Arbor DDoS Reviews

We provide about 50% of the nation's bandwidth because of the submarine cables we have. We use Arbor to provide DDoS-protected bandwidth to our customers who require it.

The most valuable feature is mitigation, which can blackhole the IP.

An improvement would be to provide information on how pricing is done on different customer levels (e.g. is it done per gig or bandwidth?)

I've been using this solution for six or seven years.

Arbor's technical support is very good, we've had no issues with it.

The price is a little high.

I would rate Arbor DDoS as eight out of ten.

We use it to protect our infrastructure from DDoS attacks. It is used to protect web applications to provide a secure infrastructure for our client.

The artificial intelligence feature is most appreciated. This solution can lower the throughput and clear the traffic, which is something really important for us. It also provides good protection.

It is user-friendly, and its integration has also been really fast. We have many critical applications, and it was easy to integrate Arbor DDoS with our website, mobile application, and web banking.

They should improve the reporting section and make it a little bit more detailed. I would like to have much better and more detailed reports.

I have been using this solution for three months. It was implemented in February.

Its stability is really good.

Because it is on-premise, it has limited capability. That's why in six months, we would like to move to the cloud. Moving to the cloud will also enable us to prevent biometric attacks. It will make it easier for us to protect all the throughput traffic.

Our client is a medium-sized company in Bolivia with around 3,000 employees.

Their technical support is really good. They have a nice workflow.

We had Check Point and Radware solutions. Gartner Quadrant ratings were one of the key factors for going for this solution.

Its initial setup was easy. It was a one-month project, and its implementation was very fast.

Five engineers were involved in its implementation.

I would advise others to do a proof of concept. That's a good way to choose a solution. We did a proof of concept, and it gave us a good idea, so I would advise others to do that.

I would rate Arbor DDoS a nine out of ten. I am really happy with this solution.

It is our ISP, from where we get our internet traffic. We just send it to them and if anything is suspicious or there is some malicious traffic, we talk to them about what kind of traffic it is. If some machine or some router is being attacked by a malicious user, we try to find out the source IP and why this traffic is coming to us. The Arbor solution is deployed on their premises. We just ask them to control or just stop that traffic. They do the filtration. They provide us all the required details to mitigate an attack on any particular machine.

Arbor DDoS is a quick solution when you have identified some of the originating suspicious IPs from which you are getting traffic in your network. If you have identified that some of the email gateways, or any of your web applications, or any of your routers are being attacked, it is effective. You can ask your ISP to block such queries. If the originating IPs are dynamic, it is a little bit difficult for them to identify and block the traffic, but to a certain extent you can minimize the DDoS attack impact with this solution.

In application layer DDoS attacks, it suggests the actions that should be taken. But at the network layer, you can simply block the originating traffic IP and block the port instantly. It depends on how proactive you are and how effective your incident response team is. Once traffic has started on any of your machines, it can be very difficult to manage it, but you can minimize the impact of malicious traffic with the Arbor tool.

The most valuable features include the traffic categorization and control of the traffic. The filtering of the traffic is very precise. When you want to stop some traffic, you precisely stop that traffic.

On the application layer, they could have a better distributed traffic flow. They could improve that a bit. For network data it is very effective, but the application layer can be improved. In today's era, attackers are also developing their skills. Daily, new threats are coming into the environment.

I've been using Arbor DDoS for almost seven years. I am the cyber security architect in our company and we have a SOC manager. We work together as a team and we are the only two people who use it. 

We do have a team and they instantly contact the ISP if any malicious source IP has been detected. It has been about six months since we have faced an incident in which we had to reach out to our ISP to block some traffic. We then isolated that machine later on. We instantly blocked that port and signature file. Our SOC team works on the operations part.

The stability of Arbor DDoS is excellent, whether it is hardware or software stability. Whatever rules are set up inside, it's excellently developed and it excellently manages your good and malicious traffic.

In terms of scalability, it's also excellent. DDoS attacks are not very scalable, but compared with other tools, in terms of mitigating those non-scalable DDoS attacks, it is better. In that way, Arbor is scalable. It is very effective when it comes to mitigating or dealing with DDoS attacks.

