Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

We are using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall for website content and front-end web application protection.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for a few years.

I have found F5 more stable than Barracuda Web Application Firewall. They should improve the stability.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall has been scalable in my experience.

I have used similar solutions to Barracuda Web Application Firewall, such as F5 and there are not any major differences between them.

The installation is straightforward.

We need a minimum of three to four people to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

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

The solution is user-friendly and easy to set up.

There should be some some simple case settings offered, as well as documentation and video. 

As most people are aware, the implementation is not easy. 

We implemented Barracuda Web Application Firewall around four years ago. 

The product is stable. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

The technical support is quite good. 

We have primarily been working with Barracuda Web Application Firewall, as we have not yet done much testing of other products. 

It is not easy to implement the solution, although its duration varies with the number of applications that one wishes to deploy. We are talking about a maximum of one hour for a basic configuration. 

The price is reasonable, more so than other products. 

The solution looks good to me. We find that its features provide us with solutions for practically all our needs. 

Our customers run the gamut from small, medium to enterprise. 

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall as an eight or nine out of ten. 

Our customers value the solution's simplicity. 

Occasionally, upon installation of the Energize Updates, the plans will go off track, something which necessitates us calling up their support team for another update. 

The frequency of the release of the updates is also an issue. In the production environment, Firmware cannot be frequently updated. It would be better if their updates would be released annually. 

We have been dealing with Barracuda Web Application Firewall for more than four years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

Our experience with technical support has been very positive. 

The initial setup is easy.

While I would have to check on the price of the solution, I feel it to be okay and it matches the market price.

F5, Imperva and RedBear are the main competitors of Barracuda in our area.

I do not know if they possess certain features which Barracuda Web Application Firewall lacks. I would have to check. 

I would recommend the solution to someone looking for a new web application firewall.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall as an eight out of ten. I do not give the product a higher rating because there are other solutions in Sri Lanka of which the vendors are aware through the Gartner Reports. I believe the solution is not not counted amongst the Gartner leader Quadrant.

Typically these web application firewalls act as an additional layer primarily for traffic. The web application firewalls are more of a safeguard if a company still has legacy technologies, for which they don't have the patches. It's basically used for the protection and security of web applications.

The solution has been quite stable. It's reliable.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

I wouldn't say that the solution is flexible. The technology is moving towards having the firewall, which is distributed to each workload, rather than having a static firewall pertaining to a particular application or a cohort of applications. There are other solutions that are much more flexible in this regard. VMware, for example, gives good flexibility in this regard.

The solution needs to leverage some additional features to a broader scale of software-defined networks.

Given the distributed computing and decentralized architecture with people working in hybrid modules, there'll be lesser and lesser control. People would like to have, for example,  edge computing, et cetera, which is going to be the future for computing. Hence every organization would like to scale the design to the extent where they would like to have their defenses also go along with their workloads. 

If, for an SDN, I need to go to VMware, and, for WAF, I need to go to Barracuda, or different other firewalls, the company is losing market share. They need to increase flexibility, agility, scaling, et cetera, as that is going to be the new normal, maybe in the next two to five years. 

We've been using the solution for close to two years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

I'm not sure about the scalability. I would need to explore it more. The most scalable products are likely VMware's NSX, as it is a company that's bit on cloud migration cloud transformation strategies. They'd like to ensure their workloads are safe and secure. I don't see this in traditional RAFs or even firewalls. 

It's difficult to found how many users are on the solution at this time as we use multiple web application firewalls on different applications. It is not every application however, there would be certain applications that would have a WAF. Likely, it's around 10,000 users across applications.

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future.

We haven't really had to engage with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in general.

We did use a different solution before switching to Barracuda. Typically, we run a POC first before moving onto anything new, which is what happened in this case.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. However, it does help to have some depth of knowledge with the solution. 

I cannot recall the exact amount of time the deployment took.

While I don't have dedicated staff on the solution to handle maintenance, I have about six people on my team that can cover whatever needs to be done when something arises.

Licensing is something the procurement team takes care of. I don't have any insights in terms of the licensing agreement or costs that may be involved.

We are customers and end-users.

Typically, we keep updating our infrastructure, and therefore, we are likely using the latest version of the solution, however, I do not have the version number on-hand.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, we've been quite satisfied with the capabilities of this product. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

We use Barracuda for all the cloud applications in Azure. 

We use Barracuda to protect the application. That's the main feature we use it for. 

Sometimes when we put it in action, we have some blogs that appear as false positives. I think that it's improving. Barracuda should minimize false positives. 

