Barracuda SSL VPN[EOL] Reviews

We use Barracuda SSL VPN for network connection.

The product is easy to connect.

There could be more security features included in the product.

We are the latest version of Barracuda SSL VPN.

I rate Barracuda SSL VPN's stability an eight or nine out of ten.

We have 30-40 Barracuda SSL VPN users in our organization. The product has good scalability.

The initial setup process is easy.

We take help from a reseller to implement the product.

Barracuda SSL VPN is inexpensive. We purchase its yearly license.

I recommend Barracuda SSL VPN to others and rate it a nine out of ten.

We mostly use it as a Web Application Firewall (WAF).

What I find most valuable is the total cost of ownership. The product is affordable and reasonably priced so it would make a lot of sense for people to use it long-term.

Barracuda has a much more proactive role with their so-called authorized distributors here in Cambodia. They give them much more attention and much more exposure. They give teasers about some of the new features coming up within the next one or two quarters, and so they can start to prepare for them. The reseller can educate the end-users. It kills the competition.

F5 wants to compete with Barracuda. It’s a price-sensitive market. IT managers have barely 10 years of IT experience. They know almost nothing. It's a problem here. It's a very uphill task to really educate these guys. But we can do our best to try to find other ways and means to stir up their interest for the future about products.

I find that its stability also meets industry standards.

The scalability of this solution based on customer requirement or volume requirement meets industry standards.

We haven't had the chance to contact Barracuda's technical support because we have our own Barracuda certified technical team who provides first level support which includes installation, configuration, setup, and implementation.

I've used F5 and cost-wise, there is no major difference between the cost of the F5 and the cost of the Barracuda. For example, if there is going to be an additional SSL VPN resource added on, then we have to buy additional licenses from the vendor.

The cost does vary a lot. There's the maintenance cost, the software subscription cost, and the hardware maintenance cost annually.

I don't do the sales, but with the feedback I get from customers, the F5 tends to be a bit more expensive than the Barracuda.

According to my technical team, who are actually certified Barracuda guys, they told me that the initial setup is pretty straightforward. It’s not much of a hassle.

We implemented it in-house through our Barracuda certified technical team.

My advice to others implementing this product is to ensure that its cost falls within their budget including the cost of maintenance and that it benefits their business operations.

I evaluated F5.

I'll give it a rating of eight out of 10 if the price remains the same. Otherwise, I'll rate it 7 out of ten, especially if they don't give a volume discount. 

The use case is just for IT staff. When the front end stuff goes down, we have a secure solution through which we can come in through the back and fix the front end facing stuff.

The most valuable feature would be that you can actually narrow down your session to one application on one server, which is really nice.

It is a stable solution.

It is really easy to set up.

Since it's not going to be getting any more software updates as per the end of this year, we have to move off to a different product. They could recontinue the product so that we can keep using it. 

I've been using Barracuda SSL VPN for over five years.

Stability wise, it's rock solid. The discontinuation has not affected the stability.

You can scale up or even scale down. It's pretty easy to set up based on groups and roles; it's quite nice. We have infrastructure administrators, security administrators, and VDI administrators who use this solution.

We used the Microsoft one until they made it too complex. So, it was just easier to buy an appliance, and Barracuda was the easiest one to install and set up. It was also way more granular.

The initial setup was really easy. Only one person is required to maintain the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Barracuda SSL VPN a good solid eight.

Our primary use case is to provide remote users access to our network resources. We created profiles for those users allowed to access the company systems and included some security blocks such as not copying, printing or sharing files. It means they have access and can work on the system, but nothing can be taken from the system including active directory, security issuers and such things. We're customers of Barracuda. 

This solution is valuable because it's a stand alone system and doesn't disconnect. It functions well. It's a good software and good system. I believe it's a better product than Cisco. All our clients working with Barracuda are satisfied.  

The reporting could be improved. I'm having some issues with it related to the VPN because the VMs we now have on premise seem to not send the Luxor, the reporting tool. We're working on that with the support team. I want to be able to give it to the HR and the finance departments but if I can't get the logs it's a problem. I need the VPN specifically because due to the COVID issue, I need to provide reports to HR so that they know how to pay staff.

 It's an excellent solution from a stabilizing point of view. 

This solution is scalable. 

I've had regular contact with technical support. They are good, but sometimes it can take weeks to solve an issue. One problem I faced took two weeks to be solved, and it shouldn't be like that. 

Cisco is a good VPN but there are some security issues that we can't implement in Cisco and AnyConnect. In some areas of Cisco, I have to abide by their tools and it's not that flexible. In Barracuda I can make my own rules. From a security perspective, I can change things the way I want. Security notices in Cisco are very secure and it has good features, it's jut that some of them cannot be modified in the system. Cisco reporting doesn't give me what I want such as when a user has logged in or out. It can provide the duration of the connection but not the specific times.

The initial setup is very simple, it probably takes a few hours. 

Licensing is on an annual basis and we usually take it for three years. For now, we have a testing license. 

I recommend this solution although the reporting needs to be fixed. It's a simple, stable and scalable solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.