Test Lab
Test Title
SecureIQLab Cloud Web Application Firewall (WAF) CyberRisk Validation – Summer 2022
AMTSO Test ID
Platform
Vendor
Publication date
Statement from Test Lab
Tested products
Vendor | Product | Vendor status |
---|---|---|
Akamai | Web Application Protector | included |
AWS | AWS WAF | included |
Barracuda | CloudGen Level 5 m4.large | included |
Cloudflare | Business | included |
F5 | BIG-IP Virtual Edition | participant |
Fortinet | FortiWeb-AWS | participant |
Cloud Armor | included | |
Imperva | Cloud WAF | participant |
Microsoft | Azure Application Gateway WAF v2 | participant |
Oracle | WAF | included |
Prophaze | Business WAF | participant |
Stackpath | WAF | participant |
Sucuri | Website Firewall Professional | included |
Wallarm | Web Application and API Protection (WAAP) | included |
AMTSO Standard compliance info
Notification issued
Notification method
Test plan
Commencement date
Participants
“Included” Vendors
These Vendors did not chose to adopt Participant status under the AMTSO Standard, but may have engaged with the test lab in other ways.
Commentary | Start date | End date |
---|---|---|
Phase 1 Commentary | 2022-06-20 | 2022-06-28 |
Phase 2 Commentary | 2022-11-07 | 2022-11-15 |
Commentary received
Vendor | Commentary phase | Comment |
---|---|---|
Imperva | Phase 2 | I have no specific comment on the conduct of this evaluation, which was particularly well done. I do, however, have a comment on the way the false positives metric is reported. Indeed, the false positive score is reported only with Operational Efficiency (OE) for the ROSI calculation. This makes sense because false positives have a significant impact on operational effectiveness, but it could be also interesting to have it reported with the Global Security (GS) score. Without, the GS score is basically a metric measuring only whether the solutions correctly detect attacks (recall metric or a catching rate) and not an accuracy metric taking into account all dimensions of the evaluation (FP, FN, TP, TN), like a Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) for instance. Of course, combining both OE and GS metrics we do have a good information, but having a WAF accuracy information via a single metric, such as a MCC score, plus the OE, would be very interesting. |
AMTSO Standard compliance status
Confirmed Compliant with AMTSO Standard v1.3 | Compliance Report |