Already have a WAF? Let's assess which places still need protection.
What decides is the specific solution, the features switched on and the channels your data passes through. Corpilus is worth assessing by what it adds to the protection you already run.
What to check on each side
A decision framework, not a benchmark. What another product can do depends on the vendor, the plan and the configuration, so nothing here claims what it cannot do.
| Need | What to check in your existing protection | What to check in Corpilus |
|---|---|---|
| Web and API requests | WAF rules, limits, bot protection and which routes are covered. | The checks on the connected forms and interfaces, the signals and the server-side enforcement. |
| Data in an employee's AI chat | Protection of that specific working channel and that device. | The supported extension, the types of data, the replacement of values and the rules. |
| Your own AI application | The AI security features available to you and their scope. | The supported proxy and API checks and the specific output modes. |
| An agent's tool calls | Access management and the checks in the gateway you already use. | The checks on calls in the connected MCP interface. |
| Documents and uploads | Antivirus, the file types and your existing ingestion flow. | The supported content checks and what happens to a finding. |
| Operation in your own network | The supported local variants and their dependencies. | The scope of an own deployment that is actually available. |
For a comparison with a specific competing product, name the product, the plan, the date and the source. The editorial brief for this page records that public Cloudflare WAF documentation, at the time it was verified, described request-body inspection as well as AI Security for Apps — which is why a general metaphor about the envelope and its contents is not a technical argument.
Where a WAF is needed and where Corpilus is
One row per layer, from the network up to people and their devices. The last row is in the table on purpose: it is the one neither side covers.
| Layer | What happens there | Who covers it |
|---|---|---|
| Network | Link flooding, DDoS, certificates | WAF / CDNNot Corpilus |
| Web edge | SQL injection, XSS, directory traversal, scanning bots | WAFCorpilus adds on the connected flows |
| Forms and sign-in | Spam, stolen passwords, card testing | WAFCorpilus both — depending on what the WAF can do and what is connected |
| Content going into AI | Sensitive data in a prompt, an attachment | Corpilus |
| Content coming back from AI | Keys and data in the reply | Corpilus |
| Documents and attachments | A malicious or damaged file | CorpilusAntivirus the antivirus layer depending on the solution |
| An agent's tool calls | An action that is not allowed | Corpilus with the gateway connected |
| Devices, access, development | A stolen password, bad code | Neither other tools cover this |
What exactly your WAF covers depends on the vendor, the plan and the configuration. A row about a layer says who tends to cover it, never what another product cannot see.
Start where the sensitive data passes.
A company can have a protected public website and, at the same time, employees using an external AI chat. Both paths need checking: protecting one does not confirm protection of the other.
Data in AI toolsCorpilus does not replace network protection, device protection, access management or secure development. What it adds is proposed from your architecture. Claims about DDoS and regulatory requirements have to come from the verified scope of a service, not from a comparison slogan.