Fortinet FortiWeb Reviews

We are using FortiWeb for publishing web services and some web applications.

The interface makes it easy to identify vulnerabilities.

The best features for us are the signature services. The devices uses signatures for identifying vulnerabilities in web applications.

This product is very user-friendly.

The security is very good.

FortiWeb needs to have support for the newest technology being used in web applications. For example, some companies have developed new features using the latest technology, but we are still waiting for Fortinet to support them.

I have been using FortiWeb for between four and five years.

The stability is very good and we're fortunate that we haven't had any issues.

We have had no issues with scalability.

We are in Iran and working under sanctions, which means that we cannot buy new American products and cannot get support. Companies usually buy devices that are second hand, or from a third-party, neither of which have support.

That said, my impression is that the support is good for companies who are eligible to use it.

The initial setup was not complex. Like all Fortinet devices, it is user-friendly.

Due to the situation in Iran with the sanctions, the price of this solution is very expensive.

The only other two web application firewall products that are available in my country are F5 and Imperva.

This is a good product and I strongly recommend it, especially for companies in the banking industry.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I initially deployed it for my company, but now I administrate it for a client.

We use it to secure VMs and applications in Azure. It protects against DDoS attacks.

It's very user-friendly.

There is room for improvement in the support. The response time could be faster. Plus, they ask for a lot of information. It is not easy to get support. 

In future releases, I would like to see added antivirus features that provide user-based activity indicators. For example, if a user downloads a large number of files or connects frequently, the WAF could flag this activity for investigation.

I have been using it for three months now. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable product. 

For some initial issues. It's good, but not during the first year. FortiWeb could improve response time and first-level support clarity.

Positive

The first implementation with an expert took two hours. My solo attempt took three weeks.

Take time to test it thoroughly. Consider buying an existing solution if needed.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use FortiWeb for protecting web applications.

The product has a very user-friendly dashboard.

The software's support services could be better compared to Sophos.

The product's scalability could be better compared to Sophos.

It is challenging to communicate with the FortiWeb's support team.

We use Sophos as well.

FortiWeb's configuration process is more difficult than Sophos. I rate the process a one out of ten.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a ten out of ten.

I rate FortiWeb a five out of ten.

It helps us prevent attacks on servers, and we deploy it on-premises.

There are many valuable features. It has machine learning, artificial intelligence, behaviour detection, and many other features capable of detecting web attacks.

The initial setup could be simplified.

We have been using the solution for approximately ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

We do not have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is complex and takes between three to six months.

We implemented the solution in-house.

Fortinet FortiWeb has some types of licenses, and the main licenses refer to updating a signature and a pattern.

We evaluated machine learning and the main signatures about known attack signatures.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten, and I recommend it for every organization with web services.

We use this product for load balancing and for their firewall. We are partners with Fortinet. 

I like that the GUI makes it easy to scale in terms of learning and utilization.
We chose this solution based on the online training and materials they offered. It's easily available on the web. 

There are specific functionalities that I'd like to see improve and that would basically bring it into line with what is being offered by solutions such as F5 and Imperva.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward, the deployment took us about two hours. We currently have 16 users. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention. 

In my experience, Fortinet FortiWeb could improve the intelligent features to acknowledge whether any threat or incident that's running happened. Then give us the ability to escalate it to layer 2 or layer 3 in the network operations.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for approximately two years.

I have found Fortinet FortiWeb to be stable.

The solution is scalable, but it can only scale at a medium level.

We use the technical support from the system integration, not directly with Fortinet FortiWeb. It takes them a lot of time to solve an issue when we submit a complaint.

in Indonesia, we need more knowledgeable local support.

The initial implementation is simple and the configuration is straightforward.

The price of Fortinet FortiWeb is reasonable. This is one of the key factors of why we use this solution.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb an eight out of ten.

We mainly use it for protection. OS scanning and load balancing are two of its main use cases.

My team is most probably working with its latest version. In terms of the deployment, lately, it has been on the cloud because the end-user-facing web applications are usually live on the cloud.

Banks have to be compliant with PCI and other things, and FortiWeb is absolutely amazing in terms of providing these reports. Otherwise, they will have to spend a lot of time on them.