We have four SOCs deployed here, and my SOC has one lakh EPS (event per second) capability. It is a big network and we use the biggest telecom operator in India. We just deal enterprise and telecom traffic.

The support is fine. The ISP team works directly with the Arbor team, so they would have a better idea about that part, but from what I know the support is excellent.

We don't have the Arbor solution deployed on-premises. It's with the ISP, so I wasn't involved in the setup or the implementation.

Arbor is the most effective solution, when compared with other tools. Although I only have experience with Arbor, I have read a lot about other tools. Today, attackers are developing their skills like anything. When some of your workstation IPs are hacked, or some of your application vulnerabilities are exposed, Arbor solutions are very much effective. Although you may have very limited competency or tools to deal with today's DDoS attacks, Arbor is effective.

Arbor is very precise as far as network layer traffic monitoring and control are concerned, but in my opinion EDR is a better solution when it comes to the application layer and DDoS. Arbor has its modules but EDR is a better solution to mitigate the application layer DDoS attack.

Arbor's hybrid approach to DDoS protection is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Sometimes it is not able to filter traffic adequately because of the hybrid approach. It only takes action after a bit of time. It starts acting on malicious traffic a little bit late because of the hybrid approach. On the other hand, after seeing all the aspects, the analysis is sensible and perfect. So it depends on from which side we look at this feature.

Network layer DDoS attacks are absolutely big. DDoS attacks cannot be mitigated instantly, it takes time. You have to be very aware of your network and about which machine an attack has reached, and what the network architecture is. All those aspects are responsible for the impact of DDoS attacks. Arbor is not absolute but, comparatively, I find it to be an effective solution.

Overall, it's a great product. It is a very effective product in terms of dealing with DDoS attacks, whether it is network layer attacks or application layer attacks. But it is better in network layer DDoS attacks. It is among the best.

We are a telecom service provider. We provide services to our enterprise customers in India and compliment these services with security layer as a part of our security services.

Being a part of the solution design team, I have been interacting with customers and creating solutions for them to fulfill their requirements. One of the products that we have in our offerings portfolio is around security, which is complimenting our connectivity portfolio. We provide this from Arbor platform, which we have deployed in our network. We have taken the hybrid model from Arbor, and there was a physical installation done in two of the gateways of the country. If the mitigation capacity goes beyond the subscribed boxes, then the Arbor Cloud subscription usage hits and mitigation would be done accordingly.

We have deployed Arbor platform and for our customers, we offer it as a managed service from our network. There are also customers looking for on-premise deployment. 

We are using Arbor's hybrid approach for our overall product build. We have on-premise deployment, however, beyond that we have taken the Arbor Cloud subscription, which is really useful because you secure yourself for anything beyond your current mitigation capacity. This is a really good feature of Arbor that is available.

We use Arbor platform to provide DDoS services for our customers. We provide a clean pipeline solution to our customers. We have seen a tremendous response from many customer segments, particularly during the certain period, which is the time period when our customers expect a lot of traffic volumes coming through to their servers. This is where these DDoS services are being requested by the customer. Predominantly, it is DDoS that we offer to our customers, and mostly customers also want protection from the volumetric attacks, but there are certainly cases where application layer attacks are also looked at being mitigated by customers. In more than 75 percent of the cases, it is a volumetric attack protection that customers are looking for.

We have a vast connectivity portfolio and the Arbor solution complements that. In addition to that, it is also helping us to understand where challenges are coming from, so we can do the mitigation in our own network. We can plan our investments accordingly and help to make the network more secure and robust for ourselves as well as our customers.

Recently we have faced unprecedented times when people overnight started to operate from their homes. At that time, many applications for most enterprise customers were exposed to the open Internet by allowing remote working, from homes or anywhere, and the users were given access to the applications over the open Internet. That posed a serious threat to attacks. At the same time, that provided a lot of opportunities for security companies. When we look at the way in which applications are being consumed by end users, security becomes very paramount, because it's not only making the application available to end users, but it is also making it available in a more secure manner.

