F5 Advanced Web Application Firewall (AWAF) is primarily used in financial sectors like banking to secure web applications against advanced threats, ensuring compliance with industry regulations. Our Key use cases include:

1. Protection Against OWASP Top 10: Safeguarding banking applications from SQL injection, XSS, and other common vulnerabilities.
2. Bot Mitigation: Detecting and blocking malicious bots to prevent account takeovers, credential stuffing, and fraud.
3. DDoS Protection: Defending against application-layer DDoS attacks to ensure service availability.
4. PCI DSS Compliance: Enforcing security policies to meet compliance standards for protecting sensitive customer data.
5. API Security: Securing APIs used in banking platforms from abuse and unauthorized access.
6. Threat Intelligence: Leveraging threat intelligence to identify and mitigate zero-day attacks.
7. Application Traffic Control: Managing and monitoring application traffic to ensure optimal performance and security.

These use cases help financial institutions maintain secure and resilient applications, critical for trust and compliance.

F5 Advanced WAF has significantly enhanced our organization's security posture by protecting critical banking applications against sophisticated threats. It ensures compliance with regulatory standards, improves customer trust through robust bot mitigation, and enhances application performance by mitigating DDoS attacks and securing APIs. Additionally, it provides real-time threat intelligence and streamlined security management, reducing downtime and operational risks.

1. Ease of Deployment: Simplify initial setup and policy configuration.
2. UI Enhancements: Improve user interface for better navigation and usability.
3. Integration: Enhance compatibility with third-party tools like SIEMs and DevOps pipelines.
4. Performance Optimization: Reduce latency during high traffic volumes.

Suggested Features for Next Release:

1. AI-Driven Threat Detection: Advanced machine learning for proactive defense.
2. Comprehensive API Protection: Extended support for GraphQL and WebSocket APIs.
3. Cloud-Native Integration: Better functionality in hybrid and multi-cloud environments.
4. Automated Policy Suggestions: AI-based recommendations for policy tuning.

It's been two years that I've been working with this solution.

I am not experiencing any significant instability.

F5 AWAF offers excellent scalability, enabling organizations to protect applications seamlessly across on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments. It can handle increasing traffic volumes with minimal latency, ensuring consistent security for both small-scale deployments and enterprise-grade architectures. With its ability to integrate into CI/CD pipelines and auto-scale in cloud environments, F5 AWAF supports dynamic application growth without compromising performance or protection.

Customer service is very responsive. If the issue persists beyond my local support capabilities, I open a ticket with F5, and they respond quickly. I rate their technical support 9 out of 10.

Not now just I have checked the comparision and collect reviews from peerspoot and Quadrant

The initial setup experience is straightforward, and I did not face any complexities. I recommend deploying the F5 AWAF solution on a single appliance with LTM.

F5 is relatively less expensive compared to other solutions as F5 is considered the best.

Not Now

I rate F5 eight to nine out of ten. I recommend F5 to customers who require a robust solution and have the budget for it. However, for customers looking for modest pricing, I would not recommend the F5 solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case is to secure the organization's applications from web-based attacks, securing both web applications and APIs.

The product is used to secure web applications and has the ability to use API templates and bot protection features, such as blocking requests or presenting CAPTCHA pages to end users. We also implement Swagger files for API security and use custom profiles for device ID threshold management.

The main improvement needed is related to IP intelligence. Once we start receiving traffic from repetitive IP addresses, we have to report it to the SOC team to block it at the layer four level. Users would like to have an additional IP intelligence license to handle this within WAF itself without needing to engage with the SOC team.

The solution has been used for three years.

Customer service and support depend on the level of support subscribed to, such as silver or platinum support, which determines the response time.

Deploying the solution involves an application learning and blocking phase. The process includes collecting application data, creating policies, and applying them to lower testing environments like QA or dev before moving to UAT and production. The learning phase is used to handle false positives and fine-tune the policies before going live.

The in-house team manages and supports the WAF, handling incidents reported by end users when legitimate traffic is blocked. They update the policies to prevent the recurrence of similar blocks.

The pricing and support service levels affect response times from customer service, depending on whether the support level is silver, platinum, etc.

We are exploring cloud-based solutions like Azure WAF and AWS WAF.

I rate F5 Advanced WAF an eight out of ten.

We use F5 Advanced WAF to restrict attacks on our remote access VPN. We've implemented geolocations. Our APIs are exposed over the Internet, so we've utilized F5 Advanced WAF to protect those APIs, and it's integrated with our other applications.