The compliance piece is the best feature. Load balancing is also valuable, which is something that all web application firewalls do. Another valuable feature is high availability. You can scale it very well. Load balancing and high availability are the two reasons why we picked it for a couple of banks.

From the feature perspective, it is pretty rich. The automation piece can be improved. Although they say it can be automated very well, there is still manual work. Its usability should be improved in terms of automation because we want to build an infrastructure with code, but you can't do that easily with this solution. If they can give us APIs in the firewalls that we can tap into, it would be perfect. 

I would also like it to scale automatically based on the traffic.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

I've never seen any issues, but when you turn on all the features or every single scanning, that's when it slows down a bit.

It is scalable, but it is a roundabout way of automated scaling. It is not truly automated scaling. In general, when the size is okay, scaling is not a problem. I would like it to scale automatically based on the traffic, but that doesn't happen because automation is not there.

I haven't seen any big issues with performance. We ran 20,000 connections through it, and it was okay. When you deploy it in the cloud, you can increase the size of the VM, and with extra licensing, it is fine performance-wise.

It is suitable for medium and large customers. My team has deployed at least 500 of these in the last few years. In general, it's okay. We don't have any issue with it.

They have been pretty good, honest, and upfront. It all comes down to expectations when you buy these things.

I know the country manager very well. He is my friend for Fortinet. They are very good in terms of support. 

When you buy these things from a marketplace like Amazon or AWS, the support is not as good as it can be because the first line of support is the cloud provider, and then there is the vendor. So, our preference usually is to go directly to the vendor because they know more about it.

One of the best things about Azure Firewall is the automation. There is a huge difference. The second thing is pricing. 

With FortiWeb, when you want to buy HA, you need to start designing high availability across different regions. With Azure, it comes by default.

It depends on the customer and the use case. Usually, it's straightforward, but as you add more applications, it can become more and more complex.

The deployment duration varies. Usually, designing, building, and putting in production take about four weeks, but it also depends on the application type.

It requires maintenance all the time. Everything requires maintenance. Usually, we build it and operationalize it, and we then hand it over to the customer.

It keeps changing, but it's based on the size of the VM you buy and also the traffic throughput you want from it, whereas what we have on Azure is just the traffic throughput. You can also pay on a monthly basis from Azure. During each part of the project, it's okay to get Azure-based licensing or AWS-based licensing for FortiWeb, but over time, you would want to go with the perpetual license. You should go to Fortinet and buy the license from them. So, there is a two-step process there.

I would advise getting the right engineer. You need someone who is a specialist, and that's very important.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. 

I use Fortinet FortiWeb to protect my web application. It works to protect my applications from attack signatures. It allows me to create a URL profile and HTTP content routing when I have many web servers working on the same virtual server.

Fortinet FortiWeb has helped our organization by protecting the web application from any attack, known and unknown. The unknown protection is done by effective machine learning that is working on many unknown attacks. It operates on the probability of attacks.

The most valuable feature is the attack signature and machine learning.

The machine learning feature of the solution could be improved.

No solution is 100% secure and the security could always be worked on.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWeb for a year and a half.

Fortinet FortiWeb is stable. It is able to detect the latest vulnerability from Log4j that happened on The Verge.

The solution's attack signature receives its update from Fortinet Developer Network, and many of the updates are immediate. The attack signatures are updated regularly due to the connection to Fortinet Developer Network.

The solution is highly scalable.

The technical support was good, they were very fast. They were able to resolve my issues.

I have used the support in many solutions, such as FortiClient, FortiWeb, for Sandbox integration with FortiMail, and other products in Fortinet.

The installation is easy. It takes one day for the implementation, and after 14 days one day for tuning.

Some customer needs to go to production fast, it can take me one day for the installation, and after seven days I can do the tuning quickly.

I do the implementation and support the solution.

There is a subscription to use this solution. There are some additional features that can be added for an extra fee. The use of the features depends on the client's needs, such as full machine learning and signatures.

I would recommend this solution to others. Additionally, I would recommend F5.

I rate Fortinet FortiWeb a nine out of ten.