Blog cover - Modern Protection for Evolving Web Application Threats
Modern applications face attack volumes that traditional defenses were never designed to handle. Organizations recorded 271 million API attacks in a single quarter, with APIs experiencing 85% more attacks than web applications on average.
Automated threats now dominate traffic patterns, and 100% of observed sites experience malicious bot activity. When these attacks succeed, the business impact is severe. The average data breach costs 4.45 million dollars, with regulated industries suffering even higher losses.
As organizations shift to API first, cloud native, and microservices architectures, the gap between legacy WAF capabilities and modern threat patterns has widened. WAAP platforms have emerged to close this gap by combining WAF functions with API discovery, schema validation, bot mitigation, and adaptive behavioral detection. They protect the areas where attackers now focus, not just where they used to.
Levo strengthens this ecosystem by providing continuous,end to end runtime API security that complements both WAF and WAAP. While WAFs and WAAPs are effective at blocking generic web attacks, APIs require a different layer of protection to defend against threats like broken auth, logic abuse, and data exposure. Levo ensures these API-specific risks are continuously tested, validated, and governed across environments.
What Is a WAF (Web Application Firewall)?
A Web Application Firewall is a security control that inspects HTTP and HTTPS traffic and blocks harmful requests before they reach an application. It analyzes requests and responses at the application layer and enforces rules that prevent well known web exploits. Traditional WAFs were designed to protect websites and web forms by filtering traffic for threats such as SQL injection, XSS, CSRF and protocol violations. They typically sit as a reverse proxy at the edge, inspecting traffic before forwarding it to the application.
Modern architectures have broadened the definition of “web application.” Applications today rely on REST APIs, mobile clients, and microservices, which all send structured JSON or XML traffic rather than simple HTML form posts. As a result, WAFs have evolved and many now include API aware features, but their foundation is still built on detecting known attack patterns using signatures, rules and protocol checks.
Why WAF still matters for legacy architecture
WAFs remain relevant because many organizations still depend on monolithic applications, traditional web pages or older systems that expect HTML based traffic. In these environments, WAFs provide reliable protection against widespread attack categories like SQL injection and XSS, which continue to account for a significant share of web breaches. They also serve as a fast patching mechanism. When a new vulnerability is discovered in a legacy app, WAF rules can be updated immediately to block it, reducing exposure while engineering teams fix the code.
WAFs also give security teams a centralized enforcement point. All traffic is routed through the WAF, creating a controllable choke point for logging, inspection, rule deployment, and virtual patching. This is valuable for legacy environments that cannot be changed quickly or migrated to modern cloud architectures.
Finally, many regulatory frameworks still expect organizations to operate a WAF. PCI DSS, for example, treats a WAF as an acceptable control for protecting public facing applications. Although WAAP platforms now offer broader coverage, the WAF’s role in classic architectures remains foundational.
What Is WAAP (Web Application & API Protection)?
WAAP is the modern evolution of the Web Application Firewall. It protects both web applications and APIs by combining WAF capabilities with API inspection, bot mitigation, DDoS protection and behavioral threat detection. It examines full request and response bodies, validates JSON and XML structures and identifies abnormal activity that traditional WAF signatures miss.
Unlike legacy WAFs that focus on known attack patterns, WAAP analyzes modern traffic types, blocks automated threats and uses cloud based intelligence to detect new attack techniques as they emerge. Many WAAP platforms also integrate DDoS protection by filtering large scale attacks at globally distributed edge locations so applications and APIs remain available.
WAAP is designed for API first and cloud-native environments where microservices, mobile clients, and partner integrations create complex traffic patterns. It provides broader coverage than a WAF by securing both traditional web requests and structured API calls.
Why WAAP is essential for APIs, microservices & cloud-native apps
Modern architectures rely on APIs and microservices that communicate through structured JSON or XML rather than traditional web pages. Attackers have shifted their focus to these interfaces because they often lack consistent validation, schema enforcement and behavioral monitoring. WAAP is designed for this reality.
1. APIs Need Deeper Inspection
APIs carry sensitive data and business logic. A WAF cannot reliably inspect or validate API payloads, which leaves gaps in authorization, schema integrity and data exposure.
Example: A customer profile API returns a full JSON object. A WAF only checks the request URL. A WAAP inspects the body, validates the JSON structure and blocks fields that should not be exposed.
2. Microservices Multiply the Attack Surface
Microservices communicate internally over APIs. These internal calls are rarely visible to a WAF but must be monitored for unusual patterns, misuse or privilege escalation.
