AWS WAF OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

AWS WAF is the #3 ranked solution in top Web Application Firewalls. PeerSpot users give AWS WAF an average rating of 7.8 out of 10. AWS WAF is most commonly compared to Cloudflare Web Application Firewall: AWS WAF vs Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. AWS WAF is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 66% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 19% of all views.
AWS WAF Buyer's Guide

Download the AWS WAF Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: June 2023

What is AWS WAF?

AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) is a firewall security system that monitors incoming and outgoing traffic for applications and websites based on your pre-defined web security rules. AWS WAF defends applications and websites from common Web attacks that could otherwise damage application performance and availability and compromise security.

You can create rules in AWS WAF that can include blocking specific HTTP headers, IP addresses, and URI strings. These rules prevent common web exploits, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. Once defined, new rules are deployed within seconds, and can easily be tracked so you can monitor their effectiveness via real-time insights. These saved metrics include URIs, IP addresses, and geo locations for each request.

AWS WAF Features

Some of the solution's top features include:

  • Web traffic filtering: Get an extra layer of security by creating a centralized set of rules, easily deployable across multiple websites. These rules filter out web traffic based on conditions like HTTP headers, URIs, and IP addresses. This is very helpful for protection against exploits such as SQL injection and cross-site scripting as well as attacks from third-party applications.
  • Bot control: Malicious bot traffic can consume excessive resources and cause downtime. Gain visibility and control over bot traffic with a managed rule group. You can easily block harmful bots, such as scrapers and crawlers, and you can allow common bots, like search engines and status monitors.
  • Fraud prevention: Effectively defend your application against bot attacks by monitoring your application’s login page with a managed rule group that prevents hackers from accessing user accounts using compromised credentials. The managed rule group helps protect against credential stuffing attacks, brute-force login attempts, and other harmful login activities.
  • API for AWS WAF Management: Automatically create and maintain rules and integrate them into your development process.
  • Metrics for real-time visibility: Receive real-time metrics and captures of raw requests with details about geo-locations, IP addresses, URIs, user agents, and referrers. Integrate seamlessly with Amazon CloudWatch to set up custom alarms when events or attacks occur. These metrics provide valuable data intelligence that can be used to create new rules that significantly improve your application protections.
  • Firewall management: AWS Firewall Manager automatically scans and notifies the security team when there is a policy violation, so they can swiftly take action. When new resources are created, your security team can guarantee that they comply with your organization’s security rules.

Reviews from Real Users

AWS WAF stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its user-friendly interface and its integration capabilities.

Kavin K., a security analyst at M2P Fintech, writes, “I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through.”

AWS WAF was previously known as AWS Web Application Firewall.

AWS WAF Customers

eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International

AWS WAF Video

AWS WAF Pricing Advice

What users are saying about AWS WAF pricing:
  • "It's cheap."
  • "For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey"
  • "AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money."
  • "Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge. It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
  • "AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage."
  • "The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients."
  • AWS WAF Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Adrian Milea - PeerSpot reviewer
    Raiffeisen at Raiffeisen Bank Romania
    Real User
    Top 20
    Easy to deploy, implement, and manage
    Pros and Cons
    • "The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general."
    • "For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends."

    What is our primary use case?

    We primarily use the solution for load balancing. 

    We have some microsites exposed through the AWS cloud. These are some sort of pilot and we are using WAF to learn how this new product fits with us, and are mostly in the testing phase with a limited impact application. We are obviously not migrating core applications or those which have a significant impact on availability or on integrity and confidentiality. Mostly we have it on microsites where we don't see a significant risk, and it is more of a learning exercise for us.

    What is most valuable?

    The most important aspect for us is that AWS WAF is easy to deploy. The ease of implementation, ease of management, and flexibility are great. We like the potential for pay as you grow as you have instant deployment, infrastructure as a code, or any other automation tools that can leverage these deployments. The most important thing for us is that it stays flexible and scalable. That is true not only with WAF but with all the cloud services where you can provision any product in minutes. 

    With the cloud, you have these integrated tools that provide a single glass pane. 

    You have automation, ease of export, or ease of seeing the logs and exporting to a SIEM; these aspects are also great. The agility is great for us in terms of cloud services in general.

    Usually, if we're talking about standard WAF, this is easy to deploy and is good at protecting low to medium applications.

    What needs improvement?

    As of now, regarding WAF, I'm not sure what the minuses or pluses are. You have the native WAF, which you can deploy directly on the load balancer. However, you also have that store where you can actually deploy some other vendors' specifics. At this point, feature-wise, I don't see anything lacking, more or less. Obviously, if we want to migrate, which is not yet the case, there might be a significant impact.

