Juniper SRX vs. Oracle Dyn Web Application Security Platform

Juniper vSRX is an excellent edge gateway device. The combination of Tunneling protocols supported and the advanced routing & security features makes it perfect for this kind of deployment. It is available in physical, virtual appliances as well as support on multiple clouds so you can have the same box be your edge gateway in multiple environments for consistency.

It can also work as a Internet Gateway, DMZ Firewall/Router and it would function just fine.

While it can also work as a DC firewall (North-South), the poor GUI will make it harder in the day to day administration for the multiple policies in a DC.

Incentivized

Dyn WAF is a good product, don't get me wrong. Zenedge was constantly improving the product, adding new features on a regular basis. It works very well for dynamic websites, helping weed out SQL Injection, XSS, XSRF, and other attacks. We have also used this product to protect REST API endpoints. Again, the product works very well to repel attacks.

Incentivized

• The Juniper SRX platform is easy to set up (out of the box).
• The support team responds to tickets quickly and with good solutions.

Incentivized

• With Oracle Dyn Web Application Security Platform we have a complete dashboard (dojo) to manage, configure, visualize, all the features and functionalities of the platform in a very simple and friendly way.
• Oracle Dyn Web Application Security Platform support is something out of the ordinary. Oracle engineers are available 24/7, every day. There is no requirement that can not be satisfactorily addressed by them. The response time, by different ways, is almost instantaneous.
• It is very easy to communicate with any Oracle official to discuss any topic.
• Despite being a service with all the features to provide 100% protection, my experience is that the cost of Oracle Dyn Web Application Security Platform is worth it.

Incentivized

• Some of the more complex setups (clustered HA, etc.) can be a little difficult to configure.
• The lowest-end model that supports true multi-site HA is relatively expensive. It would be nice to have that option in lower models.
• Some configuration options (particularly the way address book entries are done) can get tedious and make for very long configs.

Incentivized

• Sometimes engineers while applying updates may impact the stability of the service for a brief moment.

Incentivized

This is the one area where I have a beef with Juniper. When I called into Cisco TAC, 90% of the time, the first person I spoke with was able to resolve my issue. With Juniper TAC, 90% of the time, the first person I speak with is not able to resolve my issue, seems to almost be reading from a script, and must escalate my ticket. All of which takes time.

Incentivized

Equipment prices ran about the same. Performance and management were also more or less equal. The biggest deciding factors for going with Juniper were (1) fewer security incidents related to SRX firewalls and (2) technical support costs were significantly less.

Incentivized

I already put this in earlier, but to repeat - they were easier to work with, more technically capable and knowledgeable and not just trying to sell us on something. Their willingness to solve for our problems and work with us made them the clear winner.

Incentivized

• It is a workhorse for our field operations. It provides the last touch for an ISP to the customer. The customer has no view of the device, but with the repeatability of the device, they do not need to.
• The ability to roll out a dynamic routing protocol attached to a security zone allows elasticity to the environment that supports growth.
• VLAN support on the inside interfaces allow this to be the only device in some smaller deployments we install these in.

Incentivized

• Has a user-friendly interface that is both informative and intuitive.
• The client's websites are monitored round-the-clock by a staff that provides quick response in the event of any difficulties.
• Deploying it is a breeze.

Incentivized