The WAF solution works perfectly fine. If we face any issues, we get hotfixes from the solution experts. It is a little bit difficult to engage with a solution expert firsthand, but once they're engaged, they do whatever is best to resolve the issue.

We faced a lot of outside attacks on our VPNs and APIs, so the geolocation feature works perfectly fine for us. We use iRules as well. Our internal access VPN is advertised from a Cisco firewall, and above that, we have an F5 LTM. We have written some iRules on it to minimize the effects of attacks.

We are a PCI DSS-compliant organization, and we have a lot of security balance to improve our infrastructure. So we use this software to meet those requirements. It works well. So, F5 helped to meet compliance and regulatory requirements.

It's pretty smooth. Whichever load we put on it, we've observed minimal chances of the WAF exploiting the memory or sessions hanging.

The bot protection aspect works perfectly fine. All the solutions and features are renewed and they're working well. I don't see anything that can be improved.

We also leveraged AI initiatives.

Support is a little slow, but the solution itself is great. If I compare F5 and Fortinet, the main issue is the support. With Fortinet, it takes less time to engage a support engineer and get things sorted compared to F5.

I have been using F5 Advanced WAF since last January.

I work for a US-based firm, and the project I deal with relies heavily on F5 and F5 LTMs.

I work on both F5 BIG-IP cloud and on-premises and F5 LTM.

It is a stable product.

The physical hardware is not as scalable. We have to decide which version is best for us to procure because it is a costly device. So we try our best to get all the juice out of one box.

There's around 2500 users getting services from the F5. In my team, we are twelve engineers who are managing the infrastructure.

Support is a little slow, but the solution itself is great. If I compare F5 and Fortinet, the main issue is the support. With Fortinet, it takes less time to engage a support engineer and get things sorted compared to F5.

I'll give F5 a five because it is difficult to engage an engineer and get the issue sorted. For Fortinet, I'd give them a nine.

The initial setup process of the F5 WAF product is straightforward. There isn't an issue in setting up from scratch. We use F5 with the cloud as well, especially in Azure and AWS.

The deployment took around half an hour for an engineer to get the basic infrastructure done.

It is not difficult to manage bug fixes, upgrades, and everything. It doesn't take much time. The dashboards are good. All the basic information is given to us on the first page, and it's easy to manage.

It brings a return on investment.

It is a little bit costly, but it has all the features that are required.

I would recommend F5 Advanced WAF to other users looking to implement it.

My advice:

A lot of organizations are financially constrained when buying devices. So if the organization is capable of maintaining and managing a device like F5, we suggest F5. Otherwise, we suggest other solutions, like Fortinet or Citrix.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because of the support.

Primarily, the Advanced WAF sits behind our network perimeter. It centralizes traffic flow to our network, filters requests, and identifies any potential threats.

It helps us detect threats or malicious requests coming into the network, protecting it from being hacked. It helps guard against issues like cross-site scripting (XSS) and other similar threats.

So, F5 Advanced WAF helped mitigate bot traffic for our web applications.

Moreover, my experience is that it's pretty straightforward to use. Our firewall team handles requests through a change management tool within scheduled change windows. However, F5 is our only firewall solution.

It's a valuable tool to protect web servers exposed to the external network. With numerous web applications running on Apache or IIS servers, the F5 Advanced WAF's threat detection capabilities protect the network before traffic reaches those servers.

It's a fairly easy-to-use and user-friendly tool. My administrators and team also like its ability to customize the rules per the requirements.

The self-service aspect could be improved.

The user interface (UI) also seems a bit outdated. Making it more user-friendly would be beneficial.

We've been using it for approximately five to six years.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It is a stable product.

It is pretty good. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

Ssometimes, the way our enterprise handles change requests might slow things down because of the internal rules and processes. But these changes, once approved, do take effect immediately on the firewall itself.

We have a change window twice a week for these requests. I don't think the limitation is with the firewall itself; it's more about our internal procedures.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because I have seen that not too much customization is required during setup. The change requests we submit are usually clear and easily applied.

Overall, the policies work well, and the threat detection is good. It catches deviations and anomalies effectively.

From a recommendation standpoint, it's a fairly easy tool to use. However, you definitely need some knowledge about scripting, OWASP fundamentals, threat detection, and general cybersecurity principles to get the most out of it.