Cloudflare Web Application Firewall Reviews

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is used to protect the web servers.

The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall's most valuable feature is its ease of configuration.

The accuracy of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall could be improved by reducing the number of false-negative alerts.

Signature-based detection and data loss prevention could also be improved.

I have been working with Cloudflare Web Application Firewall for one year.

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is a stable solution.

I am not familiar with the scalability of this solution,

We have 20 people in our organization who are using this solution.

I have not had any issues with the technical support of the Cloudflare Web Application Firewall.

Local support is available.

The initial setup is straightforward, it is easy.

It took four hours to deploy this solution.

It is less expensive than its competitors.

The annual licensing fee is $10,000 USD.

I have not had any issues with this solution, and I would recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Cloudflare Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

We are partners with Cisco.

As the name suggests, it's a web application firewall. You use it almost like a firewall in front of a web application. It helps filter out the bad traffic or the Layer 7 malicious traffic.

Cloudflare provides packaged OWASP rulesets and Cloudflared managed rulesets. Cloudflare provides weekly scheduled rule updates or emergency rule updates. Both rulesets seem very accurate, does not generate much false positives. Before the deployment, I was concerned about how many false positives I have to deal with daily. Very glad the WAF rulesets works out of box, and requires very little tuning or maintenance. 

Their documentation could be better. They don't have documentation that explains everything well. They have documentation for everything you're looking for, but they lack a single piece of documentation to tie everything together. As a new user or beginner, it took us a little bit of time to figure out how to put all these things in place. I wish they had easier introduction documents written to help us transition into it. It takes a little bit of effort for a new user to figure out how to do this.

I have asked them for some additional features. I want to be able to quickly find out the rules that I have modified because there are thousands of rules. It took a little bit of effort to figure out which rules I have modified. A feature like that will make it easier for me to track down the changes.

I have been using CloudFlare WAF for a few months.

CloudFlare WAF is a stable solution. Once you figure out how to set it up and get it running, it's beautiful. 

Scalability is wonderful. It's very easy to scale, and this is the primary reason for selecting it. After all, the software is a service. There's no problem when it comes to scaling.

Tech support is solid. No issues there.

The initial setup is a little bit tricky because of poor documentation. Their modeling steers you more towards the enterprise tier. When you pay for the enterprise tier, you can have engineers work directly with you to guide you and help you set it up. But if you just try to do it by yourself, that's when you'll face some difficulty.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

We pay $210 per month for CloudFlare WAF.

I would tell potential users that once you figured out that initial part, it's straightforward. I would suggest that they look at what they need and compare the costs and management costs. There are various WAFs out there, but it really comes down to comparing the cost and how much effort it takes to deploy it and manage them.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give CloudFlare WAF a solid eight.

Our primary use is as a SaaS-based firewall solution for web applications.  

The most valuable part of the solution for us overall is exactly that it is a Software-as-a-Service product. It fits our use needs because it is configurable via API.  

There is really only one area of the product that I think needs to be improved. That is that Cloudflare should update the version of the ModSecurity core rule set that they run on. They run a pretty old version of ModSecurity from 2013 and they need to update it. That is one thing I would very much like to see in a future release.  

The main issue that we have is really a decision about how the product fits our model. We use both AWS and Azure, and they have similar products. We are trying to determine whether or not we go for a cloud-native solution per the cloud provider we are using or stick with our current model and continue to use Cloudflare. Switching to AW or Azure as a lone solution means we would go with one or the other across all cloud providers to unify our WAF approach. It might simplify how we look at the maintenance of our web application firewall.  

We have been using Cloudflare's web application firewall for twelve months.  

I am one-hundred percent convinced of the stability of the product.  

I can say I am pretty confident in the scalability of Cloudflare WAF. I believe that they are the largest WAF provider on the internet at the moment. That is probably at least in part because they are pretty scalable. It is our primary WAF product at the moment.  

As far as technical support, we have not really had any issues that require contacting them.  

The initial setup of Cloudflare WAF was very easy. It is a SaaS service so it is just online and it is really only a few clicks away to get started with it. There is no physical infrastructure to bother with so that whole component of maintenance is removed.  

