Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

We're using the Fortinet FortiWeb firewall to front-end the production and test applications we run on Azure. We're an Azure environment, and it front-ends those applications.

We currently aren't using any of the advanced features.

Fortinet FortiWeb has given us a more cost-effective security solution. Because it's a software-as-a-service or infrastructure type of platform, we've been able to replace our dedicated hardware platforms. It has given us more flexibility to be able to utilize it as a service.

It has minimized the number of technical resources and the amount of time that we've had to dedicate to setting up and managing the front-end firewall capability. From that standpoint, it has saved us time. I don't know exactly how machine learning is attached to that, but if that had anything to do with the simplification and the ability to give us the information we need reporting-wise, then it has helped us with that.

It has allowed us to not spend as many resources on trying to manage the setups that we used to have to do in the past on the security side. It has taken care of that, so at a higher level, we can manage and configure that. It has reduced some of the time that the staff spent on that, but it's hard to measure the time saved.

Some of the threat detection analytics and the filtering capabilities they give us for filtering a certain type of information that we don't want coming into the site are its valuable features. The analytics are pretty good in terms of being able to see what threats have been detected and mitigated, where they're coming from, and things like that. That has allowed us to do some additional filtering because by looking at threats, we can apply additional filters and try to minimize some of them.

Fortinet FortiWeb works well for what we do and what we use it for. It's fairly easy to use, easy to set up, and easy to monitor. It's easy to configure, monitor, and manage.

Their documentation is fairly complete, but it's sometimes a little bit difficult to search for exactly what you're looking for to resolve an issue. There have been times when we've gone to try to search for areas that we needed to get information on, and it has not always been extremely clear exactly how a particular thing needs to be set up. It sometimes takes a little bit of research to dig into figuring out exactly what it is. More examples would be helpful on what they have. The information sometimes doesn't relate directly to the state of the product at the time, so examples would be helpful.

We've been using this solution for a little over a year.

It has been very good. In the time we've had it, we've had only one issue when they had some sort of outage for themselves that affected us. That was the only one that I've encountered so far.

We haven't done a lot on scaling, but just from configuring the product and looking at it, it appears to be fairly good at scaling. It appears to be fairly or moderately simple to set up for scaling, but we haven't done a lot of scaling with it yet.

It's an in-house hosted web application environment that we utilize. We probably have around 500 to 1,000 people using it. We use it within our company environment. We've anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people depending on the customers that we have linked into it. 

I've contacted their tech support. For the times that I contacted them, they were very helpful. I'd rate them seven out of ten.

Neutral

We did have some specific hardware firewall solutions that were in place at data centers. When we went to the cloud for our applications, we wanted to move to a cloud-based front-end firewall infrastructure. We didn't want to be managing the hardware at locations. 

It was fairly straightforward. It was fairly easy to implement, but the documentation with some examples might have made it simpler. Overall, it was fairly easy to get the initial implementation in place and get things worked out.

We did it all in-house. We had probably three people for its implementation.

It requires minimal maintenance. We probably have two people involved in the maintenance.

We have seen an ROI. The previous hardware solutions we had were fairly expensive. They had a higher cost of maintenance and actual manual support because we had to support the infrastructure and we had to support the product itself. By FortiWeb providing us with a service solution that does that, we're not managing hardware. We're not investing in the hardware upfront, and we're not providing the labor to maintain and install that particular part of it. The only thing we focus on now is the setup and then the constant monitoring of what goes on and any actions we need to take as we move forward. It has helped us in that sense because we don't have the ongoing hardware licensing and hardware infrastructure that we have to mess with. So, it has definitely been a more cost-effective solution.

So far, I have been pretty pleased with the way it's priced and licensed. The way it's done makes it easy, especially for an organization like us, so I've been pleased with the way it's priced and licensed right now.

We didn't evaluate any cloud-based products. We've used Cisco products and Meraki products in the past, but they all were hardware products. When we were looking for a software solution, I had gotten a recommendation for the product from another person I worked with in the past. That person was using it and mentioned to me that I should give it a try. That's how I got into it. It was through a referral. Once I got it and tested it, it seemed like a pretty good product for what we needed, so that's how we went with it.

