F5 Distributed Cloud WAF (Web Application Firewall) vs. Salt Security API Protection Platform

So a lot of companies that have a digital side and they have a lot of applications in the cloud, this is one of those areas that it can protect the net so it can lock 'em down, it'll build a baseline so you understand what that application's doing. So if it sees something not normal, it'll get protected against that.

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.

• Layer seven attacks are becoming far more common. Traditionally it was always layered three, layer four, where you get an additional firewall, but with the application layer attacks become more frequent, more popular, et cetera. So having the web application firewall protecting us, and then with the recent Log4j, that's the most recent use case when it gave us that instant level of protection whilst we remediated the Log4j that we had that and the F5 Distributed Cloud WAF was protecting us.
• I have a great relationship with the account manager, my account manager, and I think he drives the best price possible, um, for me, and I'm happy with that price.
• F5 Distributed Cloud WAF is always innovating and evolving.
• We run a very competitive proof value where we run numerous competitors against each other, and then we evaluate from that and then make the selection, and F5 Distributed Cloud WAF was the winner.

Incentivized

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

• So we just had some performance issues when it comes to routing. Because the web application firewall sits in front of our website, which is hosted on-site, we had some trouble with the VGP protocols between the two sites and it took us a while to figure it out. So that is probably one area where we could improve. Otherwise, when it comes to the WAF functionality itself, it's really good.

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.

Basically, Cloudflare is a more economical solution at the level of DNS balancing, easy to use with a few simple clicks and that has gained an advantage in the market, however, compared to F5, it falls short of the entire protection panorama that the solution provides since F5 does not It's just DNS that goes further and that's where it differentiates and stands out.

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.

• Accelerated time to value as it was a requirement for a workload being provisioned on that cloud
• As an existing f5 customer, access to their solutions integrator (GridZero) made the sizing, licensing, purchases, and downloading of the software very quick and painless

Incentivized

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