Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

Fortinet FortiWeb was used to support mobile applications.

The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb is the ease of integration and configuration.

Fortinet FortiWeb could improve in reference architecture for different deployment scenarios.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately three years.

Fortinet FortiWeb is stable.

The technical support from Fortinet FortiWeb is excellent.

I have used many other solutions and I formally recommend NGINX. The challenge I have with NGINX is handing over the project to the end customer. The skillsets for managing NGINX as a WAF are a lot. This is what was drawing me towards F5. I wanted something that is seamless from end-to-end, for the customer.

The advantages of NGINX are that it's community-based, and you can get it anytime. Fortinet FortiWeb you have to go through a channel, there's an initial acquisition, and then the annual support which are things that we don't have to consider when we're dealing with NGINX.

The initial setup of Fortinet FortiWeb was easy. The full implementation took approximately one week.

The price of Fortinet FortiWeb depends from customer to customer because some customers are considering using other solutions, such as Imperva. The price of Fortinet FortiWeb sits well for the middle-sized customers that we deal with.

The price is based on our partner model, we are able to negotiate a good discount on GPR because we're also selling the firewall appliance.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a seven out of ten.

We use this product for load balancing and for their firewall. We are partners with Fortinet. 

I like that the GUI makes it easy to scale in terms of learning and utilization.
We chose this solution based on the online training and materials they offered. It's easily available on the web. 

There are specific functionalities that I'd like to see improve and that would basically bring it into line with what is being offered by solutions such as F5 and Imperva.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward, the deployment took us about two hours. We currently have 16 users. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

We use the solution to protect the various services of our site, E-commerce, file service, and download service.

The most important feature of this solution is protection from an attack.

The maintenance fee for this product could be improved and it needs to be easier to scale up. 

I have been using the solution for four to five years. 

Stability is very important and yes, the product is stable.

The solution is not very scalable, to scale up would require another deployment with a new appliance and a change to the network.

I would say technical support is good for this solution.

Setup for this solution is easy, with one being easy and five being hard I would rate it a two out of five. Deployment took a few days. 

We have between 100 and 200 users of the solution in our company. 

I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

The support services, performance, and pricing are all valuable features. The performance is excellent.

The initial setup process could be improved.

I've been working with this solution for two years.

It is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud.

In general, we have small projects, so the scalability has been fine for our clients.

As for users, we have, in general, 50 to 100 clients.

My colleagues at the network operations center have contacted technical support. I would rate technical support at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Positive

We sell and work with several options, but we feel comfortable with Fortinet FortiWeb because the performance and feedback are great.

In general, the initial setup is easy, and I would rate it at four out of five.

I deployed it myself.

There's only one payment for the duration of the license. On a scale from one to five, I would rate pricing at four.

I have not encountered any additional costs on my projects involving Fortinet FortiWeb.

I sell or presell, and in general, the feedback is great. In fact, I think that Fortinet FortiWeb is number one in terms of performance.

The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention. 

In my experience, Fortinet FortiWeb could improve the intelligent features to acknowledge whether any threat or incident that's running happened. Then give us the ability to escalate it to layer 2 or layer 3 in the network operations.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately two years.

I have found Fortinet FortiWeb to be stable.

The solution is scalable, but it can only scale at a medium level.

We use the technical support from the system integration, not directly with Fortinet FortiWeb. It takes them a lot of time to solve an issue when we submit a complaint.

in Indonesia, we need more knowledgeable local support.

The initial implementation is simple and the configuration is straightforward.

The price of Fortinet FortiWeb is reasonable. This is one of the key factors of why we use this solution.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten.

We mainly use it for protection. OS scanning and load balancing are two of its main use cases.

My team is most probably working with its latest version. In terms of the deployment, lately, it has been on the cloud because the end-user-facing web applications are usually live on the cloud.

