What needs improvement with Akamai Kona Site Defender?

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Akamai Kona Site Defender.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

33 Answers

author avatar
Top 5Real User

The interface is a little bit clunky and can be improved. It takes a while to get from here to there.

author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

author avatar
Real User

* I would like to see some non-related reputation categories. If they had some way of detecting activity on their platform, that would be helpful. * Web request analytics is hard to do between them and us. * There are some issues with pushing configurations across a network. It still takes about 20 minutes and that means to retract it's another 20 minutes. * Also, some of their monitoring dashboards that show us what's hitting us, and with which we analyze, have room for improvement.

Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai, Amazon, Imperva and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: October 2020.
442,764 professionals have used our research since 2012.