Example: A microservice is manipulated into requesting data from another service using elevated privileges. A WAAP detects the abnormal call sequence and stops it.
3. Cloud Native Apps Face Automated Abuse
Bot driven attacks, scraping, credential stuffing, and session abuse now appear in every environment. Malicious automation affects nearly all online properties. WAAP includes bot detection and behavioral analysis to separate legitimate users from automated threats.
Example: A retail API sees thousands of account validation attempts per minute. A WAF misses it because the traffic appears structurally valid. A WAAP identifies the behavioral anomaly and blocks the pattern.
4. Availability Is as Critical as Security
DDoS attacks increasingly target APIs and microservices to disrupt digital operations. Many WAAP platforms integrate global DDoS mitigation by filtering attacks at edge locations.
Example: A payment API is flooded with requests. WAAP absorbs upstream load, so the application remains available.
5. Cloud Scale Requires Adaptive Protection
Traditional rule sets cannot keep up with fast changing deployments, container scaling and dynamic API endpoints. WAAP applies machine learning, continuous inspection and cloud delivered threat intelligence so protection stays aligned with modern environments.
Example: A new API endpoint goes live during a release. WAAP detects the new route, baselines normal behavior and begins inspecting traffic without waiting for manual rule updates.
Where continuous API security testing fits in
Continuous API security testing plays a critical role alongside WAF and WAAP. While edge defenses filter traffic, they do not validate how APIs behave internally or whether business rules are enforced correctly. Continuous testing fills that gap by verifying real behavior across all environments.
- Business Logic Failures Go Undetected by WAF and WAAP
WAF and WAAP inspect request formats but cannot determine whether an action violates business rules. Logic flaws often sit behind valid looking requests.
Example: A fund transfer API checks the user token but fails to verify account ownership. The request is syntactically valid, so WAAP allows it. Continuous testing identifies the missing authorization check.
- Internal Microservice Traffic Bypasses Edge Protection
Modern applications rely on service to service API calls that never pass through a WAF or WAAP. These internal paths can become hidden attack surfaces.
Example: One microservice quietly retrieves sensitive customer data from another without proper validation. Continuous testing exposes the insecure internal workflow that no edge control ever sees.
- API Drift and Shadow Endpoints Appear Frequently
New API routes, parameters and behaviors appear as teams ship updates. WAF and WAAP only enforce policies for what they already know.
Example: A new endpoint goes live without schema validation. WAAP accepts the traffic because it is well formed. Continuous testing flags the undocumented endpoint and identifies data exposure risks.
- Unknown Vulnerabilities Require Exploratory Testing
WAF and WAAP block known threats. They cannot discover unknown logic issues, privilege escalation paths or unusual data flows.
Example: A mobile API response contains unnecessary personal data. WAAP sees nothing wrong because the request is valid. Continuous testing highlights the excessive data exposure.
- WAAP Policies Must Be Validated Against Real Behavior
Even strong WAAP rules can become misaligned with the application as it evolves. Continuous testing verifies that protections remain accurate and effective.
Example: Public APIs enforce strict rate limits, but internal APIs do not. Continuous testing reveals inconsistencies and prevents a potential internal DDoS attack.
Levo delivers continuous, runtime aware API security testing that complements WAAP. It detects logic flaws, shadow endpoints, authorization gaps and real behavioral risks that edge controls cannot see. This ensures the APIs behind WAAP remain secure as architectures change.
WAF vs WAAP: Key Differences (Side-by-Side Analysis)
CISOs evaluating WAFs and WAAPs need a clear, fast way to understand how the two controls differ across protection, visibility, and operational fit.
The table below summarizes the capabilities most relevant to modern architectures, followed by short examples that illustrate why the differences matter.
Deep Dive: WAF Capabilities vs WAAP Capabilities
WAF and WAAP differ most clearly across seven capability areas that matter to CISOs: attack coverage, visibility, API protection depth, scalability, bot defense, response to unknown attacks and microservices integration.
Attack Coverage
WAF
A WAF blocks well known web attacks such as SQL injection, XSS, CSRF and protocol violations. It relies on signatures and predefined rules. This makes it effective for legacy web applications that send predictable HTML based traffic.
Example: An attacker injects SQL into a login form. The WAF signature recognizes the attempt and blocks it.
WAAP
WAAP extends coverage beyond classic web exploits. It protects APIs, mobile traffic, JSON and XML payloads, schema violations, bot traffic and behavioral anomalies.
