Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

Our customers use it to enhance the security parameters of their web applications. Web Application Firewalls serve this exact purpose.

One of the strongest points is its robust issue discovery capabilities. Barracuda invests significant efforts in identifying and resolving issues. They have multiple products that work in tandem to perform these checks, which is beneficial because it automates security updates. This is the primary reason I recommend it to my customers.

One of Barracuda's limitations is its user interface. The GUI for configuration is not intuitive and has remained largely unchanged for the past 10 to 12 years. This is something I've discussed with Barracuda representatives here in Italy as well. It needs more modernization.

I have been working with this solution for 15 years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. The solution has been fairly stable. Normally, there is a built-in kernel and an application. Some modules may crash, for example, the graphical user interface. But in another way, the engine continues to work fine. So from my point of view, the stability is very high.

I would rate the scalability of the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have around six to seven customers using this solution. 

The Barracuda support depends. Sometimes, they solve the issue promptly, but normally, they are not so fast and are not entirely focused on the problem. For example, sometimes I write many requests on the tickets, asking for one, two, three, or four steps and asking for one to three resolutions. Often, they respond with only one or two. So, I need to push again and again.

In other cases, I ask questions and get positive feedback immediately, depending on who the technician is. Barracuda has engineers in the USA, UK, and other countries, so it depends on the technician's location and expertise. So, I am not completely satisfied, but sometimes it is okay, and sometimes it is not okay.

So, depending on the region and depending on the person who actually receives these tickets, the technical support could be more knowledgeable. So they may need some training or education for the entire staff to respond immediately without any delays.

Often, it happens that they respond because they need to, not because they understand the technology I'm using. So they respond just because it's required by the service level agreement, which specifies a response time within four hours. But this is just a response, not a resolution of the case. Sometimes, the response is within the agreed time, but the solution takes much longer.

I have customers using it in both on-premises and cloud environments. The deployment is  a straightforward procedure.

I act as a deployer, configuring the solution based on our customers' needs, whether they are big or small companies and whether they prefer on-premises or cloud deployment.

The deployment takes a couple of days. This application requires precise configuration to protect specific parts of a company's web application. Therefore, it typically takes me two or three days to deploy and fine-tune the solution before it's up and running.

We also handle the maintenance of the solution. We are a team of five technicians who work with the help desk. We do the first contact for the Italian customers. They call me, asking me, and then I escalate it to the Barracuda IT support in case.

The customers are using it and see an ROI. The biggest benefit is the increased security in the internal environment. It automatically enhances their security posture for the applications that should be protected by the WAF.

In Italy, we have a majority of small companies, around 95%. These are companies with 20 employees or fewer. The remaining 5% are what UK and USA define as medium companies, which can have up to 2,000 employees. For large companies and enterprise level, the pricing is right.

For small companies, the price is very expensive because the WAF is an enterprise-level application, not intended for smaller businesses. In my opinion, the price is right for enterprise-level use.

In Italy, the market is different; most companies are small, and the few larger companies with an enterprise approach tend to buy directly from companies like HP, F5, or others rather than through an engineering company like mine.

I've worked with many other vendors. Currently, we also use WatchGuard firewall and systems for protection. But I've also worked with vendors from various regions. For the WAF (Web Application Firewall).

In general, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. It is not a ten because it works well, but there is room for optimization in a few areas. These include the kind of support, the graphical user interface, and the speed of the graphical interface. A better product that achieves these goals exists. In my 40 years of activity, I've never found a perfect one because all applications grow and change over time, and a new version is always an improvement in IT. So these are the reasons why there are two or three points that could be better optimized by Barracuda. The graphical interface, its speed, and the immediate support in case of issues. These aspects limit my evaluation.

Our primary use case is for web applications utilizing it primarily for DDoS and cross-site script protection.

Our organization has improved because it has created a new layer of security analytics. Typically we used to do study code analysis, but then by adding that capability we now have dynamic analysis, which is very difficult to attain unless you have a technology. So now we have not only the visibility on any denial of service attacks, but we also have the ability to defend it.