The moment that we open up these applications to open Internet, we increase the attack surface for the infrastructure/application, and that is where security becomes very critical. We have seen high adoption of security as a service for our customers, because no one wants to invest on day one in the security infrastructure equipment. This is for obvious reasons: 

1. No budgets being accounted for this
2. Even if budgets are accounted, it becomes practically impossible to deploy such solutions in such short time frame 

What we have seen is there has been a huge demand from our customers in providing these security services as managed services where the service can be enabled within a short time span. Going forward, I will still see these demands from the market, from across all customers be it large or small, and we plan to provide these services as a managed service on pay-as-you-go model.

We are living in a world that is changing at a very fast pace. We have to match the pace of  the world, not only from network security per se, but also from the point of view of the security at a larger level. We are not just protecting the safety of the customer, but protecting the application as such. That is where the real threat comes from, and the challenge is being thrown to all the providers and OEMs to keep our feature set updated and adding to features for minimal costs.

There is always room for improvement for any product or service. If we can bring in more agility when deploying services, that is definitely a scope which we can work towards. Nowadays, everything is being offered as a service model. It is not that we have to deploy the physical hardware, many things move up to the cloud, or even can be delivered as a VNF in the customer's environment as well. So, in that space, if we can add more features to make it more seamless for customers to use and make it available through some marketplace, not only at the hyperscalers, but also for any on-prem deployment, that definitely would be a big plus. 

If we could decouple the hardware and software, making it more easily available for the customers with the exact robustness of the functionality, then that would be beneficial. At the same time, it would bring in cost efficiencies, which eventually is the end goal of most CXOs within an organization.

The relationship with Arbor is quite old, however, from current organization per se it is around 5 years.

The entire deployment of the hardware that we have done so far is quite stable and robust. As of now, the dependency is more on the hardware itself, which comes along with the Arbor solution. 

I am convinced with the kind of scalability Arbor brings in. The Cloud subscription, which is available as one of its features, makes the scalability limitless. This is something which makes Arbor stand out from the others, not only from the perspective of scalability, but also from the overall user experience perspective as well. It is critical to still manage within the limits of the customer and do all the mitigation that is required for them.

In the world that we are living, there are challenges everywhere at every step. We are able to run our businesses without a glitch and offer DDOS services to our customer within the SLA

We have evaluated Arbor against other OEMs. It is not only about the feature comparison, it is also based on what kind of skill sets are available in any enterprise and what are they more comfortable with. We are living in a world that is very heterogeneous, and we like to keep it heterogeneous in order to maintain some level of redundancy of the OEM level. This is where from a security perspective Arbor DDoS has the advantage. Customers tend to pick vendors who have a multi-level approach that can protect them from any potential attacks.

As a product/platform, Arbor is quite focused and offers quite smooth features vis-à-vis its competition. The acceptance that we see for Arbor, from the customer's perspective, is very high. Many customers prefer to go with Arbor solutions rather than any other solution when it comes to DDoS. Abor solution offers service feature, reliability, and a brand that can be trusted. From our perspective, we value it quite highly as far as its standards of security when providing DDoS services.

It is not just about the features alone, it is about how smoothly you will be able to deploy the solution, e.g., the availability of the product and how the OEM is maintaining the relationship with its customer. There are multiple factors that need to be considered. "This is not just a one-time sale. It's about how easily the systems are available, and how well your partner is able to support you and provide lifecycle management."

My company is a quad-play operator service provider in Malta. We use it for our own internal infrastructure and clients, where we use both always-on and on-demand.

Our partner has an in-house deployment and can upload it to the cloud as well. This helps to minimize the costs. With in-house deployment, the cost will increase significantly. So, this hybrid approach is advantageous.

When there was an attack, the attack was contained only on the IPs under attack. The rest of the network was not impacted, and that is the most important part.

The solution has helped consolidate visibility and the actions that we have needed to take. Based on the reports which can be generated, one can be in a better position to mitigate and find alternatives when there is an attack. At the same time, we can limit impact on both the attacked IP ranges and customers as well as other services.

Arbor DDoS has helped us achieve our network and application uptime requirements. Uptime has improved.

Arbor provides a full solution. They provide: 

• The possibility of alarm triggering based on flow packets. 
• Always-on and on-demand
• Implementation of BGP Flowspec. 
• Implementation with their cloud system.
• Good reporting. 

