AWS WAF Reviews

There are two things that we primarily use AWS WAF (Amazon Web Services Web Application Firewall) for. One use is within the company. Within the company, the intended use is to deploy our applications. It is like working with the cloud. We can start an application in S3 (Simple Storage Service), and use profiles for access to data.  

The other use is that most of our clients use a similar infrastructure. They are either using AWS, Azure or maybe Google Cloud Platform (GCP). We deploy this solution for them.  

Both uses are different. One is for the cloud solutions like AWS, Azure and GCP, and one is for the local server access. That is how you want to secure a server. You are securing a server, database, app servers, and ATA gateways. The other one is for implementing security for the AWS. You want to have both running side-by-side.  

Let me give you an example. Suppose, most of the people working for your company are connected from external locations with company-provided laptops or systems. I want to check all devices to make sure that they are being used in a secure way and not creating any breach of security. Those checks cannot be taken care of reliably from the AWS perspective. This is why you need two solutions.  

The most valuable feature is the ability to use the product to enhance security in deploying web applications.  

We have not implemented WAF completely. We are working around that issue right now in the AWS. We are creating log files and then we are using Kibana for analysis. Out WAF deployment is not perfected yet so it is not implemented as our long-term solution. It will take another month to complete the setup. I do not have the big picture on it yet in a live environment, so my view of what will need to be improved under load is limited.  

I think one thing that should be available is that if there are technical problems in the AWS, then there should be automated alerts to AWS. Calling support is not that easy. It would be better to automatically send emails to them to report that there is a bug in their programming.  

I have an idea for a new feature to consider. I think the security area and other things that they provide are good, and I know there are third-party integrations. It provides a lot of value. The problem is that the 'value' of the solution makes it very costly. That is a big thing. $20,000 for this solution seems like a lot.  

Right now we are limited to only MySQL and PostgreSQL databases. There should be other options and also a way to check the security of it. I think AWS should develop and make available some kind of a management screen so we can see the logs, which servers are using the service, and how the security is performing. All we can see right now is if there are any security breaches. This is not enough information to evaluate the performance of the system.  

For example, there are a lot of people using MongoDB databases. Over the last two years, a lot of them got hacked. Mongo should have had a way to alert end users if its facilities get hacked. A manager or some administrator should receive an email saying that this or that account got hacked and there was a security breach. This would be enough notification to prompt taking other appropriate actions.  

There should also be a report or alerts which tell us that the configuration is having security issues. I think there is something called PVE security rules which might be implemented. Of course, Cisco's security rules could also be implemented. Once the rules are implemented, we know for certain if they are providing a secure connection or not. We need some type of check on the configuration that can create alerts for potential security issues and to have proper notifications.  

We have been in the implementation process with the product for some time but it is not yet live because we are not totally satisfied with the setup.  

I am not satisfied with AWS technical support. It is a long story. Two years back I contacted support because their code was not working. The solution itself was not perfect and there was a bug in the system. It was creating a lot of issues and there is no way to contact support. 

I tried to contact them to tell them that they had a problem with AWS, they wanted me to pay them $200 to tell them there was a problem with their product — which is very strange. What I did instead was to send an email to their sales department at AWS to explain to them that there was a coding issue and that the software was not working as it was supposed to. After many months, they replied that this was not a problem for the sales department. They said they would forward the issue to the technical support team. When the technical support team received the information, they asked for money again to solve the problem in the coding of their own product.  

I just wanted to tell them that they had a problem. They gave me a run-around and would not even look at the issue that was on their end which must have affected more clients than just me. So I think in that way, the technical support is not good. If there is a problem or a bug within the AWS services, there is no way to contact anyone for a resolution. That is a problem and not a good way to run technical support.  

We were using ManageEngine. A problem with using ManageEngine was that ManageEngine can help in securing the servers and API gateways and app servers, but it cannot help to tell if there is any breach in security from a company-provided laptop. We needed a better solution that covered this vulnerability.  

This product is not straightforward to set up and deploy. In the area of database security, it is especially complex. This is especially true when you want to do security for the cloud. There may be applications that will allow software on the cloud to access your in-house servers. If your in-house servers are available and there is a database, you want to secure it. You can do that more easily in-house than you can on the cloud but you have to be sure it is configured and secured properly.  

As far as pricing considerations, there are other competitors to consider. All the solutions are not easy and all will not do exactly the same thing or even what you need. SecureSphere is expensive, I think $20,000 per year. If you go for ManageEngine or any other solution, they also go for close to $10,000. It depends on how many applications you are running and how many servers you have. They can easily run into close to $10,000 a year. Database security and application security are generally costly solutions.  

AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven or an eight. I do not like to give it a solid rating as of now because we are still in the process of implementing it. Once we have completed the implementation, we will be able to give you a proper answer. As recent as two weeks we were still considering ManageEngine, but we did finally decide in our comparisons that it cannot provide all of the features that we are looking for.  

