Barracuda Web Application Firewall Reviews

I use the solution in my company to protect our website.

The solution's most valuable feature is that it actually protects our website, and it provides all the required security functions.

When we have multiple applications in Barracuda, everything is not managed in a single place. For example, Suppose I have four applications and want to make a common change across them. In the aforementioned case, it is not supported at the moment, and I have to go to individual applications and make changes.

Suppose I have four applications in the product and want to make similar changes in all of them together. In the aforementioned case, it is not possible to do anything with Barracuda Web Application Firewall.

I have to go to an individual obligation, make changes, and come out, and go to the next obligation and make the same changes. There is no grouping option.

I have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for six months. I am an end-user of the tool.

It is a mostly stable tool. I rate the stability as a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability as an eight out of ten.

The number of users depends on the public who are accessing our website. It all depends on the popularity, so I can't say the number here. Let us say that there are probably thousands of users.

The solution's technical support is good. There is a delay in the response time when it comes to the support part. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase is easy, but one needs some background knowledge. In terms of security products, one needs some background knowledge of the security practices. Nobody cannot configure the tool. Some certifications and technical knowledge is required to use the tool.

Depending on the person's knowledge of security, I can rate the setup phase as an eight on a one to ten scale, where ten means it is a very easy process.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on how many servers you want to set up in the hybrid environment. There are different components underneath it. There is no common time frame for the deployment. It all varies on a case-to-case basis, depending on how many deployments you are running in a hybrid environment and what services are offered to the user in the hybrid environment. We can't tell you the specific time for the deployment.

Cost is a bit on the higher side. Big companies can afford it.

The product offers protection against web exploitation. With code injection and SQL injection, everything is covered in the tool.

My company has around four applications on Barracuda Web Application Firewall. Everything has been working smoothly with the tool.

Speaking about AI-driven security measures, I would say that the solution has its own in-built machine learning techniques, so we are not using any other solution or AI solution, as it is all integrated with Barracuda Web Application Firewall itself.

Though it is a costly tool, it is a good product that is stable, secure and offers good protection.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall’s most valuable features are real-time threat detection and automatic security updates.

The platform's pricing needs improvement.

The technical support services are good.

Neutral

I have used Fortinet before. It has efficient AI capabilities compared to Barracuda.

The product has generated around 10% of return on investment.

The product is expensive. It is overpriced.

The product works effectively. However, it is complicated to understand and requires essential knowledge. It significantly improved our overall web security posture, addressing intrusions and enhancing control over web URLs in our environment. We can identify and block malicious URLs. With proper training, it is easy to manage templates and policies for this tool. They provide comprehensive documentation and training courses available for free on their website. It has good features for forensic analysis and reporting. It has a user-friendly interface and seamless integration with SQL.

I rate it a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for web applications utilizing it primarily for DDoS and cross-site script protection.

Our organization has improved because it has created a new layer of security analytics. Typically we used to do study code analysis, but then by adding that capability we now have dynamic analysis, which is very difficult to attain unless you have a technology. So now we have not only the visibility on any denial of service attacks, but we also have the ability to defend it.

The most valuable feature is the rule set, the ability to specify IP addresses that are excluded. Having the ability therefore to build rules, and exclude specific domains or websites, is very helpful. And when I compare it with some technologies I have used prior to that, which is Signal Science WAF and such. So how the rule set is handled is actually quite nice.

I would like to see a native multi-cloud cover. Right now if I have applications that run both on Amazon and Google, I have to have two distinct licenses and two distinct implementations. But we are multi-cloud, so I do not want to have to deploy policies on essentially two apps that are essentially the same policies. I would prefer to have a multi-cloud console, in other words, one set of policies that apply to multiple implementations.

I have been working with Barracuda Web Application Firewall for the past two years.

There is great stability.

It is pretty scalable. Because it is a cloud feature, the elasticity comes from the elastic cloud capability, If you make the wrong configurations it is not going to work. We can be working with anywhere between one thousand to twenty-five thousand.

The deployment took around three months to deploy and we used a third party.

The pricing is reasonable.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall an eight out of ten.

We have a customer that is using Barracuda WAF, and we are the partner, the vendor. We are providing the MSP to the customer and managing their WAF and infrastructure over the cloud.

Barracuda WAF is very good product. It is very responsive, and, feature-wise, it's very good and easy to use. 

You can easily deploy any kind of service. 

