NGINX App Protect Reviews

NGINX App Protect's best features are auto-learning, which creates a profile of applications that are deployed, bot protection, and force protection, which lets you configure your brute force policy and alert for and prevent brute force attacks.

NGINX App Protect would be improved with integration with Shape and F5 WAF, which would make it easy for users to manage all their web application security with a single solution. In the next release, I'd like to see some enhancements in bot protection, API security, and mobile application security.

I've been using NGINX App Protect for four years.

NGINX App Protect is stable but has some areas for improvement, including HTML5 availability. I would rate its stability eight out of ten.

NGINX's technical support is good, but sometimes their response time is delayed, or they don't have the technical skills to resolve issues. We're seeing these issues despite having premium support.

Positive

I previously used Imperva WAF.

I would give NGINX App Protect a rating of eight out of ten.

NGINX App Protect has improved the flexibility of services in our company and distributed new escalation applications. The downtime in our network has decreased substantially. In a short time, we can republish and resolve issues in our network.

The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is its flexibility.

I have been using NGINX App Protect for approximately three years.

NGINX App Protect is stable.

The scalability of NGINX App Protect is decent.

We have approximately 500 people using the solution in my organization. We have IT specialists that work with the core mobile network.

We do not have technical support in Iran, we only use our own knowledge about the solution.

I did not use a similar solution previous to NGINX App Protect.

The setup of NGINX App Protect is complex. The full process took one week to complete. Additionally, we had to change the network infrastructure platform which took one month.

I rate the setup difficulty of NGINX App Protect a four out of five.

We used an IT expert for the implementation of NGINX App Protect. We have three people who provide support for NGINX App Protect.

We have received a return on investment, NGINX App Protect was a good investment.

I rate the price of NGINX App Protect a three out of five.

There are not any additional costs we had to pay to use NGINX App Protect.

We have a complex project and we found some of our applications did not work as intended. However, moving forward we do not find we will experience this level of complexity.

I rate NGINX App Protect a nine out of ten.

We tried to secure our public exposed APIs with NGINX App Protect. The cases must be all completely automated, because we want to build a self-service engine so that a decentralized approach is possible in the organization.

We were looking for two main valuable features. We were looking for a product that is capable of complete automation and a container based solution. It's working.

The solution is working on OpenShift, but we have the feeling the product was designed not only for OpenShift or a container-based solution to operate. 

In addition, they have a messy license model; it's not really made for microservice architecture. It's getting expensive really, really fast.

NGINX made some promises for a roadmap which they weren't able to deliver. One was about virus scanning, and the other was WebSocket inspection. I think they will provide both features in the future, but the communication was really bad. Then there was a problem in production during config reload. If you want to deploy a new API, it takes around 20 seconds. For one API it's not a lot, but if you have 300 APIs, it takes a lot of time. It's not made for deployment in a self-service model. 

Most important to see in a new release would be the WebSocket inspection and virus scan.

I have been using this solution for about six months.

The stability of App Protect was pretty good.

As far as scalability, it takes a long time for deployment.

Tech support wasn't really helpful. They asked the wrong questions. We tried to help them and head them in the right direction, but we always had the feeling the wrong people were in charge because we had more knowledge than they had.

The initial setup was straightforward; maybe a bit uncomfortable because you have to build your own ConfigMap application so that you're able to produce all these configs. They don't have any support tool or similar.

We implemented the solution ourselves. We have two engineers for deployment and maintenance.

The licensing is yearly, and we have two teams using NGINX App Protect. Just our team has a yearly fee of maybe $25,000. It's not a lot, but it's because we made decisions on the architecture style to save some money. If we didn't do that, we were heading up to $300,000, $400,000.

We are developing an integration platform based on the API gateway and web application firewall. We went live this year, and we have some production issues with the chosen technologies. We use NGINX App Protect as a web application firewall and 3scale as an API gateway. Both products are working, but it's not a perfect match for us. Because of this, we did some research during the summer and decided to change the whole solution to AWS.

What will be definitely better is the AWS license model for us. We pay maybe 10% of the whole solution we had before. So it's much cheaper. They are technical as well because we are able to instantiate per API, our own web application firewall, and API gateway. So it's not just the price, it's the whole that looks like AWS is a much better solution than NGINX.

Regarding the solution, be clear on the consequences of writing your own configuration files; that's one part that was really cost-intensive and time-consuming for us. Also, really understand the licensing model, because we underestimated that.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that IVF and ICSI are covered under the firewall option offered by the tool. I don't have a specific feature I like the most since I look at features through comparisons of different firewall products and the features of such tools.

The product's user interface is an area with shortcomings as it can be quite confusing for users, making it an area where improvements are required. The main menu can be quite confusing.

After you implement it, it's not so easy to understand how it works. Though in my company, we understand the basics of the product, if you want to explore the more advanced features, then the principal product doesn't explain it to us, which can be quite confusing when navigating through the main menu.

I have been using NGINX App Protect for five years. I use the solution in my company.

It is a stable solution.

In our company, we never tried to use the scalability options provided by the tool.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight to nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, our company was using Fortinet. I don't know why my company switched from Fortinet to NGINX App Protect because it happened before I joined the organization.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The price of NGINX App Protect is not much different from the products that fall under the leader category of Gartner Magic Quadrant.