A primary use case example is when a customer from the cloud wants to expose his applications to the internet. We make sure that the clients, the applications, whatever they're trying to export, are public but that it's not going directly public. We make a backup, for instance, to protect the sellers and applications from security checks, etc. 

There are two models. One is, you can use the free services which you can download from the AWS website. There is also a paid version, where you can go for individual vendors, like Impala, Fortinet, and different vendors, which helps you to attain the top end web application security. It helps them to update the security patches, etc.

AWS has flexibility in terms of WAF rules. Users can choose from using a free service, which you can do from your own end, or a third-party vendor if you want to as well by choosing a paid version. WAF rules can be managed either by your own self or you can go for a third party.

The best thing with the solution is there is no hard and fast route and when I go for AWS. It's not a monopoly environment.

There isn't room for improvement per se. the cloud is constantly evolving and changing however, so we'll see what the future brings.

When users choose the free service, there isn't great support available to them. This is because, when it comes to any issues, due to the fact that it says that when the rules are defined by the users, it becomes their responsibility. When there are any problems or threats, which don't get mitigated or the threat is not being properly managed, since the rules are owned by the user, they take responsibility for everything. It would be helpful if AWS could take a bit of responsibility here and help users understand where things went wrong.

Support wise, I don't think they are that good compared to individual vendors. When it comes to vendors, it becomes their product, and being a product owner, they take more responsibility and ownership of issues. AWS doesn't do that at all.

I've been using the solution for two and a half years.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't run into bugs or glitches. It's reliable. You don't see any downtime.

Since we're talking more about the cloud version of the web application firewall, it's highly scalable. When I say scaling, there is a concept called auto-scaling wherein which you can scale up and scale down according to your amount of traffic load. It's automated, so it's highly scalable, actually.

While any company can use AWS, we see a lot of medium-sized firms using this particular solution, as opposed to larger companies, as those have already their own vendors which are already in the on-premises data centers environment.

I would say from the support point of view, there should be more flexibility when it comes to when users have issues to be able to ask for their help. They need to try to go the extra mile and right now they just aren't doing that.

We've only used AWS for a few customers. Usually, we recommend a different solution. However, it depends on the client and the type of budget that they have. As one version of AWS is free, sometimes that is the only option.

The initial setup is not difficult. It's very straightforward.

Deployment is pretty quick and might take up to one and a half hours at most.

You don't need too many people for maintenance. If they are knowledgable enough, a single person can handle it with no problems. They're even able to do some scripting language to handle the deployment and can set up some automation protocols as well.

When it comes to maintenance, the real challenge comes into play for mitigation. You might need maybe we need four to five people, at a large organization.

There are two versions of the solution available, one of which is free, which is the version we use, so we don't pay for anything.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

When customers tend to use multi-cloud vendors and multi-cloud environments, they want solid security protection. That's where the third party comes into the purchase. If any customer is specific to some cloud like AWS or Azure, we won't recommend third party. We'll try to use AWS's own specific services so that it's smarter cost-wise and flexibility wise, so it adds value to the customer.

However, when things go to a multi-cloud environment or a hybrid cloud architecture, that's when the third party comes into the picture. 

I would recommend this solution to companies who are looking for cloud solutions with firewall flexibility. AWS is very user-friendly and largely inexpensive, however, if an organization has the budget, there are lots of great products out there that do largely the same thing.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to protect our internal web solution. We use it to have an internal application for our customers. We are an SME worldwide company, so we have some internal website solutions architects that use this as an internal portal to the internet. We apply a WAF front to our web application.

The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats. It's important to protect the code against the threats on the internet. It redirects any threat, any attack, to a Fail2ban mechanism.

Sometimes it's a bit difficult to check the rules because when you apply a rule, sometimes it's too much and we need to rewrite the rules and make compromises on the rules because it will block too many things. It's a bit difficult to apply the right rules for the right security.

We have used AWS WAF for around a year. 

Their support is very good. We have an enterprise agreement with Amazon.

I don't remember there being any problems with the setup.

I think AWS WAF is a great solution. You can define big and a bit smaller architectures and scale out architecture as you need, due to the edge location. Its features are very amazing. 

I would definitely recommend AWS WAF. I asked my security director to move from our internal WAF to the AWS WAF because we can make global unique WAF services for our on-premise web servers and also our AWS web servers with one common rule and one common authority to manage these rules

I would rate AWS WAF an eight out of ten.

We are a technical services company and this is one of the solutions that we have helped implement for our clients. We stopped using AWS about six months ago and as such, we are not currently using the AWS Web Application Firewall.

The most valuable feature is the scalability because it automatically scales up or scales down as per our requirements.