Example: An attacker sends a malformed JSON payload intended to bypass authorization. WAAP inspects the body structure and blocks it.
Visibility
WAF
A WAF primarily inspects URLs, headers and parameters. It has limited understanding of nested JSON fields or XML elements. It cannot reliably validate API body content.
Example: A response leaks unnecessary personal data in nested JSON fields. The WAF does not analyze the response body and misses the exposure.
WAAP
WAAP performs deep inspection of full request and response bodies. It validates JSON and XML structures and checks for unexpected or sensitive fields.
Example: A customer details API unexpectedly returns internal identifiers. WAAP inspects the response payload and blocks it.
API Security
WAF
A WAF offers only basic API protection. It often uses generic rules or regexesregex that do not understand API structure or object level behavior.
Example: A POST request passes validation because the WAF recognises a valid endpoint and method, even though the request violates the API's schema rules.
WAAP
WAAP is designed for API first environments. It validates schemas, enforces structure and inspects object level interactions.
Example: A client submits an API request missing required fields. WAAP detects the schema violation and rejects the request.
Scalability
WAF
A WAF works well for monolithic applications but requires manual tuning as traffic grows. Scaling during seasonal spikes or high load events often requires operational work.
Example: A sudden jump in login requests causes the WAF to slow down until new rules or capacity adjustments are applied.
WAAP
WAAP scales automatically across distributed cloud edge locations. It is designed for environments where APIs and microservices change frequently.
Example: A new API endpoint goes live during deployment. WAAP discovers it and applies inspection automatically.
Bot & Fraud Protection
WAF
A WAF can identify simple automation but struggles with advanced bots. Bot mitigation is often an add on rather than a core capability.
Example: Repeated login attempts from the same IP are blocked, but scripted browser automation continues undetected.
WAAP
WAAP includes bot detection, session analysis and behavioral profiling. It separates legitimate customers from automated fraud and scraping.
Example: A credential stuffing attack uses hundreds of legitimate browser fingerprints. WAAP identifies the behavioral anomaly and blocks the pattern.
Response to Unknown Attacks
WAF
A WAF depends on signatures. Unknown or emerging attack patterns often go unnoticed until rules are updated.
Example: A new type of scraping technique does not match any WAF rule and continues uninterrupted.
WAAP
WAAP uses behavioral anomaly detection and cloud delivered threat intelligence to identify deviations from regular activity.
Example: An API begins receiving unusual sequences of resource enumeration requests. WAAP flags the behavior even without a signature.
Microservices & Service Mesh Integration
WAF
A WAF only sees edge traffic. Internal service to service API calls inside a microservices architecture are invisible to it.
Example: A backend service retrieves sensitive data from another service without proper authorization. The WAF never sees the internal call.
WAAP
WAAP provides broader inspection across distributed systems, mobile clients and internal API communication paths.
Example: WAAP identifies an unexpected data access pattern between two services that deviates from established behavior.
Strengths & Limitations of Each
WAF and WAAP offer different advantages depending on the age of the application, the traffic model and the organization’s architecture. The table below summarizes the strengths and limitations most relevant to CISOs evaluating a protection strategy.
Real-World Examples: WAF vs WAAP Efficiency (3-4 practical scenarios)
WAF and WAAP behave very differently in real environments. The scenarios below show how each performs under practical attack conditions and where gaps remain.
Scenario 1: Classic Web Attack on a Legacy Login Page
Threat
An attacker launches a SQL injection attack on an old login form.
WAF Response
Blocks the attack immediately using signature based rules. This is the type of threat WAFs were built to handle, and they still do so exceptionally well.
WAAP Response
Also blocks the attack, but with no added benefit over a WAF, since this is a straightforward pattern.
Operational Insight
A WAF is still ideal for legacy applications that rely on classic HTML forms.
Where Levo Helps
Levo maps the logic behind the login API, confirming whether credentials are validated consistently across all endpoints, not just the main form. This prevents bypasses that the WAF cannot see.
Scenario 2: API Data Exposure Through an Overly Verbose JSON Response
Threat
A customer profile API returns more information than intended, including internal identifiers.
WAF Response
Allows the request because it examines the path and parameters, but does not inspect the full JSON body.
WAAP Response
Inspects the complete response payload and detects the unexpected fields. WAAP blocks or sanitizes the response.
Operational Insight
WAF cannot protect APIs against data leakage because it does not validate the request body.
Where Levo Helps
Levo identifies the data exposure by analyzing runtime traces across environments. It flags fields that violate internal data minimization policies and provides evidence for remediation.