The most valuable feature is the rule set, the ability to specify IP addresses that are excluded. Having the ability therefore to build rules, and exclude specific domains or websites, is very helpful. And when I compare it with some technologies I have used prior to that, which is Signal Science WAF and such. So how the rule set is handled is actually quite nice.

I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover. Right now if I have applications that run both on Amazon and Google, I have to have two distinct licenses and two distinct implementations. But we are multi-cloud, so I do not want to have to deploy policies on essentially two apps that are essentially the same policies. I would prefer to have a multi-cloud console, in other words, one set of policies that apply to multiple implementations.

I have been working with Barracuda Web Application Firewall for the past two years.

There is great stability.

It is pretty scalable. Because it is a cloud feature, the elasticity comes from the elastic cloud capability, If you make the wrong configurations it is not going to work. We can be working with anywhere between one thousand to twenty-five thousand.

The deployment took around three months to deploy and we used a third party.

The pricing is reasonable.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall an eight out of ten.

This solution is being used as a requirement for architect reference.

The Barracuda Web Application Firewall is more than perfect. It's a near-optimal solution. It has good performance.

The graphical user interface (GUI) of this solution needs improvement. Sometimes it hangs, so you'll need to restart it.

We have a problem with the license because we are unable to migrate the license from a permanent license to a one-year license, or from a temporary license to a permanent license. This is a critical point because we need support from the Barracuda team for this, all the time. They can't change it successfully from their side.

When you start on the licensing, usually during the deployment, we give the customer a temporary license. You can create this token from the website, then when the customer buys the license, you need to upgrade the current license from a one month license to a permanent license for one year, two years, or three years, depending on the license. 

Sometimes, when we are uploading from the old verification, e.g. from the old token to the new token, the VM hangs, and we'll need support from Barracuda's side: from the backend. Their  support team does it like this, and helps us from their side.

The firewall is a little bit complicated.

We've used this solution since last year.

The Barracuda Web Application Firewall is stable.

I find this solution scalable.

Technical support for this solution is acceptable. Sometimes the technical support takes longer because they could have a heavy load, or don't have much time to respond to all of the tickets at once, but that's normal.

The basic setup of this solution is straightforward, and it was nice for us.

We're still using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, but not as much as we used to. We were using it more last year. Usage of it has been reduced, and I don't know why. It's up to the customer, and not up to me. I cannot select for the customer. I cannot change what the customer desires.

I'm still working with this solution, but not as frequently as I did last year. We had a lot of projects dedicated to the Barracuda Web Application Firewall last year. Now, not all of our customers prefer this product, and I don't know why.

The Barracuda Web Application Firewall works on the VM (virtual machine) on Azure cloud. Usually, when you install this solution, the template will provide you the latest version of the Barracuda Plus. On the Azure cloud, we use the JSON template from GitHub.

I can't explain the use case in detail because I'm working with government entity, so it's classified information.

The Barracuda Firewall is a little bit different, when compared to other firewall related products. These products don't have the same interface, sequence, or process, but the Barracuda Firewall has its own character. I noticed this on the firewall, not the WAF.

The deployment and maintenance of this solution requires more than 10 people.

I'll tell people looking into implementing the Barracuda Web Application Firewall that it's one of the best products in the market, and I totally recommended it. Even their support is able to respond fast to our licensing issues.

I'm rating the Barracuda Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten. No solution can get a ten. This solution deserves between an eight and nine rating. I'm putting it as a nine.

I'm using Barracuda as a web application firewall for any application. It is too smart and user-friendly, making it easy to restrict applications and utilize many features.

It is very easy to restrict applications and utilize many features and ensures that it's not complicated to work with.

The most helpful feature is rate limiting, which acts as a security layer against DDoS attacks. Additionally, data leak prevention is very important and ensures protection against attacks.