Banks have to be compliant with PCI and other things, and FortiWeb is absolutely amazing in terms of providing these reports. Otherwise, they will have to spend a lot of time on them.

The compliance piece is the best feature. Load balancing is also valuable, which is something that all web application firewalls do. Another valuable feature is high availability. You can scale it very well. Load balancing and high availability are the two reasons why we picked it for a couple of banks.

From the feature perspective, it is pretty rich. The automation piece can be improved. Although they say it can be automated very well, there is still manual work. Its usability should be improved in terms of automation because we want to build an infrastructure with code, but you can't do that easily with this solution. If they can give us APIs in the firewalls that we can tap into, it would be perfect. 

I would also like it to scale automatically based on the traffic.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

I've never seen any issues, but when you turn on all the features or every single scanning, that's when it slows down a bit.

It is scalable, but it is a roundabout way of automated scaling. It is not truly automated scaling. In general, when the size is okay, scaling is not a problem. I would like it to scale automatically based on the traffic, but that doesn't happen because automation is not there.

I haven't seen any big issues with performance. We ran 20,000 connections through it, and it was okay. When you deploy it in the cloud, you can increase the size of the VM, and with extra licensing, it is fine performance-wise.

It is suitable for medium and large customers. My team has deployed at least 500 of these in the last few years. In general, it's okay. We don't have any issue with it.

They have been pretty good, honest, and upfront. It all comes down to expectations when you buy these things.

I know the country manager very well. He is my friend for Fortinet. They are very good in terms of support. 

When you buy these things from a marketplace like Amazon or AWS, the support is not as good as it can be because the first line of support is the cloud provider, and then there is the vendor. So, our preference usually is to go directly to the vendor because they know more about it.

One of the best things about Azure Firewall is the automation. There is a huge difference. The second thing is pricing. 

With FortiWeb, when you want to buy HA, you need to start designing high availability across different regions. With Azure, it comes by default.

It depends on the customer and the use case. Usually, it's straightforward, but as you add more applications, it can become more and more complex.

The deployment duration varies. Usually, designing, building, and putting in production take about four weeks, but it also depends on the application type.

It requires maintenance all the time. Everything requires maintenance. Usually, we build it and operationalize it, and we then hand it over to the customer.

It keeps changing, but it's based on the size of the VM you buy and also the traffic throughput you want from it, whereas what we have on Azure is just the traffic throughput. You can also pay on a monthly basis from Azure. During each part of the project, it's okay to get Azure-based licensing or AWS-based licensing for FortiWeb, but over time, you would want to go with the perpetual license. You should go to Fortinet and buy the license from them. So, there is a two-step process there.

I would advise getting the right engineer. You need someone who is a specialist, and that's very important.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. 

I use Fortinet FortiWeb to protect my web application. It works to protect my applications from attack signatures. It allows me to create a URL profile and HTTP content routing when I have many web servers working on the same virtual server.

Fortinet FortiWeb has helped our organization by protecting the web application from any attack, known and unknown. The unknown protection is done by effective machine learning that is working on many unknown attacks. It operates on the probability of attacks.

The most valuable feature is the attack signature and machine learning.

The machine learning feature of the solution could be improved.

No solution is 100% secure and the security could always be worked on.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for a year and a half.

Fortinet FortiWeb is stable. It is able to detect the latest vulnerability from Log4j that happened on The Verge.

The solution's attack signature receives its update from Fortinet Developer Network, and many of the updates are immediate. The attack signatures are updated regularly due to the connection to Fortinet Developer Network.

The solution is highly scalable.

The technical support was good, they were very fast. They were able to resolve my issues.

I have used the support in many solutions, such as FortiClient, FortiWeb, for Sandbox integration with FortiMail, and other products in Fortinet.

The installation is easy. It takes one day for the implementation, and after 14 days one day for tuning.

Some customer needs to go to production fast, it can take me one day for the installation, and after seven days I can do the tuning quickly.

I do the implementation and support the solution.

