F5 Advanced WAF Reviews

For me, the primary use case is to secure web applications from external threats, including cross-site scripting, SQL injection attacks, file inclusion vulnerabilities, and many more. The tool has simplified protection against web applications and recent threats that might be visible. If your applications are vulnerable, it gets protected by F5.

It is a very flexible solution. iRules is quite appealing when it comes to F5, and they apply it throughout their solution. BIG-IP is a known platform, and it is a part of F5 now. Application delivery or web application firewalls, F5 understands these terms and then suggests better data policies. But you have to do the work on your application's performance first. You have to look in the logs and understand the total attack you should prevent when we put it in the circuit protection mode, which works perfectly well.

iRules truly excites me because it has the ability to prevent the end-user and infrastructure from external threats.

Even if the F5’s default signatures and the default behavior are unable to help you, you can customize iRules to reach the objectives.

I don't like the management control of F5.

Moreover, if you are not an expert, it would be really difficult to set it up.

I have been using the product for fifteen years or more.

It is a stable solution.

It is definitely a scalable solution.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. I didn't experience any complexity. It could be difficult for somebody who is not familiar with application load balancers or web applications. It takes a month to understand the entire architecture. It primarily depends upon how great deployment could be.

It usually takes about five to seven days to configure and deploy the F5 Advanced WAF in production mode. It is essential to ensure that your configuration works properly before putting it into production mode.

When you have already designed it, it takes around five to seven days to set up. But it takes more than a month to understand the entire architecture of the F5.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use F5 Advanced WAF to protect our web applications.

What I found most valuable in F5 Advanced WAF is its automatic policy feature.

What needs to be improved in this solution is the accuracy of its automatic learning feature, because we frequently have to help it manually, particularly to stop blocking things it isn't supposed to block.

The technical support for F5 Advanced WAF, though fast and accurate, is costly. The cost could be improved.

I find F5 Advanced WAF a very stable solution.

The scalability of F5 Advanced WAF is very good.

The technical support for this tool is fast and accurate, but it's expensive.

The initial setup for F5 Advanced WAF was straightforward.

We are the integrator and reseller, so we deployed the solution in-house.

F5 Advanced WAF technical support comes at a cost, and it's expensive.

I'm using the latest version of F5 Advanced WAF: version 16.0.

We don't only use this solution for ourselves, as we also have some customers we implemented it for, because we are a reseller.

Deployment of F5 Advanced WAF took two to three days.

The advice I'd like to give to people who are looking into implementing this product is for them to read the documentation. It's all there.

I'm rating F5 Advanced WAF eight out of ten.

We use this solution for web application protection. The solution offers layer seven protection of the applications and can be configured against attacks.

There are a lot of good features.

I would like for there to be a cloud-based solution, this would also help to improve scalability.

I have been using this solution for about a year or so.

This solution is quite stable.

Scalability is limited since it is an on-premise solution. You will have to size your box properly, based your throughput and capacity. Our company uses it to protect all traffic of out 5.5 thousand users and we have plans to expand the usage.

Support was helpful when we reached out.

We used Kona Defender and Akamai Web Application Firewall for about a year prior to using F5. The main reason that we switched was due to costs.

The initial setup was rather complex taking a lot of time and information to be configured. We have two administrators for maintenance. 

Our consultant was able to help us integrate the solution in a day or two.

There is a perpetual license that comes with your hardware. There is also an additional fee for support.

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.

We use F5 Advanced WAF to secure our public cloud. We also use it to secure firewalls for applications and websites. Whether on-premises or on public cloud, these are the usual use cases for WAF.

The most valuable feature of F5 Advanced WAF is its ability to mitigate attacks: DDoS and DNS, or layer seven application attacks, OWASP, and email.

The vendor needs to work on developing an MSP model for this solution as that is what's trending on the market, plus integrating this solution under a SASE model. Not all vendors' products are compatible with SASE, and not compatible with delivering multi-deployment options from hardware appliance, VM-based, shared cluster, etc.

The compatibility of F5 Advanced WAF with multiple public cloud environments also needs to be improved, and not to be overlooked with the VMware environment.

This solution shouldn't only focus on Azure public cloud compatibility, as they need to also work with and be compatible with private cloud on multiple environments.