    For uniformity, AWS has a well-accepted framework. However, it'll be better for us if we could have some more documented guidelines on how the specific business should be structured and the roles that the cloud recommends. If every company is building its own framework based on their experience or their past experience, this might be subjective, and it'll end up with each company having its own framework, which can be good. However, it'll be better to have a standardized baseline that every company could build on. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We've been using the solution for more than a year at this point. 

    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF
    June 2023
    Learn what your peers think about AWS WAF. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2023.
    709,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    You have multiple availability zones and regions. The availability or durability is not something that we need to concern ourselves with very much here. Regarding the availability, I don't think this is something that the average company could match. They have a lot of availability zones, redundancy, and all the other things like that.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's scalable. Mostly, what I would look into is having cloud resiliency in the sense that we want multiple vendors, so if something happens with AWS, you'll need some sort of strategy and you'll need some other vendor to provide you with similar services. 

    We have a number of users per application. It's hard to quantify how many users are on the solution in general. 

    How are customer service and support?

    For us, it's a bit of a different model where we have services provided by one central team or central entity. The others will have some sort of hub and spoke with the central entity providing or re-providing services to the other network units. The relationship with AWS is maintained by our central unit, and we somehow take services from the central unit and customize them per our needs. However, if we have some issues, this will be raised by the group. Issues may be resolved by AWS or an SME that works with us. 

    How was the initial setup?

    In terms of the initial setup, from what I heard, it initially being a new technology, you want to deploy it in a correct manner. Therefore, it will need more diligence in the first deployment as security is not something you can learn and adjust. You need to make it right from day one in order to avoid breaches. However, after that, with infrastructure as a code and the automatic deployment, it's easier. You just create your setup, and you use the rules and go. You have network access to a security group, which provides you with very general filtering for problematic traffic. 

    From my experience, the cloud provides everything we need; however, we still lack the knowledge and framework in terms of who is doing what, et cetera.

    It's quite different between on-premise and cloud. In the cloud, DevOps is doing a lot of things. On-premise, you have someone from infrastructure, someone installing the OS, and someone doing the vulnerability and patch management.

    Depending on how you deploy, the activities need to be revised. You need to have this framework to work in the cloud, and it's more of a challenge in company philosophy rather than technical capabilities. Companies can find it challenging to migrate to new tools. Sometimes existing teams need to be re-educated. 

    We have multiple applications, so usually, it takes a while to refine the framework with the responsibility inside the company. It's to be optimized. However, in terms of actual deployment, security-wise, it takes some time to do the security checks, including the scanning and vulnerability asset inventory. It might take two or three months per application.

    What other advice do I have?

    I definitely recommend not only AWS. I also recommend Azure as an option. We have the integration with Office and the entire portfolio. The cloud, in general, it's a new thing to consider. For example, you have this GDPR with data in Europe. However, in the case of most of the clouds, you can select your regions and you have some control. 

    I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

    There are a huge amount of products. I'm not saying it's a bad or a good thing. However, it can be quite confusing. There are VPC, EC2, and other instances, and there are a lot of other services that you can use like Macie, where you can filter sensitive information. There are a lot of tools that require hands-on and new capabilities. For me, being at the beginning of this journey for cloud migration, I've been mostly quite happy with the results.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Engineer at a renewables & environment company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    A basic WAF with limited controls, but cheap and better than having no WAF in place.
    Pros and Cons
    • "As a basic WAF, it's better than nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good."
    • "We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS."

    What is our primary use case?

    At the moment, it's just myself working with AWS WAF in my company, and our use case for it is normal, or what you would expect from a Web Application Firewall. That includes basic DoS blocking and malicious IP address blocking. It's not a big thing for us, and just takes care of our baseline security.

    What is most valuable?

    As a basic WAF, it's better than having nothing. So if you need something simple out of the box with default features, AWS WAF is good.

    What needs improvement?

    I think there's a lot wrong with AWS WAF. Here are the two main areas where I think it could be improved:

    Blocking: We don't have much control over blocking, because the WAF is managed by AWS. What happens is that they will put down the rules on their side and we don't have proper visibility on that. So we'll have to track down the issues and see what is wrong or not. For example, with IP address blocking, it's difficult to find out which IPs are getting blocked. If we managed our own WAF completely, we wouldn't have this kind of problem. Right now, this aspect is half managed by us, and half managed by AWS. Because of this, I think it would be far more helpful to us if we went for our own tool instead.