There is no upfront cost for infrastructure because it is a SaaS solution. You just pay per month for the product and usage.  

We have evaluated other WAF (Web Application Firewall) solutions. In fact, that is what we are investigating now in taking a deeper look at the advantages of AWS and Azure. That evaluation is really part of my current job.  

At this stage, we have not really considered replacing Cloudflare as a solution with either of those specific solutions or other WAF products. The thing that differentiates Cloudflare WAF is that is it Software-as-a-Service. It is integrated tightly with all of Cloudflare's other services. That is probably the better way to look at it: it is an integrated part of a product suite and not really a separate solution.  

My advice to people who are considering Cloudflare WAF is to check service limits of other providers. Cloudflare does not really have a lot of service limits and that makes a difference. Also, look at the pricing and the pricing models carefully as other products seem to me to become more complicated as your demand scales. It is more straightforward with Cloudflare — or at least it seems to be in comparison to other providers.  

Caching is the most valuable feature of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall.

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall should improve visibility for a customer.

I have been using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall for five years.

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is a scalable solution. More than 10,000 retail solutions and more than 50,000 online customers are using the solution in our company.

The solution's customer support is really bad. When you have some issue, you will never get an answer from customer support.

Negative

We previously worked with F5 on-premises.

The solution's pricing option needs to be more transparent for enterprise clients.

I am using the latest version of Cloudflare Web Application Firewall. Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is deployed on the cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate Cloudflare Web Application Firewall a nine out of ten.

We are using Cloudflare for two purposes. The first is for our in-house self-service platform to manage all customers, and the second is for reselling.

The integration of Cloudflare with Cloud Suite is its most valuable feature. This is where it stands out, as it can be integrated according to multiple scenarios.

The first one is the log management and reporting part. If they add logs history within the Cloudflare offering, that would be a great benefit.

There are a few features that come free with Cloudflare WAF, such as bot management. When users use it they ask for a fee. Users are not usually aware of these features in the initial phase. Users should know that these features are free for three or four months, and after that, they have to pay for them. This would help to align their expectations from the very first day.

There should be training modules that we use for our sales teams and product experts similar to Fortinet and VMware.

I have been using Cloudflare Web Application Firewall for three months.

I rate the product’s stability an eight out of ten.

Cloudflare Web Application Firewall is easy to scale. As users scale it, it integrates more features, but they may have to pay for these additional features. It is challenging to convince smaller companies that are using open-source solutions. Upon comparison, Cloudflare's features stand out over open-source solutions, but the cost element is still the factor people are most concerned about.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup of the product is simple because we have a good technical team that can manage it. We reach out to small companies if they don't have that sort of technical expertise to see if they can easily integrate it. 

Overall, I rate Cloudflare Web Application a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an application firewall.

In general, it's a very good product.

The solution is very stable. The performance is great.

The product offers very good scalability.

The pricing is very reasonable.

The installation is very straightforward. It's quite simple.

Technical support has a very fast response time and they are helpful.

We never had any issues with the analytics, dashboards, or monitoring.

I can't recall dealing with features that were not sufficient. It's very good.

It would be ideal if the solution offered better log integration and more integration with different platforms.

I've been using the solution for about a year and a half at this point. It's been a while. 

The performance of the solution is very good. It's very stable. The product doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand the product, it can do so with relative ease.

I am unsure as to if the company plans to increase usage, as I used it primarily at my previous organization. I've since moved on.

Technical support is very good. They are very helpful and responsive. We've been quite satisfied with the level of support they provide to our organization.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex or overly difficult. We found it quite simple to execute. A company should be able to handle the process easily.

We only required two individuals for deployment and maintenance. They were a manager and an admin.

I'm pretty satisfied with the solution in terms of the pricing. It's reasonable. I have no complaints.

Before the organizations chose this solution, it's my understanding that it did not evaluate any other options.

We always have the latest version of the solution. As a cloud deployment, it's always updating to the latest version. 

We're a Cloudflare partner.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten overall. We've been quite pleased with the overall capabilities of the solution.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies.