Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for us. We decided to go with AWS WAF, which we found to be a highly scalable solution. In its cloud version, AWS WAF makes use of a concept known as auto-scaling. What this means is that users have the ability to scale the program up or down according to what their needs happen to be at the time. The software does this automatically, without requiring administrators to provide any outside input. This can save organizations a great deal in terms of time and resources. It is true that AWS WAF lacks the ability to integrate with some third-party products. However, even without this ability to integrate, its automated scaling makes it quite robust.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is also quite scalable. That being said, it is not as effective in this regard as AWS WAF. The scaling provided by Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is not automatic. Administrators are required to manually scale up the product themselves if they want it to handle a larger load. This takes up time and resources that could be spent on other things.
AWS WAF has a robust set of security features. Its firewall can protect against different types of cyber-attacks. It can repel both scripting and database-injection attacks. When it does so, it redirects the attack to a Fail2ban program, which marks the IP addresses where the attack originates as unsafe and bans them from the system. This can provide administrators with peace of mind.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway provides administrators with an effective way to protect their systems against attacks. However, it lacks security tools, such as the ability to block harmful IP addresses. As a result, there will be a greater expenditure of time dealing with all of the threats that the program has not simply blocked.
Conclusion:
While Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a fairly competent product, we found AWS WAF to be a superior product. AWS WAF’s automated scaling and exceptional security package make it a more robust program.
AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure Application Gateway are leading contenders in web application protection. AWS WAF holds an advantage due to its flexibility and cost-effective pricing model, while Azure Application Gateway is known for its seamless integration with Azure services.Features: AWS WAF offers flexibility with WAF rules, integration within AWS environments, scalability, and threat blocking. Its customizable billing options enhance its cost-effectiveness. Azure Application Gateway...
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for us. We decided to go with AWS WAF, which we found to be a highly scalable solution. In its cloud version, AWS WAF makes use of a concept known as auto-scaling. What this means is that users have the ability to scale the program up or down according to what their needs happen to be at the time. The software does this automatically, without requiring administrators to provide any outside input. This can save organizations a great deal in terms of time and resources. It is true that AWS WAF lacks the ability to integrate with some third-party products. However, even without this ability to integrate, its automated scaling makes it quite robust.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is also quite scalable. That being said, it is not as effective in this regard as AWS WAF. The scaling provided by Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is not automatic. Administrators are required to manually scale up the product themselves if they want it to handle a larger load. This takes up time and resources that could be spent on other things.
AWS WAF has a robust set of security features. Its firewall can protect against different types of cyber-attacks. It can repel both scripting and database-injection attacks. When it does so, it redirects the attack to a Fail2ban program, which marks the IP addresses where the attack originates as unsafe and bans them from the system. This can provide administrators with peace of mind.
Microsoft Azure Application Gateway provides administrators with an effective way to protect their systems against attacks. However, it lacks security tools, such as the ability to block harmful IP addresses. As a result, there will be a greater expenditure of time dealing with all of the threats that the program has not simply blocked.
Conclusion:
While Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is a fairly competent product, we found AWS WAF to be a superior product. AWS WAF’s automated scaling and exceptional security package make it a more robust program.