    Automation: As in, a lot of separate blocks if something goes wrong. For example, every company will have their own rules for automation, in terms of their goals for the product. Like, "I want my WAF to do this. I want my WAF to do that." But that's the kind of thing that I think we will only see when we do some POCs with our clients. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with AWS WAF for around one year now. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The performance has been good, even though it could be better. At any rate, the WAF has not caused any lag on our side.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is scalable in my experience, but the lack of features doesn't take it very far in terms of actual usage. Eventually, customers will move away from it. If there's no one interested in managing the WAF, that's fine, then customers may keep using it. But for us, we are not planning to scale it out further.

    How are customer service and support?

    AWS technical support is good.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup is easy and nothing serious. You don't have to do a lot to get set up with it. Compared to other WAFs out there, I think AWS WAF is very simple, especially since most of it is managed by AWS.

    What about the implementation team?

    We haven't needed anyone from AWS to help us with the deployment or implementation. It's all me at this point.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It's less cost and easy to setup

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    There are multiple other options which we could have gone for, but it depends on the budget, typically. I am especially interested in a WAF which has serious support for automation and more complex configuration options.

    What other advice do I have?

    For people who don't have any WAF currently, and who just need something basic, it's not a bad idea to go with AWS WAF for starters. But if you are someone who is looking for a fully-fledged and self-managed WAF, you should look elsewhere for a better tool. You should certainly not stick with AWS WAF if you are serious about managing your security and mitigating your risks.

    Overall, I would recommend AWS WAF to others, but only under the conditions I have mentioned. If you have the budget and the resources, however, go for something else.

    I would rate AWS WAF a five out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    AWS WAF
    June 2023
    Learn what your peers think about AWS WAF. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2023.
    709,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Kavin Kalaiarasu - PeerSpot reviewer
    Security Analyst at M2P Fintech
    Real User
    Top 10
    A user-friendly web application firewall with a useful integration feature, but it could be more flexible
    Pros and Cons
    • "I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through."
    • "It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic. Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications. In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation."

    What is our primary use case?

    We partner with many banks in India, and many partners use our portals to access their credit card or debit card information. So we use AWS WAF to protect our web application servers, app servers, and API servers from any malicious attacks which arise from the public internet. We also use AWS WAF for virtual patching of our servers to prevent any malicious requests from reaching the gateway to our internal systems.

    What is most valuable?

    I believe the most impressive features are integration and ease of use. The best part of AWS WAF is the cloud-native WAF integration. There aren't any hidden deployments or hidden infrastructure which we have to maintain to have AWS WAF. AWS maintains everything; all we have to do is click the button, and WAF will be activated. Any packet coming through the internet will be filtered through. 

    What needs improvement?

    It would be better if AWS WAF were more flexible. For example, if you take a third-party WAF like Imperva, they maintain the rule set, and these rule sets are constantly updated. They push security insights or new rules into the firewall. However, when it comes to AWS, it has a standard set of rules, and only those sets of rules in the application firewalls trigger alerts, block, and manage traffic.

    Alternative WAFs have something like bot mitigation or bot control within the WAF, but you don't have such things in AWS WAF. I will say there could have been better bot mitigation plans, there could have been better dealer mitigation plans, and there could be better-updated rule sets for every security issue which arises in web applications.

    In the next release, I would like to see if AWS WAF could take on DDoS protection within itself rather than being in a stand-alone solution like AWS Shield. I would also like a solution like a bot mitigation.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using AWS WAF for a couple of years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We haven't faced any issues over the past couple of years, so I believe AWS WAF is a stable product.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Since we are AWS-native, it's very scalable. It can handle almost any infrastructure running within the AWS public cloud. We have around 20 portals, and about 20 products usually use AWS WAF. I'll say that about 15 people use AWS WAF to manage the traffic and filter out security issues. Those people are security analysts, SOC analysts, and layer 1 network analysts.

    How are customer service and support?

    In our business use case, sometimes it has triggered a false positive where it blocks some of our legitimate traffic. So we contact support to ask if this is legitimate and if we have to implement a new rule or if we have to allow such traffic and not mark it as a false positive. We have contacted them only for such occasions, and their support was really good.

    On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a four.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was very simple. It's just a click of a button.

    What about the implementation team?

    We already have web applications running on an AWS account, so it probably took about two minutes to implement this solution.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    For our infrastructure, we probably pay around $16,000 per month for AWS WAF. Because alternative WAF solutions provide even more features, I think the AWS WAF is a bit pricey

    What other advice do I have?

    I would say that I think it's easy to use, easy to deploy, and has all the basic WAF features. It has no advanced features like bot mitigation or DDoS protection built-in. If it had bot mitigation or advanced security filter patching features, I would probably give it a higher rating, like a nine.