I faced an issue when Barracuda decided not to support Azure Stack Hub anymore, which was a significant issue as we had many customers using it on that platform. Due to this decision, we had to replace Barracuda with another vendor, which was regrettable.

I have been working with Barracuda Application Firewall for more than four years.

When the SDM crashed, we experienced instability, yet support usually acted quickly and was very helpful, ensuring stability for customers.

Scalability is strong, rated eight to nine. The solution is capable of meeting scalability requirements efficiently.

Technical support may be rated as eight or nine out of ten. The support is very helpful and responsive.

Positive

Due to the decision by Barracuda not to support Azure Stack Hub, we replaced Barracuda WAF with another vendor for more than ten customers.

The setup process is too simple.

On a scale, pricing is nine out of ten. It's a reasonable price for this product.

There is no comparison, as Barracuda is too smart. Compared to FortiWeb, Barracuda is much better.

I would rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall at nine out of ten overall. I can recommend it to other users. Barracuda is one of the remarkable vendors in web security and is too smart.

I use the solution in my company to protect our website.

The solution's most valuable feature is that it actually protects our website, and it provides all the required security functions.

When we have multiple applications in Barracuda, everything is not managed in a single place. For example, Suppose I have four applications and want to make a common change across them. In the aforementioned case, it is not supported at the moment, and I have to go to individual applications and make changes.

Suppose I have four applications in the product and want to make similar changes in all of them together. In the aforementioned case, it is not possible to do anything with Barracuda Web Application Firewall.

I have to go to an individual obligation, make changes, and come out, and go to the next obligation and make the same changes. There is no grouping option.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for six months. I am an end-user of the tool.

It is a mostly stable tool. I rate the stability as a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability as an eight out of ten.

The number of users depends on the public who are accessing our website. It all depends on the popularity, so I can't say the number here. Let us say that there are probably thousands of users.

The solution's technical support is good. There is a delay in the response time when it comes to the support part. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase is easy, but one needs some background knowledge. In terms of security products, one needs some background knowledge of the security practices. Nobody cannot configure the tool. Some certifications and technical knowledge is required to use the tool.

Depending on the person's knowledge of security, I can rate the setup phase as an eight on a one to ten scale, where ten means it is a very easy process.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on how many servers you want to set up in the hybrid environment. There are different components underneath it. There is no common time frame for the deployment. It all varies on a case-to-case basis, depending on how many deployments you are running in a hybrid environment and what services are offered to the user in the hybrid environment. We can't tell you the specific time for the deployment.

Cost is a bit on the higher side. Big companies can afford it.

The product offers protection against web exploitation. With code injection and SQL injection, everything is covered in the tool.

My company has around four applications on Barracuda Web Application Firewall. Everything has been working smoothly with the tool.

Speaking about AI-driven security measures, I would say that the solution has its own in-built machine learning techniques, so we are not using any other solution or AI solution, as it is all integrated with Barracuda Web Application Firewall itself.

Though it is a costly tool, it is a good product that is stable, secure and offers good protection.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The product has fantastic support services. It provides complex solutions, including block mode and other default protection features.

We encountered a few glitches while implementing API security features into the product. Secondly, they could provide transparency for different types of protection parameters available. It will be beneficial if there is some visibility for the same. We faced some downtime issues the last two times due to Barracuda infrastructure. Thus, we are searching for alternate WAF solutions.

We have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for two years.

I rate the platform's stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product's scalability nine out of ten. It is suitable for enterprise businesses.

The technical support services are fantastic. They share the knowledge transparently. This feature is more exceptional than that of other vendors.

Positive

The initial setup process is simple. We have deployed the product on the cloud.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to provide customers with a proxy service that secures transcriptions as part of a seven-layer process. We currently provide this service to twenty customers. 

The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks. 

The scripting is good. 

Layer four could be more secure like layer seven to prevent HTTP and HTTPS attacks. 

There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers. The communication metrics, ports, traffic, source, destination, and service must be enabled to upgrade firmware but there is no documentation or article for opening the communication matrix to upgrade smoothly. 