My company needs to expand its options to see if some other brand apart from NGINX App Protect is faster.

As the license for NGINX App Protect in our company will expire in a few months, my company wants to make a decision on whether to extend the services of the tool or not based on the research we do on other platforms in the market.

My company is satisfied with the product.

For the user interface, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

For the functionalities of the product, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for application firewall purposes. We use both mobile and web applications.

During the NGINX App Protect v1.1 upgrade, we encountered compatibility issues with our existing telecom infrastructure, specifically the load balancer and WAF. These issues manifested as difficulties with the HTTP 1.1 protocol. While attempting to solve the problem through upgrades, we ultimately opted for alternative solutions as the desired effect could not be achieved. This highlights the technical challenges of integrating NGINX App Protect with diverse network components.

I have been using NGINX App Protect for more than five years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight-point five out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

The customer service’s response should be faster.

The initial setup is straightforward. For deployment, we configured basic configuration, and after mounting, We observed our application for almost four months. After that, we proceed to enforcement blocking mode. Typically, all our applications are live, so we can't block it on day one. We observed it for a long time, like six months, and then we went into step-by-step blocking mode.

Three people are required for the solution's deployment.

The product is expensive and has a subscription-based licence.

NGINX App Protect's high price and limited support options can be a drawback. While troubleshooting basic issues is manageable, resolving advanced problems through paid support channels can be expensive and experience delays.

I recommend the solution if the client has no financial issues regarding their WAF or LTM solutions. Still, if they are budget constraints, one should think of other options like Fortinet.

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

NGINX App Protect can be used as a reverse proxy, internet controller, and for caching.

NGINX App Protect has improved our organization by using the load balancer feature.

The most valuable feature of NGINX App Protect is the reverse proxy.

The price of NGINX App Protect could improve.

I have been using NGINX App Protect for approximately two years.

NGINX App Protect is stable. It is lightweight and fast.

The scalability of NGINX App Protect is good and it is easy to do.

The experience I had with the technical support was good.

We used another solution previously to NGINX App Protect. We switch to testing other solutions.

The initial setup of NGINX App Protect is basic. The full deployment took approximately one day.

We followed the documentation to do the implementation of NGINX App Protect in-house. We have one person that does the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I have not seen a return on investment, it is too soon. We are only in the testing phase.

There is a monthly or annual subscription to use NGINX App Protect. There are not any additional costs to the subscription.

I rate the price of NGINX App Protect a three out of five.

I would recommend this solution to others because it performs well.

I rate NGINX App Protect a ten out of ten.

I work with containers. I do the architecting, but there are times when I also do the implementation. So I'm familiar with the products, particularly NGINX.

NGINX App Protect is used in Kubernetes and OpenShift environments.

NGINX App Protect has complete control over the HTTP session. I can experiment with whatever I want. I can start with URLs and cookies. I can work with parameters and everything that I need. I can work with signatures also. I can inspect the traffic whenever I want.

As I see it now, there are some things to improve, but the F5's WAF is, more enhanced when compared to NGINX's. However, they have done a good job adapting it.

It should be automated in some way. 

Currently, the policies have to be handled manually, and you have to create from scratch, which can be a bit time-consuming, in a large environment.

It would be good if some kind of automation was included.

I have worked with NGINX App Protect for at least three or four years.

NGINX App Protect is a stable product. Because it's an additional module, we use it in conjunction with the Ingress Controller, but it can also be run anywhere, as a VM or whatever you need. 

They did an excellent job porting the VSM code to NGINX.

NGINX App Protect is scalable, but, handling the configuration is still time-consuming. It doesn't have a centralized option. They have the NGINX controller and some APIs to do it, but it isn't fully scalable in my opinion.

I've known them for a long time because I began working with F5 more than ten years ago. Even though my primary experience is with F5, and I don't have many tickets open in NGINX in general, the service is quick. But, in my opinion, it's pretty solid.

I began with F5 products such as ASM. It performs the functions of the various firewalls. When NGINX was acquired by F5, they adapted the module for NGINX, which was dubbed App Protect. When this became public, I began to work with NGINX in this case as well.

The implementation process is not simple. If you have more than one, the policy must be created from scratch in YAML files, which is not automated and takes time.

The pricing is reasonable because NGINX operates on an instance basis. There are differences. There is some leeway in how much the instance can cost, depending on the customer and other actions, but it's reasonable in my opinion.

I work as a consultant for a company and am currently evaluating some products.

We are a partner with F5. I am currently evaluating Prisma Cloud because they have a WAF option on Palo Alto and I'm looking into it. But, aside from Prisma, I've never seen the WAF. So I'm attempting to make some comparisons in order to learn the Prisma side and see how it works with NGINX. I downloaded a document to get a head start on it and to form an idea for now.

I would rate NGINX App Protect a seven out of ten.

I use this solution as a web application firewall.

The most valuable feature is that NGINX uses the command-line interface, making it simple for some users.

Areas for improvement would be if NGINX could scan for vulnerabilities and learn and update the signatures of DoS attacks.

I've been using this solution for about three years.

App Protect has good stability. 

NGINX is very scalable, which is a great advantage of this product.

The technical support is very good. 

The initial setup was simple and took three to four days.

NGINX is not expensive.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.