What needs improvement with F5 Silverline DDoS Protection?

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with F5 Silverline DDoS Protection.

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

33 Answers

author avatar
Top 10Consultant

To make this solution much better, they must have a user-friendly configuration interface. I'm working for a partner site, so for the technical portion, it must have great troubleshooting stats. For example, Arbor doesn't have web application firewall capabilities, and sometimes I need that capability. If a solution doesn't have it, I have to add additional solutions. This is confusing and it drives the solution price up.

author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

The reporting should be much better because it's really hard to generate reports with F5. We export the reports to other file extensions and then have to import them in order to create a graph. The reporting should be much, much better. The TM (Traffic Management) shell also needs improvement. You need to have Linux knowledge in order to use the shell. The user interface could be better, as well. We have complaints about the reliability of this solution. However, because we are in Iran and there are licensing restrictions, we cannot use other, more recognized products, such as the Palo Alto Networks Firewall, or Cisco. We also cannot use cloud-based security because of sanctions.

author avatar
Real User

The product could be improved on the global load and the integration with the other solution like Cisco and Dell EMC. As a representer of the operation, we prefer to have one platform which can accommodate all types of integration. We are also looking for more improvements in the security policy configuration.

Find out what your peers are saying about F5, NETSCOUT, Imperva and others in DDoS. Updated: October 2020.
442,194 professionals have used our research since 2012.