STM crashes are a repeat issue and they wipe out appliances. Each time, we have to open a ticket with support and get Apache to fix the issue. It is unclear why appliances have issues or fail and need to be recovered with Apache. 

Firmware upgrades cause automatic configuration changes without providing notifications. Configurations such as ports should not be changed automatically because they negatively affect customers. One customer's configuration issue was within the third layer and took seven days to solve. Support mitigation and work describes policies created automatically after upgrading firewalls but we already created and want to retain our own policies. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable but ongoing issues with appliance failures, system crashes, and upgrading firmware affect its smooth operation. 

I opened a support ticket for resolving issues when upgrading firewalls. Support could not get to the issue and did not inform me to check traffic on the firewall. It is important to determine what is plugged in when a parameter is trying to communicate outside to download and upgrade firmware to the latest version. The issue was ongoing for three months until I accidently detected it myself. 

Tickets are not solved in one day and sometimes I have to close tickets without any solution from support. Only tickets at the second or third escalation level receive support. 

The setup is straightforward and installation can be finished in one day. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The solution is based on a licensing model and might be $360 for the hybrid version. 

We have to migrate to another vendor because the solution no longer supports issues with the stack hub. 

We are a partner with Barracuda so recommend the application firewall to our customers but we now have thirteen customers who use Azure stack hub and cannot receive support. We communicated this issue with Barracuda's Middle East management and they suggested using a container as a service. We tried this in our lab but had issues with the installation which we finally resolved. We have some concerns about data being exposed because it is in the cloud. Our customers are administrators and will not accept their data being exposed. 

We would rather work with Barracuda because we have experience with their application firewalls and that makes it easier to support customers. We will have to go to another vendor and take classes to become experts. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use case of this solution is protection of applications. If you have applications, for instance, in Azure, and you want to protect them, you can use Barracuda Web Application Firewall, and you have any input data available. This is one of the best use cases. 

For this solution, we have both cloud-based and VM for Azure. 

Some of the most valuable features are the ease of deployment, the Barracuda support, the easy-to-use console, and the granularity of the reports. 

Barracuda Web Application Firewall's load balancing feature could be improved.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for four years. 

In our organization, there are around 1,200 to 1,800 users of this solution. 

I would rate Barracuda's technical support a nine and a half out of ten. The technical support is very good. 

The installation is straightforward. There are no hidden challenges or anything. Anybody can do it with the installation guide. 

One engineer is more than enough to handle maintenance. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

They only offer a yearly licensing plan. 

There are dedicated web application firewalls like Imperva that allow for enterprise level firewall web apps. The main competitors are FortiWeb and Cloudflare. 

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall an eight out of ten. Everything—support, efficiency, the tax rate—comes into the picture. I would recommend this solution to others who want to start using it. 

Our primary use case for this platform is to protect our web applications.

The product's advanced bot and threat protection capabilities are valuable.

There's potential for improvement in the platform's CMS integration.

I've been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for five years now.

The platform has been quite stable, with minimal disruptions in our operations.

I would rate this solution a ten for scalability.

The customer service and support have been responsive and helpful whenever we've needed assistance.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented the product with the help of a vendor.

The product pricing was competitive for the value it offers regarding security features. 

We evaluated other solutions like FortiWeb but chose this platform due to its comprehensive feature set and scalability options that suited our needs better.

The platform has been a reliable choice for securing our web applications. I recommend exploring their support and training offerings to maximize their effectiveness.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

The product has valuable technical features.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s scalability needs improvement.

We have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for two years now. At present, we use the latest version.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

The product has low scalability, and it is three out of ten. It could be improved.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the process a ten out of ten. It takes a month to complete.

We implement the product with the help of a reseller.

The product is inexpensive. I rate its pricing a two out of ten. We purchase its monthly license.

We have medium businesses as our customers for Barracuda Web Application Firewall. I recommend it to others and rate it a ten out of ten.