I would like to be able to view a graphical deployment map in the user interface that will give me an overview of the configuration and help to determine whether I have missed any steps.

The stability is good. From our experience, I've felt very happy with all of the AWS components in terms of stability. They work fine and have met our requirements.

The scalability of this solution is very good.

I am really happy with the AWS customer support, although I have not needed to contact them for this solution.

We have changed solutions because the choice of product depends on the customer's preferences and requirements. When I am working on a contract, I am required to use whatever they ask me to. If I already have the experience then I apply it. Otherwise, I learn what I need to, which sometimes involves taking training courses.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is not to simply look it up on Google before starting to use it. I would suggest taking some training courses, start to understand how it works internally, and then begin using it.

Overall, it is a good product and it generally fits well for my purposes.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I'm a manager and in charge of IT infrastructure and information security for an airline company. We're a customer of AWS WAF. We use the product to protect the websites that our customers access to book flights. It provides the sites with DDoS protection and OWASP top 10 application security.

The best features are the security firewall and the features that protect against database injections or scripting, and against overall OWASP top 10, but I have concerns about the cloud front which doesn't handle bot attacks properly, so it's not as effective as I would like it to be.

A significant improvement would be built in bots protection enhancement, or seamless integration with other products. For now, there are limited feature to protect against an attack from the bad bots so users go to third party solutions, which just complicates integration and operation.

A helpful additional feature would be to have a fully unified unique product, including the DDoS, with sophisticated attack capabilities including anti bot management. They should also take a look at reviewing the complexity of the integration with other third-party vendor solutions.

I've been using the product for the last two years. We upgraded recently and I'm using the latest version. 

Technical support is good. 

Deployment is easy, it's not complex.The complexity is when you need it for integration with other third-party products. We also use CDN, part of the web solution from Amazon. 

The price of the product is fair enough and one of the product's advantages. Their price is good compared to other vendors. 

The main difference with other similar products is the security efficiency against the type of attacks because normally Amazon works with certain types of attacks and is unable to deal with most of the more sophisticated new attacks that are now the market. So if you compare AWS WAF to the leaders in the field like Imperva, Akamai or radware, they are still beyond these products.

I would recommend that if you don't have a critical heavy use website, and you have a simple business that doesn't require high protection or high-security efficiency, go with this product, but if you have something where security is critical you should go with the leaders in the market, companies like Akamai, Radware, PerimeterX or Imperva.

I would rate this product a seven out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for its rich insights to improve customer experience.

The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match.

The AI functionality and the machine learning are very good.

The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is extremely scalable.

We have Amazon managed services, and, as part of our agreement, we have the lower end of that managed service. The solution is not a business-critical system for us, so we have a four hour SLA for resolution. That's pretty good. We're very satisfied with technical support.

Previous to this solution, we used Microsoft Azure.

Amazon allows you to provision more services once you have the initial platform in place. Using Amazon Marketplace, it's so simple to provide additional services and functionality so it allows you to grow the capability of the platform with very little integration into other systems because it's all built into the marketplace. With Azure, it's only capable of some products and they don't have APIs available to integrate as well as Amazon does. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment took about three months. For the setup of the platform, we had six people. For the maintenance of the platform, we now have three people maintaining it.

We brought Amazon on to set everything up for us. They made implementation very easy. 

We use the public cloud deployment model. We use the Amazon cloud.

From a technology perspective, Amazon is very simple. It requires, in order for it to run effectively, quite a mature cloud-based culture within your organization, however. My advice to others would be to get their operating model internally right before going ahead with the implementation.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

The primary use of the solution is for perimeter security. I use it to secure my application and infrastructure.

Fast deployment and auto-manage are the most valuable aspects of the solution. The auto-manage primarily reacts and has to do all the little things like putting in the ACL, etc. 

The solution could be faster in detecting threats.

They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies.

The solution could always be more automated.

The solution is stable.

The solution is easily scalable.

I have a number for WAF, but I've never used technical support.

I previously used a different solution. The complex setup and installation were the main differences between that and WAF. I've worked with system compliance for many years, and it usually involves complex solutions. You have to know the CLF, etc. Cisco, for example, is so complex that you need to know many things. Whereas with WAF, you have to put up your host, your network, and you have the solution up and running.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less. You only need one person to handle deployment and maintenance.

I implemented the solution myself.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

I use everything AWS. I need it to work for me, and it does. I hope that the solution continues to improve, but for me, it's perfect right now.

For those considering implementing the solution, I would advise that they understand how networks work because sometimes they can be quite complex. Many architects do not understand the basic concepts of networking.

I would recommend the solution. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Application security is our primary use case.

The customized billing is the most valuable feature.

In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler.

It's pretty good, as long as the pricing matches your budget.

I would rate AWS WAF at eight out of ten. It does everything pretty well. I would just like additional management tools.