Fortinet FortiWeb seems to have worked well for blocking unknown threats and attacks. It hasn't necessarily helped us streamline anything, but it has simplified how we provide the front-end firewall capability.

It has reduced false positives to some degree. It tries to identify those to tell us what are the different threats, but it's hard to provide metrics without measuring what false positives might have been there. However, I do know that the reporting that it gives can identify that.

Similarly, I don't know if it has reduced the number of alerts. However, I do know that it has allowed us to categorize and understand what types of threats we get. From the threat alerts, we get to know whether they're alerts we should be concerned about or whether they're just alerts notifying us that those are things that have come in that it has taken care of. So, I don't know if it has really reduced them as much as it has helped us to understand what they are and be able to focus more on if there are alerts that we need to take action on and investigate, or whether they're alerts for things that have been taken care of and we don't necessarily have to spend any time on.

Overall, I'd rate Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten for what it does.

The features I found valuable were web filtering, reporting, and the dashboards. We use these features for controlling the traffic in our network, mainly for our security. This means that we can have policies there that allow or don't allow certain connections.

I know that we have run into some issues with an SSL certificate and how it functions. Sometimes this breaks connectivity or just limits certain websites that are whitelisted. 

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for more than ten years.

The only instance where we have had issues with stability was a recent one where the solution was blocking some websites that we did not intend to block and which were even whitelisted in some instances.

Our partners explained that this happened because of an issue with the SSL setup. I'm not sure if they then sorted it out or if they just switched off that functionality.

But for the past 10 years that we've used it, that was the first error or problem that we ran into. Maybe it was just teething problems since we only deployed it end of last year.

My impression is that it's quite scalable because I know they have different sizes. In one of our organizations, we had fewer users, so we're using a smaller one, which was a 60-day or something like that. And then when you are using it for a bigger organization, they also have that type of device for many users.

They'll ask you how many users are going to be governed by this firewall. So when we had fewer users, we got a smaller firewall. And then when we expanded and had many more users, we got a bigger one. It's quite scalable I think.

Their technical support is good. They'll jump onto the occasion. When you submit a log report or you request some support, they quickly respond. I would rate them a ten. Very good.

Positive

Prior to Fortinet, we used Netgear, but this was a long time ago. I think this was 15 years ago.

The initial setup was not straightforward. You need an expert to set it up with you and to configure it for you. I think the more you work with it, the better accustomed you are to it. The initial setup did not take longer than a week.

The deployment was done in a team of three people.

We implemented it with a third party, and they're the ones who always then deploy and implement it for us. The deployment didn't take more than a week.

I would say that the ROI is visible because we are happy with the security it provides.

The pricing is a bit high. It is not a cheap product.

The reason I recommend this product is because it guarantees that your network will be safe if it is set up properly and you fully utilize most of the functions.

Overall, I would rate FortiWeb solution a nine out of 10.

Our company uses the solution to protect websites from SQL injection and excessive attacks on Layer 7. 

We have 500 users throughout our company. 

The solution is very easy to use with little instruction. 

The anti-defacement feature is very useful because it looks for web changes over time to protect pages. 

A better load balancer is needed when multiple servers are used for the same website. 

A dynamic routing protocol needs to be included with the next release. 

The solution does not handle batch migration as well as F5 Advanced WAF. 

I have been using the solution for five years and serve as an instructor.

The version we use is stable and reliable with no issues. 

It has been reported that the latest version has some stability issues. 

The solution is scalable. 

Scalability always depends on usability. For example, using the solution for an industrial company that has an internal product is very different than using the solution for a bank that has 10,000 internal users and 1 million customers. 

I score scalability an eight for the solution, a nine for F5 Advanced WAF, and a ten for Avi Networks. 

Technical support has been great and has a vast knowledge base with quick response times. 

The initial setup is very easy. 

Initial configurations take a maximum of four hours. 

The solution was implemented in-house. 

The solution is very inexpensive when compared to F5 Advanced WAF and Avi Networks but offers the same benefits. 

Our one-year license is $24,000 Canadian and includes all users. We are very satisfied with the solution's licensing strategy. 

F5 Advanced WAF includes more features and scalability than the solution but is very expensive. With an unlimited budget, F5 is the better choice.

The solution includes many of F5's features but is inexpensive. 

