Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

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.

The solution's most valuable feature is its security profile. 

The solution could improve its ease of use and add more advanced WAF features in future releases.

I have been working with the product for more than five years. 

I've worked with both F5 and Fortinet and find F5 to be much better. F5 is easier to implement, more compatible with applications, and more robust and stable. Regarding securing applications behind the WAF, F5 generally provides better security.

The solution's implementation is not complex and depends on the number and complexity of customers' applications. 

Fortinet FortiWeb's pricing is reasonable. Its licensing costs are yearly. 

The product has been in the WAF business for a long time. Its maturity cannot be compared to other alternatives. Based on my experience with Fortinet FortiWeb, I'd recommend it in specific cases, especially if you have a limited budget. It can meet basic requirements. However, other vendors have better features and support. I rate the overall product a six out of ten. 

We use the solution for branch optimization. Initially, it was all in MPLS, but they converted to the broadband network. Implementing it reduced the cost, and its redundancy was also better.

It improves latency by optimizing traffic routing. When a better link is available, it reroutes traffic through it. Additionally, MPLS helps reduce costs. Critical data can be prioritized on MPLS, while other data uses broadband connectivity, leading to better resource utilization. This setup supports load sharing, allowing multiple links to work simultaneously for improved performance.

From the web application perspective, it offers comprehensive features, including URL filtering and DNS protection. Additionally, FortiWeb provides SD-WAN capabilities, such as load sharing based on latency or packet drops. Its extensive feature set allows customers to choose and customize according to their needs and preferences.

FortiWeb could have an inbound load balancing pack. Currently, they don't have it, but they have the print product for that. It'll be better if they have it on the same product.

I have been using FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) for three years.

It is primarily for the enterprise environment segment. Even if one of the three links goes down, another link will appear to resolve the issue. FortiWeb primarily relies on its high availability features.

We had a quick response from support since we have partnered with them. 

Positive

The initial setup was easy because we had training. Also, the FortiGate team provides good support. It took around around five to six days to complete. It is only a plug-and-play environment.

The price is cheap compared to other products in the market. It costs 15-20% less than CheckPoint.

It is more than a basic firewall. It includes various features for enhanced security, such as protection against threats and vulnerabilities specific to web applications. Depending on their roles and responsibilities, some people who work on EDS may also interact with FortiWeb WAF.

FortiWeb offers a comprehensive product suite for SOC integration, including automation and SIEM capabilities. It also offers a complete integration package, including physical components that ensure a consistent experience for internal and external teams.

It includes an analyzer that provides comprehensive visibility. It is designed to optimize costs while sending detailed analytics and other relevant data.

I recommend the solution for security.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for web filtering purposes. We use it to allow or block any application.

The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtration, web filter, application filter, and IPS. The solution's console is very user-friendly and very easy to manage. The solution has good stability and a user-friendly interface.

It would be good if the solution integrated with other solutions, like SAP.

I have been using FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) for nine to ten years.

FortiWeb Web Application Firewall is a very stable solution.

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

Every location with 200 to 300 people has installed the FortiWeb Web Application Firewall.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

Our experience with the solution's technical support has been good. We promptly get support from the technical support team.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is easy and can be done in a few hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a nine or ten out of ten.

I would recommend FortiWeb Web Application Firewall to other users because it is a good product.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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.

In my company, we use FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) for security.

FortiWeb is a small tool that can be used by those of our customers who use Fortinet FortiGate as their firewall. I will use Barracuda Email Protection for any customer who uses a firewall from a solution provider other than Fortinet FortiGate.

The product lacks features offered by enterprise-level firewall tools. The solution needs to offer more enterprise features like other brands.

It would be great if FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) had something like a wizard to allow for more integrations with other popular firewall products like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and so on.

I have been using FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF) for three years. I use the solution's latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

There are 2,000 users of the solution in my company.

The solution's technical support was helpful and responsive. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have previously used SonicWall.

The initial setup was easy since it was possible to get remote support for the product.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

It is a cost-effective product. If you need an extra module in the product, there will be an extra cost in addition to the licensing fee.

There are five engineers needed for the maintenance of the solution.

If there is a requirement and one is already using a firewall from Fortinet, then it is easier to deploy FortiWeb Web Application Firewall (WAF). Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution offers good configurations and works well with other Fortinet products.

The solution is scalable. 

We found the implementation process to be simple. 

If you want to block domains, you can do so. You do have the power to control access.

The product needs to be more stable. 

We have issues between primary and secondary IP. Secondary IP addresses cannot be on the same subnet as any primary or secondary subnet. You need to follow up between the primary and secondary. If you don't, there will be a problem. When your public applications are not working properly, the single point of communication from the public domain is an issue. If I want to resolve the situation, a quick solution is I need to fail over the primary to the secondary, and it will just start working. However, that is not a permanent solution. I don't know what the problem is exactly, and how we can permanently address the issue. 

If the price was lower, it would be a bit more attractive, as an option, to the customers. 

You do need to ensure you do the configurations carefully. Otherwise, you may have issues. 

I've been using the solution for two years. 

We can scale the solution. We typically work with enterprises, so, larger-scale companies. In our customer's company, they have about 6,000 to 10,000 people on the solution. 