When it comes to some false positives, we need to tweak the system from time to time. There is room for improvement when it comes to the actual mitigation because of some false positives.

I have been using it for more than 10 years now. The solution has changed names over the years. The Arbor suite has evolved a bit over the years, so now we are using Sightline. In the past, it was called Peakflow.

It is quite stable.

The scalability needs to handle going horizontally, apart from the cloud, rather than replacing boxes.

Initially, the solution was not that mature. It has evolved and scaled better over the years.

Being a service provider on a small island, our environment is small in scale. Our network is small compared to other operators. We have 20 users internally: our NOC, IP team, and commercial team.

It took three months once our agreement was done.

Our partner implemented and maintains the system. We use the system to activate mitigation, generate reports, and do some changes. It is self-service, so we are empowered to manage the system.

We rely on third-party deployment. From this third-party and how they interconnect with us, there will always be some tweaking in relation to understanding which links to use and how to avoid possible loops. 

We are also looking to implement BGP Flowspec, which is not yet available because we are not exactly interfacing directly with the Arbor platform, but via separate routers that we interface.

When it comes to DDoS, we are saving by not losing money or clients. Like any insurance, you cannot really quantify it, but you need to have it.

Attacks are getting bigger and bigger. The cost to have proper DDoS mitigation is once a year insurance. It is getting too large to be sustainable. This is not just related to Arbor. DDoS mitigation is more expensive every year.

You need to find a way to get a good offering from Arbor by negotiating a price. That is the challenge. 

See if it is possible to scale using the cloud service.

With respect to the competition, I think that Arbor Sightline reporting is cutting-edge. It is significantly more robust than what the other competitors have, such as, Corero, Radware, and Voxility.

When it comes to the other suppliers, like Corero, Voxility, and Radware, they have automatic mitigation. This will auto-tune to attack changes. With Arbor DDoS, it needs manual intervention. To be fair, I am not sure if that is just our implementation, but that is our understanding for now. 

Another point is how to handle HTTPS encrypted traffic. On that front, there are some options from other vendors to handle HTTPS without the need to install the certificate, where Arbor might need to do some further development there.

With other vendors, you might need third-party software for NetFlow or reporting. In my experience, this is what differentiates Arbor DDoS from the rest.

Overall, I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10), the reporting as a 10 (out of 10), and the mitigation as a five to eight (out of 10).

Our business is to provide a DDoS protection solution for our customers. Our customers are banks, financial groups, etc.

We might develop some DDoS protection services for our customers under our Internet umbrella. We detect and filter traffic using Arbor DDoS in our network. 

We use it as a BGP or prompt, as a telecom service provider. We have SP and TMS, and that is all our architecture.

We resell on-premise the Arbor edition and install at our customers' site, specifically the Availability Protection System (APS) system.

It protects huge attacks on our Internet system over our network. 

We provide more granular application protection using the APS system, which is located at customer sites.

Our concern is to provide flexibility. We decided to move to this DDoS solution. We wanted to install some local filtering service in the regions. We wanted to be able to add or remove some mitigation capacity to our regional services, which is vital for us. So, we decided to develop these new features to our DDoS service.

Every day or month, we have found some new attack, but I don't think that is very important. It is just the evolution of attacks. We fix it and make a description, so we will be aware when some new attacks come. I think that the Arbor DDoS and APS solutions are quite enough at the moment, as they mitigate all attacks that we face.

The most valuable feature is the ability to work in BGP. It is not important to provide all traffic in a mitigation system every time. We have a lot of customers, and only when a proxy is detected do we use it. This has reduced the cost of our solution. 

We would like the ability to decrypt APS traffic.

We need a SaaS model for the solution.

I opened a ticket with Arbor for the ability to localize numbers of our customers in BGP sessions. This has not been resolved.

We have been using Arbor DDoS for seven years, since 2013. 

It is quite stable. There are no major important bugs, though maybe some small ones. 

There are around five people who maintain it 24 hours a day.

It is quite scalable and effective. You can add new integration services quite easily. 

There are around 60 end users/customers of this solution.

