AWS WAF Reviews

One common use case is using detection protection for enhancing security models in AWS. Another use case is implementing log analysis and response recovery procedures for email services.

I believe there is a need to move towards real-time analysis with the help of AI and intelligent systems in the future. This would reduce the reliance on manual work and enhance the functionality of detection protection. By incorporating AI-driven data analysis and data science techniques, we can improve the solution's user-friendliness, security compatibility, and accuracy.

I have been using the solution for almost a decade.

AWS WAF is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup was easy.

Our in-house engineers implemented the solution. They are already familiar with AWS and hold AWS certifications.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are an AWS service provider and we use the solution for the cloud and to provide service to other users.

The stability of AWS WAF is valuable.

The cost management has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is helpful.

The price is average.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution is a public cloud platform and we have millions of users.

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.

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. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

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

This is a scalable solution. 

Our support experience has been quite good. 

Neutral

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.

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. 

We had in-house expertise.

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.

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. 

I primarily use the solution as a gateway service and a transaction portal. 

We haven't had any issues with the solution so far.

The pricing of the product is very good. They make it very reasonable and it's very easy to afford.

Their technical support has been quite good.

The performance is excellent. It's reliable.

We've found the solution to be quite stable.

We haven't faced any problems with the solution. I can't speak to any missing features. Every aspect of it has been quite good.

I've been using the solution for a while.

The stability has been very good. We've enjoyed a very reliable performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good.

Technical support has been quite good. We've found them helpful and responsive. We are quite satisfied with the level of support that is provided to us.

The solution is very reasonably priced. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship or partnership with AWS.

I have pretty good experience in AWS. I have a certificate in AWS.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with the solution.

We use this solution for online web applications.

The most valuable features are the geo-restriction denials and the web ACL.

I enjoy using it because it is very easy.

Also, it's quite efficient.

The service itself is fine. On the UI side, I would like it if they could bring back the conditions view which had geo match, IP sets and etc. When using WAF classic you could see this option on the left side of the console. Currently IP sets and regex strings is there but geo match does not seem to be included, not sure if geo matching is still supported.

I have been using AWS WAF for almost three years.

We are using the newest version of AWS WAF, which is Version 2.

It's a stable solution. I have not experienced any issues.

There are approximately 1,000 people who are using this solution on a daily basis.

It is easy to scale. Just ensure that you cover the relevant resources within it. You can cover multiple resources such as CDN or use them in your AOD.

It's quite scalable.

I have not contacted technical support.

I have always used AWS. It's been the focus for the last three years.

The initial setup was simple.

It took less than an hour to deploy.

The implementation was completed internally.

It's quite affordable. It's in the middle.

Everything is included with the usage that you take up when you implement the service.

The product does not require any maintenance. You need to ensure how you consider your rules. You have to make sure that all of your considerations for your protection are done really well. Do regular updates to improve on the different threats and intrusion.

I would recommend the product because it is very flexible and you are able to use it with multiple services within AWS.

I would rate AWS WAF a solid ten out of ten.

My whole business is cloud cost management. What I do is help people manage expenses. That encompasses everything from cleaning up software as a service subscriptions to optimizing AWS. My use cases for AWS WAF have to do with cloud research only.  

The best part about it is that it is a cloud solution.  

The complexity of deploying turnkey solutions could be simplified.  

They actually have too many different things that you can tinker with and too many different ways to do the same thing. It may be helpful if the product were to be more directed and if it used best practices with technical and non-technical users in mind.  

We have been using WAF (Web Application Firewall) for six months.  

WAF is very stable.  

I believe WAF is very scalable.  

We have only two staff in our organization who are using AWS WAF.  

Technical support is more-or-less fair. That is where most technical support falls these days.  

The initial setup is really sorta complex. That is something which could probably be made easier.  

The licensing costs are variable. For me, it is under a hundred dollars a month.  

The range of your costs with Amazon Web Services is going to be different depending on a lot of factors. It can go as low as actually being free all the way up to millions of dollars. It depends on the organization and how the service is used.  

On a scale of one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven-out-of-ten. A change in the pricing structure that favors the client and simplification is something they would have to do to improve to make that score closer to a ten.  

