If I had to summarize what needed improvement, I'd say they are currently in the process of updating their software. But more specifically, I would say their graphical interface, the GUI. I don't like the GUI as much as before, but now I think they're focusing on it. We are getting some new good features in the latest update. But there is still room for improvement on the user interface as well. It's easy to use. It's not difficult but it is not pleasing to the eye. Most of the time you want to see something dynamic, something like the reporting section or the system usage, the CPU, some detailed graphs, anything of that sort. So I guess they have some room for improvement there. Don't make it more complicated, just make it more pleasing to the eye.

We are using the most stable version. Because recently we got an email from F5 suggesting that if you have any user on the 14.1.2.0 that there was a vulnerability on that feature. And it was quite a severe one, so they asked us to immediately update that license to another version.

They currently have 15 versions, but they are not stable. They didn't recommend them to us. So most of the customers in Pakistan are using the 14.1.2.6 version. That is the most stable version and is recommended by F5.

My focus is normally on logging and reporting, because customers always ask for a clear reporting criteria. I would like it if they could simplify the reporting process. If I create something, I want to get a good report on it that I can read in seconds or in minutes. I don't want extra details in it. They should work on the exporting of the logging and reporting.

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.  

We usually use a third-party tool for logging and reporting. It would be nice if we could do that right on this solution. They have one, but it's not very stable. Logging and reporting effectively would be a big enhancement.

The solution still needs some development to handle more traffic, especially in huge environments. In small environments, it's not an issue. 

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.

F5 Advanced WAF could improve resource usage, it is CPU intensive. Additionally, adding automated remediation would be a benefit. For example, an easy button alerts us of the events that are occurring, and what we want to do at the time. An automated approach where somebody could be alerted very quickly. Instead of going and reconfiguring everything, an automated approach is what I'm looking at.

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.

Its price should be better. It is expensive.

The solution could improve by having an independent capture module. It has a built feature that you can deploy the capture on your published website. However, it's not very user-friendly. When you compare this feature to Google Capture or other enterprise captures, they are very simple. It needs a good connection to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. When you implement this feature in the data center, you may suffer some complications with connecting to the F5 Advanced WAF sandbox. This should be improved in the future.

The reporting portion of F5 Advance WAF is not great. They need to work out something better, as it is very basic. You only see the top IPs, I think there is more they can offer.

If they could separate the control plane from the data plane, it would give us more flexibility, especially with the Hyper Cloud. This could be the reason they purchased NGINX.

They have released the first production release but they are not there yet. It would be good to have this separation in the near future.

Also, automation on the cloud is not easy. It's a bit of a job, and it doesn't auto-scale very well.

They need to work on the BIG-IQ, which is centralized management. There are too many devices. Managing them individually is inconvenient. Essentially, BIG-IQ is supposed to centralize the management for all of the boxes but it's not very effective.

There should be more ability to rate limit certain scenarios. The majority of the time, it is either on or off. For certain types of use cases, there should be the ability to rate limit, not just enable or disable.

It is a very CPU-intensive application. I understand why, but I'm hoping that they could optimize the CPU utilization a little bit better.

The reporting could be clearer and embedded to include our movement data. The product could improve the interface by reducing the bookmarking more frequently and some other features. Ideally, it could do with a brand new interface. There is sometimes information overload in the logs. It is sometimes difficult to detect attacks on the firewall because it is hidden amongst many other data. The logs are not always helpful in this regard. I was disappointed in the reporting.

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

I would like to see the API Protection improved.

I would like to see a better interface and better documentation compatibility with other products. It's more complicated with OWASP.

F5 has a learning university, but it's very complex. I teach other people, and it can be confusing with the different versions of software. It's very hard to support that.

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.

F5 Advanced WAF could improve on its funding for WAF features. There is a need to be more advanced WAF features.

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 Sandbox integration feature could be improved.

The pricing could be more flexible.

F5 Advanced WAF could improve the precision of the scanning. There are many false positives. They should improve their threat database.