Good WAF. Medium CDN
Rating: 8 out of 10
IncentivizedUse Cases and Deployment Scope
I use it mainly as a WAF (Web Application Firewall) although I also use certain CDN cache functionalities.
Pros
- WAF
- AntiDDoS
- Bot detection
Cons
- CDN functionalities are secondary and cannot be compared to a top-level CDN.
- The WebGUI interface of the dashboard is very improvable. They have been changing the UX for years and it is disjointed and with services that have not yet been migrated.
- The analysis of WAF attack logs is insufficient. It is difficult to analyze attacks of past hours, event filters are missing. It is complicated to analyze the chronology of an attack.
- There are extra modules to improve the attack logs analysis but they are expensive and add little.
Likelihood to Recommend
I recommend it as a WAF, but not as a CDN. There are better CDNs, in my case I use transparentCDN (now www.transparentedge.eu) and Edgecast (now Verizon CDN).
EA
Edu Ard
Sysadmin in Information Technology at Titan (Newspapers, 11-50 employees)
Vetted Review
6 years of experience