A primary use case example is when a customer from the cloud wants to expose his applications to the internet. We make sure that the clients, the applications, whatever they're trying to export, are public but that it's not going directly public. We make a backup, for instance, to protect the sellers and applications from security checks, etc. 

There are two models. One is, you can use the free services which you can download from the AWS website. There is also a paid version, where you can go for individual vendors, like Impala, Fortinet, and different vendors, which helps you to attain the top end web application security. It helps them to update the security patches, etc.

AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules. Users can choose from using a free service, which you can do from your own end, or a third-party vendor if you want to as well by choosing a paid version. WAF rules can be managed either by your own self or you can go for a third party.

The best thing with the solution is there is no hard and fast route and when I go for AWS. It's not a monopoly environment.

There isn't room for improvement per se. the cloud is constantly evolving and changing however, so we'll see what the future brings.

When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them. This is because, when it comes to any issues, due to the fact that it says that when the rules are defined by the users, it becomes their responsibility. When there are any problems or threats, which don't get mitigated or the threat is not being properly managed, since the rules are owned by the user, they take responsibility for everything. It would be helpful if AWS could take a bit of responsibility here and help users understand where things went wrong.

Support wise, I don't think they are that good compared to individual vendors. When it comes to vendors, it becomes their product, and being a product owner, they take more responsibility and ownership of issues. AWS doesn't do that at all.

I've been using the solution for two and a half years.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't run into bugs or glitches. It's reliable. You don't see any downtime.

Since we're talking more about the cloud version of the web application firewall, it's highly scalable. When I say scaling, there is a concept called auto-scaling wherein which you can scale up and scale down according to your amount of traffic load. It's automated, so it's highly scalable, actually.

While any company can use AWS, we see a lot of medium-sized firms using this particular solution, as opposed to larger companies, as those have already their own vendors which are already in the on-premises data centers environment.

I would say from the support point of view, there should be more flexibility when it comes to when users have issues to be able to ask for their help. They need to try to go the extra mile and right now they just aren't doing that.

We've only used AWS for a few customers. Usually, we recommend a different solution. However, it depends on the client and the type of budget that they have. As one version of AWS is free, sometimes that is the only option.

The initial setup is not difficult. It's very straightforward.

Deployment is pretty quick and might take up to one and a half hours at most.

You don't need too many people for maintenance. If they are knowledgable enough, a single person can handle it with no problems. They're even able to do some scripting language to handle the deployment and can set up some automation protocols as well.

When it comes to maintenance, the real challenge comes into play for mitigation. You might need maybe we need four to five people, at a large organization.

There are two versions of the solution available, one of which is free, which is the version we use, so we don't pay for anything.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

When customers tend to use multi-cloud vendors and multi-cloud environments, they want solid security protection. That's where the third party comes into the purchase. If any customer is specific to some cloud like AWS or Azure, we won't recommend third party. We'll try to use AWS's own specific services so that it's smarter cost-wise and flexibility wise, so it adds value to the customer.

However, when things go to a multi-cloud environment or a hybrid cloud architecture, that's when the third party comes into the picture. 

I would recommend this solution to companies who are looking for cloud solutions with firewall flexibility. AWS is very user-friendly and largely inexpensive, however, if an organization has the budget, there are lots of great products out there that do largely the same thing.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to protect our internal web solution. We use it to have an internal application for our customers. We are an SME worldwide company, so we have some internal website solutions architects that use this as an internal portal to the internet. We apply a WAF front to our web application.

The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats. It's important to protect the code against the threats on the internet. It redirects any threat, any attack, to a Fail2ban mechanism.

Sometimes it's a bit difficult to check the rules because when you apply a rule, sometimes it's too much and we need to rewrite the rules and make compromises on the rules because it will block too many things. It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security.

We have used AWS WAF for around a year. 

Their support is very good. We have an enterprise agreement with Amazon.

I don't remember there being any problems with the setup.

I think AWS WAF is a great solution. You can define big and a bit smaller architectures and scale out architecture as you need, due to the edge location. Its features are very amazing. 

I would definitely recommend AWS WAF. I asked my security director to move from our internal WAF to the AWS WAF because we can make global unique WAF services for our on-premise web servers and also our AWS web servers with one common rule and one common authority to manage these rules

I would rate AWS WAF an eight out of ten.