    On a scale from one to ten, I would give AWS WAF a seven.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Aravindhan Suresh - PeerSpot reviewer
    DevOps Engineer at Hippo Video
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    It is user-friendly and has documentation on how to use it; it is stable and has a simple setup
    Pros and Cons
    • "What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours."
    • "AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process."

    What is our primary use case?

    We faced many potential threats, such as hackers flooding in the requests, so we started using AWS WAF to block those IPs and stop those attacks. If multiple IPs are trying to attack our product, we'll also use AWS WAF by selecting the endpoints the hackers were attacking and then blocking those endpoints. Our cybersecurity team primarily uses AWS WAF.

    What is most valuable?

    What I like best about AWS WAF is that it's a simple tool, so I could understand the basics of AWS WAF in two to three hours. From the start, I know its purpose and its use case.

    AWS WAF also has documentation. It's a user-friendly tool, and it's easy to know how to block the IPs and endpoints.

    What needs improvement?

    AWS WAF would be better if it uses AI or machine learning to detect a potential attack or a potential IP that creates an attack even before it happens. I want AWS WAF to capture the IP and automatically write the rule to automate the entire process. I want an AI feature in AWS WAF in the future.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I only saw how AWS WAF works for seven months when the cybersecurity team used it, so my knowledge of the tool is basic. I'm not an expert on AWS WAF.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    AWS WAF is a stable product.

    How are customer service and support?

    I have yet to contact the AWS WAF technical support.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    As the company is an Amazon customer, the company looked into what other Amazon services could prevent the attack and came across AWS WAF when the attack happened. The tool was also easy to use and could prevent attacks and safeguard the company's product, so the company decided to use AWS WAF.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup for AWS WAF was simple. It was a basic setup process, though I have no idea about deployment time.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    AWS WAF costs $5 monthly plus $1 for the rule. It's cheap, cost-wise. It's worth the money.

    What other advice do I have?

    AWS WAF has three users within the company.

    If I were to advise you on using AWS WAF, I'd tell you first to understand how the attack is happening. For example, is it a single server attack or multiple servers or regions? It would be best to find out which target is being attacked. You need to know the basics before using AWS WAF. You also need to know the rules. You need to understand how to secure your endpoints. Users should have a basic understanding of AWS WAF and its purposes before using it. You need basic cybersecurity knowledge.

    I'm new to cybersecurity, so AWS WAF is the first cybersecurity product I used and based on my experience and usage, it's a ten out of ten. AWS WAF is a user-friendly, on-point tool, and I could understand it easily.

    My company is an Amazon customer.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Venkatesh VRH - PeerSpot reviewer
    Cloud Security Manager at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
    MSP
    Top 10
    Helps to secure applications and has good support, but needs more automation and easier deployment
    Pros and Cons
    • "AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice."
    • "An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently."

    What is our primary use case?

    It's more of an application security tool that we use to secure applications. 

    What is most valuable?

    AWS WAF is something that someone from a cloud background or cloud security background leverages. If they want to natively use a solution in the cloud, AWS WAF comes in handy. It's very useful for that, and the way we can fine-tune the WAF rules is also nice.

    What needs improvement?

    It's pretty much an AWS native service, so it's something that they improve year after year. They do continuous improvements on a year-by-year basis, so the product is really good. An improvement area would be that it's more of a manual effort when you have to enable rules. That's one of the downsides. If that can be done in an automated way, it would be great. That's a lagging feature currently.

    It could also support multi-cloud integration where you can integrate with applications other than AWS applications. It would be a good feature or use case for this solution.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution for almost three to four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's stable. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's scalable. We probably have more than a hundred users. It's pretty much being used by everyone, such as engineers, managers, etc. Everyone is into it.

    How are customer service and support?

    We get good support. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We didn't use any similar solution previously. In the future, we might use another solution, but for now, we are more into AWS WAF.

    How was the initial setup?

    It's neither complex nor simple. It's somewhere in the middle. I'd rate it a six out of ten in terms of the ease of the setup.

    It's a cloud solution, and we have a multi-cloud scenario. We are pretty much using all four clouds: Amazon, Azure, AWS, and Oracle. It's a mix-and-match or hybrid.

    In terms of maintenance, there would be a team of engineers to maintain it.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Its price is fair. There is a very fair amount that they charge.

    It has a pay-as-you-go model, so it pretty much depends on how much a user uses it. As per the cloud norms, the more you use, the more you pay. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing.

    What other advice do I have?

    Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten because it's not automated and it's a bit complicated to implement or deploy the solution.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Principal Cloud Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Beneficial cloud service, flexible on-demand features, but requires better security
    Pros and Cons
    • "The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand."
    • "The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use AWS WAF to prevent cyberattacks, such as SQL Injection attacks and cross-site scripting attacks. The end users' traffic has more threats and the web application gives good support.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features of AWS WAF are its cloud-native and on-demand.

    Any customer can leverage AWS WAF immediately, it has a basic set of rules that are available.

    What needs improvement?

    The solution could improve by having better rules, they are very basic at the moment. There are more attacks coming and we have to use third-party solutions, such as FIA. The features are not sufficient to prevent all the attacks, such as DDoS. Overall the solution should be more secure.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using AWS WAF for approximately four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    This is a very stable solution.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    AWS WAF is scalable.

    We have approximately five customers using this solution.

    How are customer service and support?

    The technical support is very good. They are responsive and knowledgeable, they have always come back with a resolution or a workaround to help us.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup took approximately 15 mins, it is easy.

    What about the implementation team?

    We have a team that does the support for the solution.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    AWS WAF is pay-as-you-go, I only pay for what I'm using. There is no subscription or any payment upfront, I can terminate use at any time. Which is an advantage.

    What other advice do I have?

    The first version of AWS WAF was not mature but the second version is very mature.

    I would recommend this solution to others because instead of choosing a third-party solution which will take time, and you will have to be in negotiations. It is good to start with AWS WAF for their minimal primary security firewall to save their workload. AWS WAF is available on-demand from day one.

    I rate AWS WAF a seven out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    PeerSpot user
    Solution Architect at a non-profit with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    A stable solution, but installation, navigation and configuration are overly complex and the price is not efficient for small customers
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution is stable."
    • "While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex."

    What is our primary use case?

    While I cannot say for certain, I believe that we are using the latest version. 

    What is most valuable?

    I like the scalability, as it provides platform, infrastructure and software as a service. These are the best features. When it comes to the API Gateway, such as Amazon Web Application Framework, the web application will be protected by all industry standard security aspects. We are talking about encryption, firewalls, SSL and TLS. Basically, all web exploit policies and rules will be applied, so that one's web or mobile app can be highly secured.

    In terms of hosting the instances, the solution takes care of all necessary scaling to ensure that the application load is balanced. The horizontal or vertical scaling can be automatically removed. As such, AWS provides many services and features. 

    What needs improvement?

    The pricing should be more affordable, especially as it pertains to small clients. 

    While the complexity of the installation can vary from one service to another, overall, I would say that it and the configuration and navigation are somewhat complex. These could stand improvement and bring down my rating of the product. 

    Customer support should also be improved. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using AWS WAF for around two years. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution is stable. 

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution is scalable. 

    How was the initial setup?

    While it can vary according to the service involved, installation, configuration and navigation are, broadly speaking, complex. 

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The solution could be more cost-efficient for small customers. 

    What other advice do I have?

    The solution may be expensive for smaller customers and vendors, although it would be recommended for large ones who can afford it. 

    Our organization has only a few years, consisting of the internal team, who are making use of the solution. 

    I rate AWS WAF as a six out of ten. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Regional Security Team Lead at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Stable web application firewall used to protect against common vulnerabilities with a powerful CDN component
    Pros and Cons
    • "The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances."
    • "This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use this solution to protect our web applications against common vulnerabilities. The CDN component is also quite powerful. We use this solution alongside Azure WAF.

    What is most valuable?

    The simple configuration and the scalability have been most valuable. We are able to scale across all of our different AWS instances.

    What needs improvement?

    This solution could be improved if the configuration steps were more specific to WAF, compared to other cloud services. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using this solution for two years. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    This is a stable solution. We rely on AWS's other cloud services and we've never experienced any stability issues. 

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    This is a scalable solution. 

    How are customer service and support?

    Our support experience has been quite good. 

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    The main reason we switched from using CloudFlare to AWS is to have a native offering because all of our cloud solutions are on AWS. This made it simpler compared to using a third party and easier to reroute traffic.

    How was the initial setup?

    It depends on your AWS configuration, but what we've experienced is that the rule policy configuration is really straightforward. It took a couple of weeks. 

    What about the implementation team?

    We had in-house expertise.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    We have a medium amount of traffic per month and the cost is in the hundreds rather than in the thousands. I don't know the exact number.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would advise others to ensure they understand what can be done internally and then what you need expertise for externally. If you have the expertise internally, it can be easily configured. Keep the SIEM configuration as simple as possible, rather than trying to modify and configure too many things.

    I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free AWS WAF Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: June 2023
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free AWS WAF Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.