What needs improvement with Radware DDoS Protection Service?

I do not find much to improve as the solution really has everything. Adding artificial intelligence could be beneficial.

To improve Radware DDoS, it would be great to have more performance and more CDN features and all integrations. I wish there were more functionality for microservices, websites, and configurations regarding the static files and content and CDN.

I believe there is no need to improve anything about Radware DDoS. I am saying that there is no need to change anything, and I have nothing more to add about needed improvements.

From the features perspective and functionality-wise, there are areas of Radware DDoS that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. Version upgrades are being provided, but they should communicate with clients about these new features being available so clients can test them and deploy them on the disaster recovery system before moving to the live segment. There should be a test report that will provide confidence that the version is stable and everything will work properly. Last time we faced an issue with a version upgrade, and we faced extensive troubleshooting with littile bit more time in the troubleshooting process. It turned out to be a small issue that was resolved by the engineering team. I would like to see improved support from Radware DDoS. Sometimes in support, we have to log the call with their support partners rather than Radware. After ten years of experience, we know exactly what the issue is, and we understand that it cannot be handled by their support channel or partner level. Radware team always asks us to go through the partners, but sometimes we have found that the issue cannot be handled by the partners. After the partners fail to resolve the issue, it goes to the Radware team. At that time, one to two days of required timeline gets increased by one to two days. If Radware came into immediate action and resolved the issue rather than relying on their service partners, it would be better. After ten years, we have the knowledge of troubleshooting, and we understand that the issues we are facing with Radware can only be resolved by their team. However, due to their policy, they insist we move through the partner first, and only after the partner fails do they escalate to Radware. During that troubleshooting period of twenty-four to forty-eight hours, we remain in an unresolved state with the reported issue.

On the appliance, maybe the hardware could be improved. Most of Radware DDoS appliances are physical, so they could improve that aspect. In terms of the system and the functionality, Radware DDoS is constantly upgrading.

In Radware DDoS, everything is good as it is, but I think it can improve with more automation linked to the system. We have good real-time monitoring, and documentation is also helpful, but any integration with platforms such as Splunk would enhance it further. In terms of specific features missing in Radware DDoS, I would appreciate seeing an API Protector or similar capabilities that Akamai has. These allow for record creation on Akamai that Radware DDoS currently lacks.

Radware can improve in several specific areas. The downside is the marketing. Radware does not have the same presence as others, such as Cloudflare or Akamai. This is a key factor because many types of customers prefer other solutions due to marketing. In my experience, the cloud solution needs improvement. For example, Cloudflare is better in this aspect. This is the downside for Radware, but this is my opinion only. Marketing for the presence of different types of solutions is one area. Another is the cost. The different solutions for Radware DDoS are expensive. Better pricing is needed. The solution is very expensive, and a less expensive solution would be very beneficial because many people could acquire this solution and these products.

One downside of Radware DDoS is that the GUI should be more user-friendly. I have experience in other platforms as well, and what I see with Radware is that it is not as user-friendly as the other ones, so that is definitely one thing that needs improvement. Additionally, I do not have an option to open a new tab within the existing GUI. If I want to open something in a new tab and try to compare it with what I have on the previous page, I cannot do it. I also note that as far as I know, Radware DDoS does not have any authentication countermeasures to mitigate any attacks, which needs to be addressed. I know it has protections for SYN floods and all, but that should be changed. It should be more transparent where proper authentication should happen with the source. In my opinion, Radware DDoS's response times after an attack need to be improved. The response time is pretty bad sometimes. The SecOps dashboards for monitoring and reporting the metrics are pretty bad. That is where the comparison with NetScout is more applicable because the NetScout reporting is really good. I am referring to the mitigation reports or the forensic reports. It is very hard to get a scaled report in Radware, and even after a mitigation, putting out a report for that specific mitigation is a hard process. That definitely needs improvement. The aforementioned SecOps dashboards provide historical information on protected objects, networks, and so on, but when it is a sample report, it is not that accurate. As the scale goes bigger, the accuracy of the report also degrades. Radware has not helped me reduce the number of false positives I receive in response to an attack because, as I mentioned, I do not use Radware DDoS as a detection mechanism. I have other detection mechanisms, so I do not work with Radware regarding false positive reductions. That is handled on a separate platform itself, so it is not needed here.