It is important as part of your regular process to update any tools including the solution. Versions are built in other countries so it is a good idea to ensure you are using the latest, gold-standard version for your area. For example, check for direct internet access, review active directory authentications, and configure users, servers, and certificates. 

The solution is super easy to use, is inexpensive, and includes great technical support. 

We use Fortinet FortiWeb for industrial companies. We are making doing network segmentation inside the industrial park, which is quite difficult and we have to design, develop and maintain all of the different kinds of solutions. We brought Fortinet FortiWeb to protect against forbidden access and for special access for providers in the industry.

We do not use this solution for our organization but for clients' organizations. For example, one customer uses the solution for the protection of all their different applications. Additionally, the solution has protected the servers that are in the DMC, such as services for people in other countries that have to have access.

You have the ability to control everything from one single dashboard.

The solution could improve by being able to handle different use cases.

I have used Fortinet FortiWeb within the past 12 months.

The stability is good.

The scalability is quite good. The scalability has been good for each industry. You can integrate Fortinet FortiWeb with all kinds of products of the same vendor. This allows the ability for a lot of different functions that you don't have to have really competent staff because you do not have different vendors. You don't have to call another vendor for solving one ticket or problem. This made everything simple, it was very good.

We have approximately 2,000 people using this solution.

When our customers have acquired more industrial plants we will propose this solution for all those industrial plant customers.

The technical support is good.

I would rate the technical support of Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten.

We previously used F5.

The installation was straightforward and it took us approximately one month. There are a lot of services, approximately 15, and other parts to configure.

We used consultants, technicians and, an integrator for the implementation.

We do not need more than three people to do the maintenance and support of Fortinet FortiWeb.

We have seen a return on investment. It has been decent but not the best. We choose to work with one large customer and it has been similar to an investment.

We are on an annual license for this solution and the price is approximately €100.

We have evaluated a number of solutions, such as Citrix NetScaler.

I would recommend those wanting to implement this solution to use good integrators, there are not too many people who know about this solution. I lived in Spain and there are not too many installations made, it's quite difficult to find people that know a lot about it. It's not a difficult installation and the vendor helped us a lot and is very helpful. You have professional services you can use from the vendor if you choose, but they are quite expensive for customers.

One of the biggest lessons I have learned from using Fortinet FortiWeb is Fortinet helps you a lot. They can develop something specifically for a customers' use case without any costs for them.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a nine out of ten.

We use it for all our hosted web applications, so they are routed via FortiWave and Fortinet. We use both the network firewall and the application firewall. The whole infrastructure and everything else are protected. Fortinet protects the web infrastructure.

There are very few specific things that are not present in cloud-native firewalls, like Azure Firewall or AWS Firewall. They lack many features, such as the ability to handle paths in requests larger than eight KB. For example, if you upload a document or the page size exceeds eight KB, you might face issues with AWS and other cloud-native firewalls. FortiWeb can handle requests of up to 10MB, providing this capability. It also has a very user-friendly UI. Even someone new to FortiWeb or any firewall system, with the right contextual knowledge, can configure it effectively. The support and documentation provided by Fortinet are generally sufficient for any team to manage infrastructure using Fortinet and FortiWeb.

Native cloud firewalls, like AWS WAF or Azure Firewall, have limitations compared to next-generation firewalls like Fortinet FortiWeb or other solutions. While AWS and Azure have security features, they are often tailored to their specific technologies and may lack some advanced capabilities in next-generation firewalls. This is why we sometimes opt for solutions like Fortinet, even in a cloud environment.

Fortinet FortiWeb has strengths, but there is room for improvement. For example, its threat intelligence capabilities may not be as advanced as some competitors. While Fortinet excels in many areas, it could enhance its advanced intelligence features. However, in terms of configuration, maintenance, and securing infrastructure, Fortinet remains a strong option.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb as a partner for five to five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

It is suitable for enterprises.

I rate the solution’s scalability as seven or eight out of ten.

We have a procurement team and a support engagement team that is helping us with issues. They are maintaining the SLA and all those things.

