Amazon API Gateway vs. Salt Security API Protection Platform

Experienced a lack of available programming languages while working on a minor project. I had to halt the project and wait for it to be added later. It took ages and had a hit on our productivity. It has a centralized management system which helps and an easy interface which helps to manage multiple tasks in case of large-scale operations and projects.

Incentivized

Salt is highly recommended for anyone who wants to discover, monitor and protect their APIs against various types of attacks. Salt should not be used as a SIEM.

• API Gateway integrates well with AWS Lambda. This allows us to build a web server in the language and framework of our choice, deploy it as a Lambda function, and expose it through API Gateway.
• API Gateway manages API keys. Building rate limiting and request quota features are not trivial (or interesting).
• API Gateway's pricing can be very attractive for services that are accessed infrequently.

Incentivized

• PII identification in API traffic.
• Divergence between API traffic and documentation (swagger files).
• Potential attacks with information to take counter measures.

• Client certificates are troublesome when trying to attach them to API GW stages.
• Debugging across several services can be difficult when API GW is integrated with Route 53 and another service like Lambda or EC2/ELB.
• Creating internal/private APIs, particularly with custom domains, can be unintuitive.

Incentivized

• The platform could have more options for exporting detailed data from attackers' dashboards.
• The Attackers dashboard could also have more options of filters in order to support the investigations of the attack.
• The OAS analysis could present a more detailed view of the found issues.

We always had a great experience with the AWS support team. They were always on time and very dependable. It was a good partnership while we worked to resolve our issues.

Incentivized

When we tested Azure API Management at the time, it had serious connectivity issues, it was very unstable, and it needed to do a lot using the command line. Comparing with the AWS solution, which was more mature, and the fact that we have services in use on AWS, we ended up choosing to continue using AWS products. This so as not to run the risk of increasing latency in accesses, and of some functionality not working, due to being developed yet.

Incentivized

We tried controls offered by the IaaS providers but these were hard to manage and did not provide the visibility we wanted. We also protected APIs with a normal WAF but this was only helpful for assets we knew about and API attacks were not caught by the WAF.

• ROI is negative, you need either to hire them to work with you or spend days/weeks to figure out issues.
• For some of the projects in the end it is not worth it, it is just a "buzz" to use serverless but not practical.
• Service is easy to set up authorization and it is easy to manage.

Incentivized

• Salt Security API Protection Platform has provided detailed information that is helping us to identify and investigate attacks in our environment