Technical support is very good. they are quite helpful and responsive. 

I also use F5. It's got better pricing and is quite stable as well. However, if you don't know how to configure it, it can be a disaster. 

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

It can be deployed in about half an hour. It doesn't take long to have it up and running. 

I handle a lot of implementations and can handle the process. 

The pricing could be better. They charge a bit more. That's why F5 is everywhere right now. The customer can see that F5 is stable and everything is working well, and then they see the price, and it's very attractive to them. 

I'm just a customer and end-user. 

I'm a consultant. Our customers are working with Fortiweb in their companies.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb is the reports and the AI-based features.

Fortinet FortiWeb could improve data integration.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately six months.

Fortinet FortiWeb is a stable solution.

The Fortinet FortiWeb is scalable.

We have three administrators using the solution and more than 300 end users using it.

The support from Fortinet FortiWeb is good, but they could improve their response time.

Positive

We did not use another solution prior to Fortinet FortiWeb.

In the initial setup of Fortinet FortiWeb, we wanted to deploy it with WCCP mode, but we cannot do it because of the limitation with our Cisco ASA firewalls. It's difficult to integrate with FortiWeb. It is difficult to integrate Fortinet FortiWeb with other vendors other than Fortinet solutions. We cannot integrate it into our existing Cisco Firewall environment. We had to change the system to true transparent deployment mode.

The price of Fortinet FortiWeb is expensive in our Ethiopian currency.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a nine out of ten.

Mostly we use FortiWeb for replacing reverse proxy from our systems and add some security features to it to protect the web portal we are providing to our customers.  We use it to rewrite URLs and redirect FQDNs, et cetera, et cetera. That's the normal part.

The main feature I like is the ability to redirect web traffic from a readable URL to a real URL. All the security features are good.

One main feature we are very happy about is file security and upload functionality. It will restrict the number of file types that can be uploaded to our portal and prevents any malware. It helps with security.

We had some trouble using some features. Maybe we understood it the wrong way when reading the manual. We had to implement some workarounds to help this problem.

The GUI could be better. It's limited. 

I've been using the solution for one year. 

There are no complaints on our side. The performance and stability are fine. We used to have a cluster of two appliances. Everything seems to be fine when we update the firmware. We haven't had any issues.

The scalability may be slightly limited. We use hardware appliances. We need to buy appliances which have enough performance. You need to think about the sizing before you buy it. Scalability is not really possible with hardware. 

We use it more and more. We are going to migrate all the connections which are directed to a proxy to the classification firewall.

Normally, technical support is very good. All the tickets I opened have been solved in an average time.

Positive

It was the very first time that we used a web application firewall. We never used anything before.

We had some difficulties at the beginning in terms of setting it up. It was a very new product for us. We never had web protection firewalls before. We had some support from our supplier, so we referred to the initial implementation to get it done with external support.

I'd rate the ease of implementation at a three out of five. 

From a technical perspective, the deployment does not take a long time. Our problem internally was the organization and the planning as well as the communication with the other teams. That's what took so long. We started maybe one and a half years ago with the implementation and productive status was reached at the end of 2021. That's a long time. That said, one would say the management is at fault, not the actual technical staff.

At a cluster, so single point of failure, all this stuff, it kind of took around 24 hours to get it up. The offline time was very difficult, however.

We have two good people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance. We are looking for another employee in the market, however, it's been very difficult to find someone.

The implementation was done in-house with some help from our supplier.

We have not noted an ROI yet.

We actually expanded our subscription for the next three years. I don't remember the exact price. It should be somewhere about 36,000 Euros. That's the cost for three years. It's moderately priced. I'd rate the general cost at a three out of five. 

We thought about other options, however, since we had a very good experience with the FortiGate Firewall, I decided to buy FortiWeb. They operate well together. 

We are just customers and end-users.

Potential new users should compare different products from different vendors to make a decision on a web application firewall. It doesn't matter if it is FortiWeb, or F5, or something else, just take some time to compare. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to protect web applications, web servers, and our customers' mobile applications. We are a Fortinet partner and integrator, installing both appliances and VMs. I'm a network security consultant. 

There are many valuable features in this solution including vulnerability scanning, IPS, and geolocalization. The product is user-friendly and simple.

The solution currently lacks a VM demo to enable testing prior to purchasing. It would make things easier for our clients to choose this product if they had that ability. We are based in Tunisia and the lack of multilingual technical support is problematic at times. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We generally use the chat or phone for technical support with the occasional remote session with the technical team. The customer service is good but lacks a multilingual element that would benefit us. 

Positive

I previously used the Cisco IOS CLI for the web interface. It's more complicated than Fortinet. Fortinet offers simple, easy-to-use solutions. We are also a vendor for F5 which offers similar features and functionality to Fortinet but is more expensive. 

The initial setup is straightforward, it's a matter of choosing the architecture, the deployment mode, and configuring. Deployment time depends on the client's application. If it's a matter of one or two applications, deployment can take between two or three days. If there are many more applications that require protection, it can take over a month.

This solution works best for medium and enterprise-size companies. One of our clients is a bank, another is an educational institute with over 20,000 users. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.