Deployment can be straightforward, like spinning up EC2 instances or Azure VMs with Fortinet, which can be a one-click process. The complexity arises from configuring Fortinet within your specific ecosystem. The configuration depends on the size and nature of your infrastructure, including the number of machines and appliances and the types of systems you are protecting, such as APIs, normal instances, or mobile applications. While deploying Fortinet itself might be quick, configuring it to fit your environment and security needs takes additional time and effort.

Many other companies offer similar capabilities. We also use other solutions, but Fortinet FortiWeb has strong bot capabilities for threat protection and excellent geo-restriction features. It also handles malicious IP prevention and is easy to use. Our experience has been positive. We’ve only enabled the algorithms provided by FortiWeb and haven’t customized the configuration beyond what FortiWeb offers. The existing rules and features for FortiWeb are good.

If you need a next-generation firewall to meet industry and security demands, relying solely on native cloud firewalls like Azure Firewall, AWS Firewall, or Google Cloud Firewall may not be sufficient. These native firewalls often lack the advanced features to protect against various threats. It is advisable to consider solutions like Fortinet FortiWeb or Cloudflare to ensure robust protection.

It's a trade-off between price and the service you receive. If you're paying less for a solution that provides good services compared to a competitor where you might pay more for similar support and features, then Fortinet could be a viable option. It might be better if another solution, like Cloudflare, offers better value across multiple aspects such as service, cost, and support.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for the office in Oracle.

Fortinet FortiWeb is priced well.

The product’s stability could be improved.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for one year. We are using the latest version of the solution.

The product’s stability is normal. I rate it six out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup depends on technical knowledge.

The solution is cheaper compared with other solutions. It has a yearly license.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to provide firewall and web security services to our customers around the globe.

Our use cases are on the back end for banks and the financial sector where we automate monitoring and deployment. 

We do not have a portal, so are limited to a maximum of 3,000 users. We currently have 2,000 users and three maintenance technicians. 

In the future, we will add front-end service. 

Depending on our client's needs, we pair the solution with other business applications.

The solution is easy to configure and deploy.

There is a richness in the rules and out-of-the-box tools that is not available with native firewall solutions.

A user interface or dashboard for troubleshooting is needed so technicians without knowledge of the network or common hardware can visualize the environment. 

Accounts should be set up in the user's name, not the company's name. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The initial setup was a bit complex for us because we were new to the solution. 

Technical support helped and trained us so we now handle setups with ease. 

We worked with the solution's technical support for our initial implementation but our internal team now handles setup and implementation for customers. 

The solution is a bit expensive when compared to other products. 

There are many security constraints that cannot be fulfilled by native cloud firewalls such as Azure and AWS. 

For example, AWS has a limitation of 8GB with regard to request values. 

We recommend the solution and its next-generation capabilities including ease of configuration, code being contained within the IIC engine, how templates and terraforms are handled, and superior wave and firewall security.

We are continually conducting research on next-generation firewalls because the solution can be a bit expensive.  

I use solution a lot and recommend it with a rating of seven out of ten.

We primarily view the VPN net and use the WAF as our web protection.

The interface is very straightforward and easy to use.

It's stable. 

The support is quite good.

We found the initial setup pretty simple. 

Sometimes, even if you follow the documentation, it doesn't work as expected. 

The solution can be a bit pricey.

I've used the solution for about one year, or maybe a bit more than that.

Sometimes it is not as stable as it could be. We've had some issues. Sometimes the loading will be disrupted for no apparent reason. It might be due to the WAF.

We have not tested the scalability of the product.

We have two people working on the solution right now. 

It's possible that we will scale the solution in the future. There is the potential that we will use it on another project.

We have contacted support for reliability issues, and they have been able to resolve everything within a matter of hours. They are very quick. 

Positive

We previously used F5. F5 needs a bit of a higher skill set. It takes some experience to operate.

The implementation took about two months. It's not so hard to set everything up. It's easier than, for example, F5, to set up.

In terms of maintenance, for WAF, I need about three people to handle various tasks. 

We hired a consultant to assist us during the setup. The consultant helped my people learn the process so we could become self-sufficient. 

We have not seen any ROI at this time. 

The solution is a little expensive. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability.

I cannot speak to the exact price we pay for the product.

We didn't really look into other options as my boss is pretty well versed in other options. However, we are always looking into comparisons. 

We are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.