The technical support is also good. I'm very satisfied.

It is stable and the performance is good. 

The product is scalable.

It's easy to install. 

They offer good reporting.

The Barracuda team just needs to improve their product as per their competitors, like F5 and Imperva. They should improve their features, so they easily compare to the competition.

They could always continue to improve their security so that they maintain up-to-date on any current threats. 

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

The solution has been stable. I haven't encountered bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales quite well. 

Technical support has been very helpful and responsive. 

I'm also aware of F5 and Imperva, and they both have very good feature sets.

I've never worked with F5, however, I've heard F5 has more features than Barracuda WAF.

Some customers are using AWS WAF and Azure WAF.

The initial setup is very easy. It will take only a few minutes to install Barracuda WAF if you just implement your services and the URL. After that, you can begin using it.

The pricing depends on the customer. For example, if any customer is using Barracuda WAF and they are comparing it with the AWS WAF, AWS WAF is still a little bit more expensive than Barracuda WAF. And yet, Barracuda WAF has a lot of features that AWS doesn't have. Therefore, the pricing is quite good. 

We're a Barracuda partner. 

WAF is new in the industry. It is very easy to use, implement, and deploy, and you can handle your daily operations very easily. Even the troubleshooting part is simple. 

I'd recommend the solution. If you ever run into issues, it's very easy to contact support and get the help you need. Plus, it is very easy to learn. They have a Barracuda Campus where you can go and get tutorials. All of the videos and documentation you need for any product are right there for you. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

I'm using Barracuda as a web application firewall for any application. It is too smart and user-friendly, making it easy to restrict applications and utilize many features.

It is very easy to restrict applications and utilize many features and ensures that it's not complicated to work with.

The most helpful feature is rate limiting, which acts as a security layer against DDoS attacks. Additionally, data leak prevention is very important and ensures protection against attacks.

I faced an issue when Barracuda decided not to support Azure Stack Hub anymore, which was a significant issue as we had many customers using it on that platform. Due to this decision, we had to replace Barracuda with another vendor, which was regrettable.

I have been working with Barracuda Application Firewall for more than four years.

When the SDM crashed, we experienced instability, yet support usually acted quickly and was very helpful, ensuring stability for customers.

Scalability is strong, rated eight to nine. The solution is capable of meeting scalability requirements efficiently.

Technical support may be rated as eight or nine out of ten. The support is very helpful and responsive.

Positive

Due to the decision by Barracuda not to support Azure Stack Hub, we replaced Barracuda WAF with another vendor for more than ten customers.

The setup process is too simple.

On a scale, pricing is nine out of ten. It's a reasonable price for this product.

There is no comparison, as Barracuda is too smart. Compared to FortiWeb, Barracuda is much better.

I would rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall at nine out of ten overall. I can recommend it to other users. Barracuda is one of the remarkable vendors in web security and is too smart.

The product has fantastic support services. It provides complex solutions, including block mode and other default protection features.

We encountered a few glitches while implementing API security features into the product. Secondly, they could provide transparency for different types of protection parameters available. It will be beneficial if there is some visibility for the same. We faced some downtime issues the last two times due to Barracuda infrastructure. Thus, we are searching for alternate WAF solutions.

We have been using Barracuda Web Application Firewall for two years.

I rate the platform's stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product's scalability nine out of ten. It is suitable for enterprise businesses.

The technical support services are fantastic. They share the knowledge transparently. This feature is more exceptional than that of other vendors.

Positive

The initial setup process is simple. We have deployed the product on the cloud.

I rate Barracuda Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

People who host their applications on the cloud, global servers, on-premises, or various locations may encounter issues related to IT threading as well as volumetric attacks. To address these challenges, we provide the Barracuda Web Application Firewall. The most significant advantage of the Barracuda Web Application Firewall is that it offers a single subscription for Active DDoS protection.

There are two types of DDoS attacks: active DDoS and offline DDoS. With Barracuda Web Application Firewall, we only need one subscription to be protected against both. In contrast, other solutions and competitors often require separate subscriptions for DDoS protection, making their offerings more expensive.

When it comes to a comprehensive web application firewall solution, Barracuda stands out by providing an affordable and end-to-end approach. In comparison, other market solutions typically consist of separate boxes for different features, leading to higher pricing.

We only need one subscription to be protected against both active DDoS and offline DDoS attacks.