I'm not aware of the latest updates in terms of features, but they need to work on enhancing their product, because it seems they have an issue in the market. Day by day, they seem to be lagging behind all the new products in the market.

We've been working with this solution for one year.

The stability of this solution is not great. It's stable, but you are aware of the performance stability when you are relying on a VM-based environment, so there is another layer of performance of the infrastructure itself which you need to take into consideration when talking about stability.

Sometimes the product performance is good, but the infrastructure you are using causes some performance issues.

Now VMware is doing great when it comes to performance, so the performance of the F5 Advanced WAF licensed on our VMware environment is good as well.

This solution is not easy to scale. F5 is suffering from scalability issues. They are struggling with scalability.

I never contacted F5's technical support team because we are the main service provider, and this means we have our own support.

The initial setup for F5 Advanced WAF is complex.

We implemented this solution through our in-house team.

Pricing for this solution is higher than average in the market, when compared to its competitors. They should revise their prices in the market.

There is no additional cost besides the licensing, and it will also depend on the service delivery model: VM-based or hardware-based. The licensing model, however, is similar among all the vendors.

I evaluated FortiWeb.

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'm the deputy manager of information security and we are customers of WAF.

We're in a banking environment and the signature update is a good feature. It's also very easy to implement WAF. The product works well for us. 

Although we're getting some reports, we're not getting all the reports we need. There seems to be a gap in report management. 

The solution is stable. 

We haven't really tested scalability; we currently have one network team, two or three people who handle the product and we have multiple applications and servers hosted on the WAF so there's no need to scale for now. 

We're satisfied with the technical support. 

The initial setup was a good experience. We had support from the WAF team and a consultancy team for implementation who also provided good support. 

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 was working in sales. We would provide more corporate products. I am not implementing or deploying this solution. I would sell it for projects in the enterprise direction, but it was mostly for financial institutions and some government companies.

It usually used for e-commerce and financial services. Products that banks provide to their customers. It also offers protection of the services.

It is easy to use, and it's also easy to configure. 

The most valuable feature is that it is secure.

The interface is old-looking, it's not modern, which is why it's not always comfortable to use.

I would hope that they provide some updates sooner rather than later.

I have used F5 Advanced WAF for three months in the last year.

We were using the latest version and we update on a regular basis.

It's a very stable solution.

This is a scalable product.

Our customers are in the banking system and we have approximately 200 to a few thousand customers.

We have official support from the distribution channel. One of our distributors is in Ukraine.

They have their own support definition provided with some certifications who are responsible for providing support at the vendor level.

We usually ask for their support and they provide it to us.

Previously, we used BIG-IP and we used Web Application Firewall.

I was not involved in the installation.

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.

We are using it to secure a few applications for our customers. 

The valuable features vary from customers to customers. Some customers are okay with the basic features of the WAF, and some customers use advanced WAF with a few other features.

It should be a little bit easy to deploy in terms of the overall deployment session. 

One of our customers is a bit unhappy about the reporting options. Currently, it automatically deletes event logs after some limit if a customer doesn't have any external Syslog server. It is a problem for those customers who want to review event logs after a week or so because they won't get proper reports or event logs. They should increase the duration to at least a month or two for storing the data on the device.

F5 is not a leader in Gartner Quadrant, which affects us when we go and pitch this solution. Customers normally go and take a look at such annual reports, and because F5 is currently not there as a leader, the customers ask about it even though we are saying it is good in all things. 

F5 is not known for something totally different or unique. They were a major player in ADP, and they are just rebranding themselves into security. They should improve or increase their marketing as a security company now. They have already started to do that, but they should do it more so that when it comes to security, customers can easily remember F5. At the moment, if we say F5, load balancing comes to mind. With rebranding and marketing, all customers should get the idea that F5 is now mainly focusing on the security part of it, and it is a security company instead of load balancing. This is the first solution that should come to a customer's mind for a web application firewall.

I have been using this solution almost for a year.

It has good stability. Our customers are happy with the implementation. So far, we haven't faced many issues.