They have good support. Tickets are resolved efficiently in time with Arbor engineers.

It was quite complicated and complex to set up. 

Several engineers were required to deploy it.

There were huge attacks in October, around 62 attacks at 30 gigabits per second, at one of our banks. We used Arbor DDoS to mitigate these attacks, and it performed great.

The solution has a huge price, but we are a global company so we receive global pricing, which is why we chose Arbor. We also receive good prices for Russia.

We also bought the Sentinel feature to use its flow spec because we needed to know how much traffic will be mitigated on our borders. We haven't used it yet, but we are planning on using it in the Spring. We found that the combination of the Sentinel feature with Arbor DDoS going forward is the most important feature.

We do not use the Arbor Cloud DDoS solution because it is too costly. We decided to make our proprietary cloud solution designed by our company.

Several solutions were tested, then we chose Arbor DDoS.

We evaluated several solutions, like NSFOCUS, three months ago, and decided to continue to go with Arbor. Another solution was similar to Arbor because they have a very sophisticated mitigation system. However, they still don't have a system that can analyze traffic by BGP, and their solution was to integrate with Arbor. We decided not to do that. 

Arbor is the solution for telecom services on the market.

Arbor is still the leader versus many vendors and products, which is why we decided to integrate with the Arbor solution for another three years. The solution has met our requirements.

I would recommend using Arbor DDoS.

We will buy the next version on virtual machines. We will buy a server separately with the on-premise solution, then install it on our servers where it would be virtual.

We have been thinking about creating our own DDoS solution using firewalls from other vendors.

We are looking to buy two distributed servers this year that we will need to test locally.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10). Arbor DDoS is a stable solution that fulfills our requirements for DDoS protection services.

As an operator, we use Arbor antiDDoS system to protect our backbone, protecting the network and our assets like DNS.I'm involved in the validation and testing of the solution. 

The solution is installed in our lab, with a simulated full network. We can send some regular traffic as well as DDOS traffic, using some testing tools like IXIA system and opensource tools. 

For testing, we simulate some regular traffic, as background traffic, and we added some attacks on the network with attack tools. We can monitor what's sent to the network, and we can monitor what's received by the victim. In this case, we can assess which part of the attack was stopped by the system.

Arbor DDoS helps consolidate visibility on traffic and on DDOS attacks attempts. It can perform direct mitigation action on the network, which is important. It has also helped us achieve our network and application uptime goals.

I like all the features together as a whole. It's a global solution that fits our needs. Detection is really important for us—the ability to trigger mitigation with TMS and the quality of mitigation.

What is also really important is to directly engage in mitigation on network elements, such as routers or switches, in addition to TMS mitigation. The capacity of the mitigation and the capacity to distribute mitigation on the routers are important. Using this solution as a hybrid approach to DDoS protection is an advantage. It's an important tool for managing the natural quality of service. We're quite confident about the solution and the evolution.

I think Arbor DDoS should be more open to other systems, in the sense of coordination between mitigation centers, like for example the capacity to ask the upstream transit provider for mitigation.

Netscout's Arbor allows it, but between Arbor systems only. It should be more open to Third party systems, that's what I mean by "openness" : evolution from Netscout signaling protocol to standardized DOTS protocol (DDOS Open Threat Signaling)

Implementation could also be improved regarding distribution of mitigation directly on network elements.

I've been using Arbor DDoS for testing for about a year.

Arbor DDoS is stable and robust, as seen during testing phase and with feedback from the field.

According to the operational team, there are few tickets open on the Netscout/Arbor site, but I don't have a precise figure, as I'm only involved in testing phase.

Arbor DDoS is scalable, both horizontally and vertically. It has good visibility making things quite obvious. There are some price issues with scalability, but technically speaking, the solution is fully scalable.

Technical support was knowledgeable and responsive.

The initial setup is quite complex. It isn't easy to do the configuration, but it's okay once it's done. Arbor's implementation strategy was to monitor first and provide all the configuration or the correct profiling for this system after it's considered safe.

NETSCOUT's team deployed our solution.

Arbor DDoS is quite expensive, especially for the TMS mitigation part

We compared it with others actors in antiDDOS domain, such as Nokia Deepfield and others. There are some differences, but generally, the logic is the same.