Scenario 3: Automated Bot Attack Against User Login APIs
Threat
A credential stuffing botnet sends thousands of login attempts per minute. The traffic mimics real browsers.
WAF Response
Blocks some attempts from repeating IPs, but fails to detect sophisticated bots using rotating fingerprints and distributed IP ranges.
WAAP Response
Uses behavioral and session analysis to detect anomalous activity even when bots look human. Blocks the attack early.
Operational Insight
WAAP is significantly more effective against automated fraud and credential abuse.
Where Levo Helps
Levo captures detailed traces of every failed authentication flow, showing which APIs were targeted and whether authorization drift exists. This gives teams a full forensic picture after mitigation.
Scenario 4: Internal Microservice Abuse Not Visible at the Edge
Threat
A compromised microservice begins making unauthorized data requests to another internal service.
WAF Response
Misses the attack entirely because internal service to service traffic does not pass through the WAF.
WAAP Response
Detects unusual patterns if the environment is configured for distributed inspection, but often still lacks visibility into deeper logic flaws.
Operational Insight
Neither WAF nor WAAP fully protects internal microservice traffic. This is a known weakness in modern distributed architectures.
Where Levo Helps
Levo surfaces internal API behavior by analyzing real runtime interactions. It identifies unexpected internal access patterns, highlights logic flaws and exposes shadow API routes. This closes the visibility gap that both WAF and WAAP struggle with.
When Should You Choose WAF Over WAAP?
A WAF is still the right choice in several well defined situations, especially when protecting mature, stable, legacy applications that primarily handle traditional web traffic. Traffic analysis in recent industry studies shows that classic attack types such as SQL injection and cross site scripting remain extremely common across older web properties. This is where a WAF continues to provide reliable, cost effective protection.
1. Your Application Is Legacy, Monolithic or HTML Form Based
A WAF is ideal for traditional web applications that do not rely heavily on APIs or microservices. These systems still see high volumes of SQLi, XSS and CSRF attempts, which WAF signatures block effectively.
Example: A university admissions portal uses HTML forms for registration. Attackers repeatedly attempt SQL injection, which the WAF stops with mature, stable rules.
2. You Need Fast Virtual Patching for Known Vulnerabilities
WAF rule updates can be applied immediately, allowing organizations to block newly discovered vulnerabilities before engineering teams deploy patches. This remains one of the most substantial operational benefits of WAFs.
Example: A legacy CMS has a newly disclosed cross site scripting flaw. The security team applies a WAF rule within minutes, reducing exposure during the patch cycle.
3. Your Regulatory Framework Requires a WAF
Regulatory frameworks such as PCI DSS still consider WAFs an acceptable compensating control for public facing web applications. Many auditors expect to see a WAF in use for older transactional surfaces.
Example: An ecommerce company undergoing PCI review protects its checkout flows with a WAF to meet mandated web application security requirements.
4. Your Traffic Profile Is Simple and Low in API Usage
If your application exposes only a small set of straightforward endpoints and primarily relies on server rendered pages, the overhead of a WAAP platform may not be justified. Most of the risk remains centered on classic web attacks, not structured API payloads.
Example: A corporate intranet exposes simple internal lookup forms. The attack surface is small, and a WAF protects the application effectively without additional tooling.
5. You Need a Mature, Stable Control With Predictable Operations
WAFs are well understood, require minimal tuning for stable workloads, and are easy to operate in environments with infrequent change. Their signature based approach aligns well with consistent traffic patterns.
Example: A government portal receives predictable traffic and rarely changes functionality. Most threats fall into known categories, which the WAF handles dependably.
Where Levo Helps in WAF Driven Environments
Even when a WAF is the primary control, Levo provides visibility where WAFs cannot operate. Levo identifies data exposure inside responses, uncovers shadow APIs behind legacy interfaces and detects authorization gaps that rule based filters miss. This ensures that legacy applications remain safe even when underlying APIs evolve faster than the WAF can track.
When Should You Choose WAAP Over WAF?
WAAP is the better choice for modern environments where applications rely heavily on APIs, microservices, mobile clients and cloud infrastructure. Attack patterns have shifted toward API abuse, automated attacks and behavioral anomalies that a WAF cannot fully inspect. WAAP aligns with this reality by providing deeper visibility, broader protection, and cloud scale adaptability.
1. Your Application Is API First or Microservices Based
Modern applications communicate through structured JSON or XML that a WAF cannot reliably inspect. WAAP analyzes request and response bodies, validates schema and blocks unauthorized access patterns.
