Imperva Advanced Bot Protection
full-suite · Thales (absorbed Distil Networks) · Thales
Marketing claims
No claim captured yet.
Claim archaeology — what has been marketed, and when
Monthly Wayback snapshots of the 2 pages listed below, read back to 2019. A number reaches this timeline only after the sentence around it was read and judged to be Imperva Advanced Bot Protection describing its own product. Those judgements were made by an AI model (claude-opus-5) and have not yet been checked by a person. Every one is published with the quote it was made from and the reason it was made, so you can check it against the archived page yourself. Numbers that turned out to be customer case studies, uptime SLAs or traffic-composition stats are listed further down — recorded, not published. Nothing is inferred between two dated snapshots.
No claim we could publish as Imperva Advanced Bot Protection describing its own product has been found in any of the 9 months we were able to read on the pages we track, out of 92 probed between 2019-01 and 2026-08. That is a statement about these pages only — see the list below.
No publishable claim was found on these pages for: detection accuracy, coverage, false-positive rate, decision latency.
| Page | Era | Months probed | Months read |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.distilnetworks.com/ 2019-01 – 2026-08 | pre-acquisition domain | 92 | 9 2 blocked |
| www.imperva.com/products/advanced-bot-protection/ 2019-01 – 2026-08 | current | 92 | 0 7 blocked |
“Months read” counts snapshots we actually retrieved and searched. 9snapshot(s) were the vendor’s own bot wall rather than the page — the archiver was blocked, so those months are recorded as unreadable, never as “no claim”. Pages with no readable months contribute nothing either way.
Sanctioned test surfaces
| Surface | Type | Tier | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud WAF free/community tier on own site | self-deploy-free | B | Own deployment |
A — vendor invites testing · B — our own deployment · C — passive observation
Our test results
No sanctioned runs recorded yet.
Real-world challenge rate (passive, anonymized)
Across 3 sites detected running Imperva Advanced Bot Protection, this is what a default automated client met:
ServedChallengedBlocked
Challenge rate 66.7% — 95% CI 21–94% (±37pp, n=3). A wide interval means a small sample; read it accordingly.
Site identities are not published. This measures whether a vanilla client is challenged — no bypass performed.
Cited external benchmarks
None cited yet.