ten out of ten.

I would recommend this solution. It would be the best solution for WAF. I think the dashboard can be improved. When you move from the policy to policy, the logs and the integration of the logs are without a system. Maybe make it like other SIEM systems and system servers like Splunk. They do have a lot of training videos and manuals. This helps. But not really about integration or feature improvement. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I will rate the product a nine out of ten.

My advice is to recommend F5 Advanced WAF for use. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate F5 Advanced WAF a nine.

We are a partner for F5, or a system integrator, not the client. So we do the implementation for other companies. I've been working with F5 for more than 10 years, so I know them very well. I like them because I like the security solution. They get extra marks compared to other solutions or competitors. There are more features than any other product I can think of. They're always monitoring, and the security features offer more than other, lesser products. I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

I would rate the solution 8 out of 10. We are concerned about the other factors but it's actually not F5 company's fault. The pricing is really high here right now because of the dollar rate but it has nothing to do with the F5, it's because of the sanctions I imagine. At the moment it's a really expensive solution for us, not only F5 but the other appliances. If I went to another company, and the other company hired me, I would suggest they use this device. Although we don't have a lot of options to choose from around here.