Akamai Kona Review

Enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure


What is our primary use case?

We're using it as DDoS on a basic WAF. We use a hybrid cloud deployment model. 

How has it helped my organization?

It enables us to move faster with new products because we have this layer of protection set up in our infrastructure.

It saves time and gives us a consistent way to export those services.

What is most valuable?

It's a SaaS solution and so it's scalable outside of our infrastructure. That's the most valuable thing for us.

What needs improvement?

The WAF features definitely have a lot of room for improvement. A lot of the WAF is really basic. For some products or some of our solutions, we need to run a second layer of more advanced WAF. If it had better layer seven protection then we would not need a second WAF.

We use Akamai because it's good at what it does. There are some other things that we would like it to be good at and it's not that good. Quality of protection is our primary concern.

We need more advanced layer seven protection, SQL injection, applied scripting, and more confidence in the precision of the system. I think all of those things would be very useful for us.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using this solution for about five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's fairly stable. We're happy with the stability of the product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's being used fairly extensively, any new internet-facing applications are going through Akamai Kona. Whether we extend the usage really depends on whether it's going to meet some of the quality objectives with web application firewalls.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. It has an API. We haven't hit any kinks that we couldn't work with it.

What other advice do I have?

As far as DDoS protection is concerned, I'm firmly in the Akamai Kona box. 

In terms of consistency, I think people should consider API-based adoption for Kona configuration. That gives us a broader state which looks and feels the same, and a small team can support it rather than needing a large team to support it.

For what it does, it's really good. For what we want it to do, there's room for improvement. I'd give it an eight and a half out of ten. In order for it to be a 10 I would say that it should be one of the market-leading WAF solutions and not just a volumetric solution.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email