AWS WAF vs. FortiWeb

AWS WAF is highly appropriate to interrupt or prevent cyber attacks because when implementing rules, whether they are specific or centralized, so any application that has these vulnerabilities is protected.

Implementing managed rules creates greater security to protect both API and applications. If implemented along with other AWS tools, the security is much better, so if you want to protect applications against more specific attacks, it is ideal to integrate with Amazon CloudFront, which is a great benefit because it warns when thresholds are exceeded or specific attacks occur. AWS WAF is ideal to avoid common web attacks. For more specific attacks and scenarios, I don't recommend this.

Incentivized

Regarding my experience, I prefer to deploy FortiWeb in a reverse proxy to have the full features and protection. The other mode will be useful for special cases as will it will not have the full range of features and protection. Like offline Sniffing, it will be used in special cases.

Incentivized

• AWS WAF has the most developer-friendly API to create firewall rules.
• AWS WAF provides OWASP security controls, which reduces developers' burden (i.e., SQL injection and cross-site scripting).
• AWS WAF has customizable web security rules. The user can even push the rules through the API available, which is the great feature and helped me a lot.
• It protects applications at layer 7 (HTTP) of the OSI model and not just layer 4 (TCP).

Incentivized

• API protection
• Bot mitigation
• Web application protection
• Application delivery

Incentivized

• The documentation offered is somewhat confusing, so it would be ideal if it were much more direct and precise.
• Your initial configuration may be confusing, so the best option is to use the rule templates provided by AWS.
• Its configuration is not unified with AWS, so it must be done separately and it takes some time.
• The number of rules to be established is somewhat limited.

Incentivized

• Built-in vulnerability scanner should be better in next release
• Predefined security policies for other web application not listed

Incentivized

We have been using AWS WAF for the past 3 years in front of our websites. We find it useful in preventing data crawling, DDOS attacks, etc on our websites, and hence we are going to use it in the future as well. AWS WAF is one of the best Firewalls in business.

Incentivized

The product is highly scalable. It is easy to configure the rules and thereby helps us to mitigate many vulnerabilities. The interface and programming of the firewall provisions were easy to setup. Amazon clearly spent a lot of time figuring this out and perfecting it. It allows users to do customized configurations based on their needs. It provides protection against a number of security issues like XSS, SQL injection, etc. I would definitely recommend this for protecting your infra as you scale, since this basically protects and filters all requests hitting your application server.

Incentivized

If you're intending to use AWS WAF, I would say that you absolutely should sign up for support. AWS Support is excellent and they can help you in a really good way to solve your issues.

Incentivized

Easy of use. Setup and configuration is fairly quick. There are the usual advantages of it being a cloud solution where you can buy into the solution, configure it and set it up and get it up and running. If you are already a subscriber to AWS, having a native service has its advantages.

Incentivized

Most of them have the same features but not for FREE. The second point was the total cost of ownership for 3 and 5 years. Fortinet supported us with the best prices for 3 years and 5 years as well with advanced hardware replacement against the others.

Incentivized

• Somewhat costly if specific needs are not there.
• If security is concerned than comparatively is beneficial.
• All those price that spent on AWS WAF in return gets saved in man hours.

Incentivized

• ROI for last three years was 60%

Incentivized