There is a subscription to use this solution. There are some additional features that can be added for an extra fee. The use of the features depends on the client's needs, such as full machine learning and signatures.

I would recommend this solution to others. Additionally, I would recommend F5.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a nine out of ten.

We use Fortinet FortiWeb to protect our exchange terminal for mail security.

The F5 solution has more features than Fortinet FortiWeb, such as multiple load balancing.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately four years.

The solution is stable.

I have approximately four clients using this solution.

The installation is easy and straightforward, and the timeframe depends on the application

We have one engineer that does the support of this solution.

I have evaluated F5 and Citrix.

I would recommend this solution. I hope they are able to make some changes to compete with other solutions, such as F5 and Citrix.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a seven out of ten.

I use Fortinet products for security projects. When it comes to middle-sized enterprises, SD-WAN firewalls are the appropriate solution, FortiGate products being more geared towards larger, enterprise organizations. This is not for a data center, for which Check Point and Palo Alto are better suited. Fortinet FortiWeb is best suited for medium and enterprise data center environments. 

My experience with the solution has been very positive. Fortinet is a great SD-WAN player when it comes to security capabilities. Also, it offers many models for a host of environments. I like the solution's SD-WAN features.

The memory use in each of the appliances is problematic. 

I believe that I have been working with FortiGate products for five years. 

As I am a Fortinet partner, I make use of many of its products. 

I like the FortiWeb products. 

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb as a nine out of ten. 

We primarily used the solution as a POC to see how effective it is and so far we're happy with it. 

We used it for protecting our web servers and the use of some web applications within a financial institution.

They have a very good graphical user interface. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is pretty good.

We have found the pricing to be pretty reasonable. 

During the POC we did encounter problems. For example, the integration with the HSM for storing keys was not ideal.

The downside is on the security side and is the firewall. When you look at the firewall, it doesn't do decryption and you have to depend on other third-party tools to do that. Or you would have to use another FortiGate product which makes things a little complicated. Today, people look for simplicity in terms of design. That's one downside to Fortinet's Firewall. The downside to FortiWeb is it had issues integrating with HSM. They fixed the issue, however, it took a long time to fix and it wasn't pleasant. I had to work with deadlines and I could not make the deadlines due to the slow timeline on their side.

For the firewall, when you deploy IPS, the IPS doesn't have visibility into encrypted traffic and 70% of traffic these days is encrypted, and that's the conservative figure of the actual percentage. If your IPS doesn't have that visibility, then it is not really doing the job that it has to do. In comparison, Palo Alto is the best firewall in terms of performance and has the technical specifications that we need. 

The support side of things can be improved. They need to quickly tend to issues and resolve them as soon as possible. Those are the expectations.

We've only used FortiWeb for a POC. 

The stability of the product has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. When you look at the specs and if you do what they say in the specs, in terms of ensuring that you're not overlooking anything, it's a good product. 

The solution can scale. That's not a problem at all.

Technical support could be more responsive. They need to address issues faster. I'm not completely happy with the level of support we receive.

Generally, the solution is easy to set up. It's not overly complex. 

The pricing is pretty good if you look at other top options in this space. They are reasonable. 

I've also looked at Palo Alto, and it has the specifications that we need, however, the pricing is quite high.

Our company is a Fortinet partner.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

In terms of functionality, it does a perfect job, however, when you have to integrate with third-party tools, that's where you might have issues. Going forward, maybe what Fortinet needs to do is to ensure that they don't have integration issues with the other big vendors that are common in terms of what's deployed out there. Someone might want FortiWeb, however, for example in my case where a bank needed to integrate that with Jamalt or HSM for description, they have to do their homework. 

When you're dealing with financial clients, they need to have seamless integration and not to have these challenges where it would take time to fix as an issue. That should be figured out pre-deployment. Companies in banking can't wait for clients to point out that this is an issue. They have to attend to it beforehand and resolve issues to meet expectations.