Overall, it has been good. We get proper support, and we haven't faced any challenges. However, F5 doesn't provide support during the demo or POC time. Other vendors provide technical support for demo or POC, but F5 does not. We have to reach out to the local AC every now and then, which is a difficult task because most of the time, he is in some other meeting or busy with something else. So, he isn't able to support us. They should give us some kind of technical support for demos and POCs. We should be able to reach out to them for completing a POC. It would be an added advantage.

The implementation was quite smooth. We migrated from CloudFlare to F5 without any major issues. The deployment took almost ten months, and it included the implementation and fine-tuning. The customer had three applications.

Its price is fair. We have done a couple of deals where they were able to give some kind of discount to the customers. The price was initially high for the customers, but after a couple of negotiations, it came within their budget. They were happy with that.

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.

What a WAF is happens to be exactly what we are using F5 WAF for: a firewall for our web applications. It is a totally customizable solution. You have our signature-based rule sets and then we can customize to our heart's content depending on what our application can and can not do or what we are trying to protect against.  

So we are using this for anything that is internet-facing. We are applying the WAF there and we are putting it in block mode wherever possible.  

The features I think are the most valuable starts with the IP intelligence component. That is separately licensed and it is definitely one component that we have made heavy use of. Geo-blocking is another — which can be done without a WAF because you do not necessarily need a WAF to do it — but the F5 WAF has those capabilities.  

The signature-based controls that F5 has are another one of the heavier-used components that Advanced WAF has. We do not have to worry about updating signatures, et cetera. WAF will automatically update the signatures for us. I think that is a nice feature.  

Those are the biggest things that we are making use of month-to-month.  

I think the contextual-based component needs a lot of help. It is all based on regular-expressions. That is something I think companies like Signal Sciences are doing a really good job with. We are transitioning off to Signal Sciences on some of our WAF components because of the capabilities Signal Science has. I think that contextual-base signatures would definitely help in F5 WAF.  

Within the enterprise, F5 Advanced WAF (Web Application Firewall) has been rolled out for about six or seven years. I have been working on it for about three to four years.  

It is a stable product.  

F5 WAF is a scalable solution. A lot of the employees and other end-users (virtually anybody on the internet who is coming to your site) benefit from the solution. As far as the people who are directly dealing with the administration, maintenance, and deploying the updates, there are maybe two people. But it can certainly scale-out to service passive use.  

The F5 tech supports is fairly decent. It is not the top of the line, but they do their job. They give you an account team. The account teams are normally really responsive. When you need to run something by them, they are unlike some other products. With other products you have to go through opening up a ticket — because that is the only way they will respond to you — and later they might come back and say it is not their problem and you need to figure it out on your own. The F5 is very different from that perspective in providing support. Your account team is your go-to group. They will walk you through solutions, help you design solutions, and it is part of the value add of using F5Advanced WAF. I really liked them for the extra effort they put in to provide good support. They do not upsell professional services or anything like that. Because of that, I would rate them a little on the higher side for support than just your average support experience.  

The installation of F5 Advanced WAF is complex. Any WAF that you put in takes a lot of time to install correctly. You never really just drop it in and have it working right off the bat. The only exception I can say that I have come across to that right now is Signal Sciences. You can literally drop that solution in place and put it in blocking mode within the same day. With F5 there is a learning period where you allow it to learn and then you go back because it is based on regular expressions. So you have to go through and check to see that there is normal traffic going through your site, et cetera. In other words, there is training involved. It can take from seven to fourteen days before you get a good signature set up.  

If you just need to turn on the licensing key, that might take 10 seconds to do and that is available essentially immediately when you implement WAF. But when you are talking about implementation — and this is true with any WAF — it is time-consuming. You are integrating a piece of technology with applications that have already been written. It might be a legacy app, it might be a new app or whatever that you use for whatever your use case might be for that application. You are using WAF in order to protect that app. You have to invest time in creating the signatures. That period of time where you are creating the signature is what is complex and extends the period of the implementation.  

That is what I think the true difference is between F5 WAF and the new-gen stuff like Signal Sciences is. With Signal Sciences you literally can just drop in and turn it on.  

F5's licensing varies. I do not know exactly what the individual WAF component costs because they bundle up services and the bundle is what I pay for. I do not pay for individual components.  

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.