Arbor Networks, vendor of the solution, has been in DDoS visibility protection for more than ten years, which affected our decision to go with it. We assessed the company's stability (acquired by Netscout), which was part of the decision.

I would advise potential users to try the NETSCOUT Arbor DDoS system but also to check on other solutions.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Arbor DDoS a seven.

We are using it for application availability, for its perimeter protection against DDoS and such service-exhausting attacks. Our goal is service availability and protecting our infrastructure against reputational damage and other penalties that could be incurred as a result of outages and malicious activities.

In terms of availability, we have never suffered any service exhaustion or services unavailability. Credit goes to the solution in that we have probably suffered a number of attacks, but they were mitigated by the tech solution without any notable impact - automation. We have benefited a lot from it.

It gives us visibility into what's going on with our externally exposed services. The better the visibility it means we are able to take better informed actions to improve our infrastructure, both inside and outside the LAN.

And it has definitely helped us to achieve our network and application uptime requirements for our business and its external stakeholders. We have always maintained a very high service availability. Previously, the work involved was so intense to ensure we could support that availability. The uptime was the same then as it is now, almost 99.99 percent availability. But back then, threats were not as evolved and sophisticated as they are now. In the seven years we have been using the tool, we have continued with availability of services as before. But today, without the Arbor solution, I believe we would have suffered quite a number of service availability issues.

The auto-mitigation and upstream signaling are awesome. With the upstream signaling, this is where the application automatically raises an alarm that the data-line is over-utilized (potentially resulting in service unavailability) or is under attack (volumetric attack). The upstream service provider will then start scrubbing and black-holing malicious connections as a means to clean up the line and relieving the load. The fact that it's automated means I don't have to sit the entire time and always be looking out for threats coming through. It does it almost automatically, without any intervention by me.

They are putting quite a good amount of effort into their research to make their products stand out from the rest.

Day by day, the solution is actually getting smarter and more useful.

I haven't found anything to complain about or anything that they need to improve on.

I have been using Arbor DDoS for close to seven years now.

It's a very well-developed tool. I'm quite impressed. I'm happy with its performance. Stability-wise, it's a good tool. Support is also very impressive.

For my environment, there is no need for growing the platform. We currently have about 5,000 endpoints. But from what I've seen, and the way we deployed it, it looks quite scalable.

I've used NETSCOUT's technical support a number of times. I would rate it at 8 out of 10.  They are doing well, there is always room for improvement. Their technical knowledge is on point, and their turnaround time is on point.

We did not have a previous solution.

The decision to use Arbor was based on their track record and capabilities - they stood out very well.

It's not complex. If you know what you want to use the tool for, the placement, and you know what you want to protect, the setup is very straightforward. It requires minimal downtime to deploy the solution. I found it quite easy.

Deployment took about two hours, but that time includes internal delays. From the moment you start setting it up, it takes no more than 30 minutes. The longest part, before you deploy the technology, is learning your network by monitoring it. That could take a long time, depending on the timeframe that you want to benchmark on. It could take, say, a month, just to get an idea of how your network behaves. But in terms of setting up the device, it should take an hour, tops.

We had three people involved in the initial setup. All are network engineers.

Post-deployment maintenance on our side consists of just the regular updates of the software. 

Implementation was both inhouse and vendor supported - vendor support was great, very knowledgeable resources.

ROI comes from the fact that we've never suffered any outages. In the absence of Arbor, if we were to be compromised, the cost would be way more than the cost of the solution.

The solution is a bit costly if you're on a tight budget, but it's worth the price that they are charging - the ROI is notable in a long run.

I've only used the Arbor solution, so I haven't had any hands-on exposure to other technologies. But from the bit that I've read, and based on the ratings of the other solutions, nothing compares closed to what Arbor anti-DDoS offers. I've tried to compare it with the F5 Silverline solution, but the way that solution does threat mitigation is not as advanced or as comprehensive as what Arbor does.

My advice is "Go for it." It's a great tool. If you're concerned about the availability of your services, I highly recommend it, without any hesitation. If you regard your brand or organization as valuable, then Arbor is the tool for you.