They should make it easier to learn how to use applications. 

I have been using Barracuda Web Application for five years. 

The stability is okay. We haven't had any issues with stability. 

We don't really scale it. We have around 500 users. 

We don't have issues with support. I had an issue with the console where I could not access the console from the inside network. When I accessed it from the inside network, they kicked me. I opened the case with support, we checked the perimeter firewall, and we tried to fix the problem, but it's still the problem.

Support wants me to check the firewall. I checked the administrator for the perimeter firewall and put all the rules for the communication but they told me to upgrade the version. I did and the problem still persisted.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten. 

We had a partner who did the installation. 

I would rate Barracuda an eight out of ten. 

The solution is our WAF for Azure. It is for operation for Transit CAS applications.

We primarily use the solution for the protection of the active WAF. It offers quite good security.

The solution is stable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, especially if you enlist assistance.

We've had some blocks of the application and some false positives. Barracuda needs to ensure there are fewer false positives in general. There also needs to be less of a learning curve on the application in general. That might help us eliminate false positives as well. Basically, they need to help new users better learn and understand the solution.

I have an issue with the console currently. I cannot access the console from inside the network. When I access the entire network, it kicks me off all the time. I opened a case with technical support. We've checked the firewall the perimeter firewall, and we've tried to fix that problem, however, it's still the problem. I have to access the console from outside all the time to this day.

I've been using the solution for a while now. It's been about five years.

The stability is okay. We don't have issues with the reliability of Barracuda. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. I'd describe it as stable for the most part.

The scalability may be okay. However, we have only one Barracuda gateway. We don't really need to scale the solution fight now.

We might have about 500 users within our company using the solution right now.

I've reached out to technical support in relation to a console problem and they have yet to fix the issue for us. All they've done is told me to check the firewall, which I have, and to install a new version. I upgraded the version, however, the issue persists. They haven't been extremely helpful and I'd have to say that I am disappointed with their level of service so far.

Overall, I would rate the support at an eight out of ten.

We also use Imperva. We use both solutions at once.

I'm not the administrator of the installation process. Therefore, it's hard for me to say if it was difficult or complex. I can't really comment on the initial implementation.

That said, it's my understanding, from talking to the administrator in the past, that it wasn't too complex.

I'm not sure how long the deployment took. I only really deployed the last application protection.

We had the support of the partner for the implementation, which helped iron out any difficulties.

We're just a transportation company. We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Barracuda.

I recommend the solution to other organizations for protecting applications specifically in Azure.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We use it for website and web service protection.

Its recommendation about the probabilities on the website is great. It also has free probability managers for the website, which is really helpful. 

The protection engine, signature-based protection behavior, and analysis features are also great. It also has an ATP module for sandbox scanning and behavior analysis for file uploads.

Its interface can be better. It is not very friendly.

I have been working with this solution for three years.

They provide great support with a fast response.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us a day to deploy this solution.

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

We primarily use the solution to secure most data centers. We also use it for mobile apps for malicious automated attacks. 

The solution offers multiple security features. There are machine learning features and great URL encryption. It also offers multi-protocol support against DDoS attacks.

The API security they offer is quite good.

The technical support on offer is very good.

There's multiple application delivery which is impressive.

The deployment isn't very user-friendly.

There are a lot of up and coming competitors in the space, and there's always new technology coming out. The solution needs to make sure that it keeps up with what's going on in the industry to make sure they don't get left behind.

The documentation is lacking. It's not like what you'd get if you were using Juniper or Cisco. They need to expand on it and make it more useful.

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

The stability of the solution is good. It's pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

The scalability has been fine. It's been quite good for us. We don't have complaints in that regard.

We've always been pretty happy with technical support. We find them helpful and knowledgable.

I also work with Fortinet solutions and I find that sometimes they can be limiting and have their own set of difficulties.

The initial setup is okay, however, it's not particularly user-friendly. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It's more difficult.

We are system integrators. We can handle implementations.

The pricing is okay. Unlike other competitors, you are able to negotiate a little bit, which can help drive down the cost to the company.

We're a solution partner, an integrator. We have partnership-level agreements with the solution.

We have multiple deployment models. We use it on-premises as well as on the cloud using both Amazon Web Services and Azure.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It would be hard for any product to rate a ten out of ten for me. However, to get a bit of a higher mark, it should offer better documentation and be more user-friendly, particularly where deployment is concerned. I'd still recommend Barracuda, though. It's pretty solid.