There are areas where Radware DDoS could improve, specifically regarding centralized visibility. If someone is allowed access to one payment server but attempts to access the backend database and application servers from that source, we need to analyze the level of propagation. If they are performing suspicious activities such as random logins, it would be beneficial to have a centralized console that shows which IP is attempting which actions for greater visibility, enabling better analysis. To sum it up, we suggest that clear visibility within a management console could significantly enhance Radware DDoS's usability. We use Radware DDoS and Check Point for our public site because understanding the origin and pattern of public hits is crucial. If the console could segregate packets by type—such as HTTPS, logger, database-related queries, or other behavioral data—and generate reports accordingly, it would better aid our analysis.

There should be some extra layer of security and a method of advanced rate limiting. We can limit the number of IPs or URLs per session and per country. There should be improved bot management integration that mitigates bot-based DDoS attacks completely.

Their Cyber Security Controller portal, including its GUI and dashboard, could be more intuitive so CXOs can easily understand them. Improvements in visualization for reporting also need consideration. This feedback has already been provided directly to Radware DDoS Protection Service.

I want to improve the blocking time; it should be within 10 seconds because 18 seconds allows multiple transactions in the financial industry. I want the blocking time to be better than 18 seconds.

I think Radware DDoS Protection Service could be improved by enhancing the network analytics features.

I suggest improvements to the user interface to make it easier to use and to find the necessary data for analysis. Although the data is present, accessing it for analysis could be more simplified.

There's room for improvement in customization and integration. It would be better if routers and external firewalls could integrate with the solution. Additionally, when bugs are detected in a version during upgrades, there should be better communication about these bugs. They need to focus more on providing process documents highlighting bugs and their solutions. Sometimes there is leakage in the network. Attacks go through without getting detected. It's a deployment issue, not a Radware problem. We don't use it to its fullest capacity. Whenever there is an incident, it sometimes lacks the proper information about the attack, but most of the time, it's really reliable.

The time it takes to upload a site to the cloud is critical when under attack. If a site is down, a quick response to migrate the site to the cloud is essential. It currently takes about 15 to 20 minutes for the process to complete, which should be minimized.

The product is good, but the company could improve its services by appointing customer success managers. This would ensure better interaction with customers and help resolve issues on both customer and supplier ends. Most other security product companies such as Palo Alto and Forcepoint appoint customer success managers to interact with customers and ensure that the product they have purchased is used perfectly. If we are facing any kind of issues in using the product or service, the customer success manager should get things right.

The APSolute Vision feature needs improvement.

The rise of generative AI and machine learning in cyberattacks demands more advanced defense strategies. In this context, I'm interested in how Radware plans to leverage these same technologies to improve its detection and response capabilities.

To improve my ability to monitor security events, I would like Radware to strengthen its integration with SIEM for better logging capabilities.

We've been encountering a lack of updates in DefensePro. Currently, we're facing numerous bugs within our data solution. These bugs are impacting the failover process, and we're observing repeated crashes of the Elasticsearch container across various workflows. There's room for improvement in the clarity of the feedback provided by the command service in the CLI. Specifically, the messages it gives when something happens to Docker containers could be more informative. For example, it might simply state that container states have changed, or it might mention the directory paths where container data is saved, but these messages don't provide enough detail. To access the files, users currently need to navigate through a complex directory structure, which isn't very user-friendly. There is a need for more informative release notes. The current ones lack detail about what's included in the updates and what fixes have been implemented. This makes it difficult for users to understand the changes and how they might affect the experience.

Radware's management is very proactive, but Radware's lower-level staff is not proactive. You need to do a lot of follow-ups. This is one point that they need to improve. If they improve this, they will be world-class because everything else is so good.

As a service provider, we are expecting the multi-tenancy feature on the dashboard and reporting side. It will help share reports with customers in real-time. They can directly see them online. We are working with their team on API integration with our portal. We will be able to achieve that, but it will take some time.

Its documentation is not 100% clear, making it the weakest aspect of Radware. We have encountered some difficulties in understanding how to configure it correctly.

Radware DefenseFlow should add new features and algorithms to make it efficient.