This can provide administrators with peace of mind. When it does so, it redirects the attack to a Fail2ban program, which marks the IP addresses where the attack originates as unsafe and bans them from the system. It can repel both scripting and database-injection attacks.

Its firewall can protect against different types of cyber-attacks. This takes up time and resources that could be spent on other things.ĪWS WAF has a robust set of security features. Administrators are required to manually scale up the product themselves if they want it to handle a larger load. The scaling provided by Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is not automatic. That being said, it is not as effective in this regard as AWS WAF. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is also quite scalable. However, even without this ability to integrate, its automated scaling makes it quite robust.

It is true that AWS WAF lacks the ability to integrate with some third-party products. This can save organizations a great deal in terms of time and resources.

The software does this automatically, without requiring administrators to provide any outside input. What this means is that users have the ability to scale the program up or down according to what their needs happen to be at the time. In its cloud version, AWS WAF makes use of a concept known as auto-scaling. We decided to go with AWS WAF, which we found to be a highly scalable solution. Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Amazon’s Web Service Web Application Firewall or Microsoft Azure Application Gateway web application firewall software was the better fit for us.

Aws waf cloudfront