In the Barracuda Web Application Firewall, there should be more affordable options for WAF as a service. These options should cater to smaller businesses, with a focus on single-size configurations for fewer users and cloud applications. We currently offer WAF as a service for cloud-deployed applications, but the pricing is somewhat on the higher side. To enhance the service, I suggest that they work on improving their pricing strategy. It's crucial to provide competitive pricing in comparison to other competitors in the market.

I am currently using the Barracuda Web Application Firewall.

I give Barracuda Web Application Firewall nine out of ten for stability.

I give Barracuda Web Application Firewall nine out of ten for scalability.

I would rate the initial setup a ten out of ten for its ease.

Usually, deployment takes three to four weeks because it depends on the customer and what we can observe from their side. What SLA or scope of work have they shared with the partner? In essence, we are not a direct partner of Barracuda; instead, we serve as the brand custodian for multiple brands such as Sophos and Barracuda. During the deployment phase, we are not directly involved with the customers. Sometimes, the queries pertain to deployment issues or technical problems. For such cases, we typically respond within two to four hours, or at most, one to two days, depending on our schedule. Since we cater to multiple brands and settings, we are not exclusively focused on one particular brand. Our role involves supporting multiple brands and setting up various solution abilities or designs.

For instance, if a customer approaches us for web services, we can offer Sophos Firewall web services. However, if they require a dedicated web solution, we provide them with a Barracuda solution. In cases where the customer has budget constraints, we try to migrate them to cloud-based solutions. Consequently, we refer to them as end customers or partners as per the situation.

In most cases, we are not directly involved in the deployment phase, the configuration process, or the setup. However, we usually gather feedback from our partners or new partners, and based on that, I can estimate that the deployment will take around two to three weeks. The timeline depends on the specific requirements or wishlist of the end customer.

The Barracuda Web Application Firewall is quite expensive. The license is available on an annual or three-year term, with no monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual options. There is a bigger discount applied when a customer signs up for a three-year term.

I would give Barracuda Web Application Firewall nine out of ten.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall is marketed for the enterprise segment because of its high cost.

Barracuda Web Application Firewall is a comprehensive and dedicated web application firewall, and I highly recommend it.

Our company uses the solution to provide customers with a proxy service that secures transcriptions as part of a seven-layer process. We currently provide this service to twenty customers. 

The solution ensures layer seven is secure from attacks. 

The scripting is good. 

Layer four could be more secure like layer seven to prevent HTTP and HTTPS attacks. 

There are issues when upgrading firewalls and we experience different issues across customers. The communication metrics, ports, traffic, source, destination, and service must be enabled to upgrade firmware but there is no documentation or article for opening the communication matrix to upgrade smoothly. 

STM crashes are a repeat issue and they wipe out appliances. Each time, we have to open a ticket with support and get Apache to fix the issue. It is unclear why appliances have issues or fail and need to be recovered with Apache. 

Firmware upgrades cause automatic configuration changes without providing notifications. Configurations such as ports should not be changed automatically because they negatively affect customers. One customer's configuration issue was within the third layer and took seven days to solve. Support mitigation and work describes policies created automatically after upgrading firewalls but we already created and want to retain our own policies. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable but ongoing issues with appliance failures, system crashes, and upgrading firmware affect its smooth operation. 

I opened a support ticket for resolving issues when upgrading firewalls. Support could not get to the issue and did not inform me to check traffic on the firewall. It is important to determine what is plugged in when a parameter is trying to communicate outside to download and upgrade firmware to the latest version. The issue was ongoing for three months until I accidently detected it myself. 

Tickets are not solved in one day and sometimes I have to close tickets without any solution from support. Only tickets at the second or third escalation level receive support. 

The setup is straightforward and installation can be finished in one day. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The solution is based on a licensing model and might be $360 for the hybrid version. 

We have to migrate to another vendor because the solution no longer supports issues with the stack hub. 

We are a partner with Barracuda so recommend the application firewall to our customers but we now have thirteen customers who use Azure stack hub and cannot receive support. We communicated this issue with Barracuda's Middle East management and they suggested using a container as a service. We tried this in our lab but had issues with the installation which we finally resolved. We have some concerns about data being exposed because it is in the cloud. Our customers are administrators and will not accept their data being exposed. 

We would rather work with Barracuda because we have experience with their application firewalls and that makes it easier to support customers. We will have to go to another vendor and take classes to become experts. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.