[WASC-WAFEC] Annexure or Supplement Proposed by F5

Kit Wetzler Kit.Wetzler at citrix.com
Sun Oct 21 12:42:41 EDT 2012

I agree with this as well.  I'd rather not complicate the situation.  It's hard enough to select and differentiate a WAF, let alone to go into the ecosystem a WAF lives in.  (and this is coming from a load balancing vendor!)   

The best thing we can do for WAFEC, imho, is to keep it as simple as possible, to describe the various capabilities of WAFs (security and visibility) and let the customer decide which deployment mode to use.  (That said, I'm happy to describe theoretical deployment modes - integrated to load balancer, inline, proxy, span port, integrated to server, etc, since they DO differentiate.)  

Kit Wetzler
Citrix Systems, Inc
Networking and Cloud Product Group (NetScaler, Branch Repeater and Access Gateway)

-----Original Message-----
From: wasc-wafec [mailto:wasc-wafec-bounces at lists.webappsec.org] On Behalf Of Achim Hoffmann
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:32 AM
To: Matthieu Estrade
Cc: wasc-wafec at lists.webappsec.org
Subject: Re: [WASC-WAFEC] Annexure or Supplement Proposed by F5

Am 21.10.2012 14:01, schrieb Matthieu Estrade:
> ... I think they are too close to the
> business of the WAF vendor.

Please don't get me wrong: my objections are not according WAF vendors, but according Load Balancer and such. 
It's not about keeping vendor biases off from the discussion, they are valuable please give us your opinions, but it's about focusing on WAFs.


wasc-wafec mailing list
wasc-wafec at lists.webappsec.org

More information about the wasc-wafec mailing list