Example: A customer profile API returns JSON with nested objects. WAAP detects unexpected fields that expose sensitive identifiers, while a WAF only inspects the URL and parameters.
2. You Need Deep Inspection of API Payloads
APIs often carry sensitive data and business logic. WAAP validates full payload structure and schema, which helps detect data leakage or parameter tampering.
Example: An attacker submits a JSON payload missing required fields to trigger a logic bypass. WAAP blocks it because the payload does not match the expected schema.
3. You Face Automated Threats and Bot Driven Attacks
Bot traffic now affects virtually every online business. WAAP includes behavioral bot detection, fingerprinting and session level analysis to handle sophisticated automated attacks.
Example: A credential stuffing attack uses distributed IP addresses and real browser automation. WAAP identifies the behavioral anomalies and blocks the pattern long before account takeover occurs.
4. You Need Protection Against Emerging or Unknown Attacks
WAAP detects behavioral deviations and unusual access patterns even when signatures do not exist yet. This is essential for cloud native APIs that change frequently.
Example: A scraping tool starts enumerating product IDs at high speed. WAAP flags the abnormal request sequence even though there is no attack signature.
5. You Operate at Cloud Scale With Frequent Deployments
WAAP is designed to scale automatically across distributed environments. It adapts to new endpoints, new versions and traffic spikes without manual tuning.
Example: A new API route is deployed during a release. WAAP auto discovers the route, applies inspections, and absorbs load increases at the edge.
6. You Expose Public APIs or Integrate With External Partners
Public and partner facing APIs face higher attack risk and more unpredictable traffic patterns. WAAP enforces structure, verifies behavior and blocks anomalies across all client types.
Example: An API used by partners starts receiving malformed XML that attempts to break the integration. WAAP detects the deviation and stops the traffic immediately.
Where Levo Helps in WAAP Driven Environments
WAAP protects traffic at the edge, but it cannot validate more profound business logic, internal microservice flows or shadow endpoints. Levo fills these gaps by analyzing runtime behavior, uncovering undocumented APIs, identifying logic flaws and validating authorization paths. Together, WAAP and Levo provide full stack protection across both edge traffic and internal API behavior.
When both WAAP and WAF are not enough for Full API Security
WAF and WAAP are important, but they focus on traffic patterns rather than whether the API itself is behaving safely. As attack traffic shifts toward APIs and business logic, there are clear situations where even a strong WAAP cannot deliver full API security.
1. Business Logic and Authorization Failures
WAF and WAAP look at structure and signatures. API attacks often target logic. Attackers use valid looking requests to exploit how the API handles identity, ownership and workflow. Many serious API incidents involve Broken Object Level Authorization, where a request with a valid JSON structure and token still accesses another user’s data. Traditional WAFs and WAAPs often miss these issues because the request appears legitimate on the surface. The real problem lies deeper in the application’s authorization logic
Levo’s research shows that many serious API incidents involve Broken Object Level Authorization, where a request with a correct JSON structure and valid token still retrieves another user’s data. A WAF or WAAP sees a normal request. The real problem is buried in the authorization logic.
Example: A banking API lets a user retrieve transaction history for a given account ID. The request is authenticated. The JSON payload matches the schema. WAAP allows it. Nothing at the edge checks that the caller actually owns the account. A customer can change the ID and view another account’s data.
Edge controls cannot understand whether the operation is allowed for that specific user. They do not test horizontal or vertical AuthZ paths. They cannot simulate real attacks that chain multiple calls or states.
2. Internal and Third Party APIs That Never Touch WAAP
WAF and WAAP guard the perimeter. A large portion of API traffic never passes through that perimeter.
Levo’s analysis notes that internal and third party APIs can account for roughly a third of an enterprise’s API surface. These are often used for mobile backends, partner integrations and internal microservices. They operate on private networks or outbound paths, and so they bypass traditional WAF and even many WAAP deployments.
Example: During the Optus breach, an unauthenticated internal API exposed millions of records because it was never put behind edge controls. It was considered “internal” and safe, so it bypassed the WAF. This is not an exception. Internal APIs, third party callbacks and service to service calls often form the most sensitive part of the architecture. WAAP at the edge has no line of sight into these paths.
3. API Misconfigurations and Data Exposure in “Legitimate” Traffic
WAF and WAAP aim to block malicious input. They do not flag many forms of dangerous output. APIs frequently leak sensitive data due to misconfigured responses, overly permissive defaults, or changes over time. The request can be fully legitimate, and the schema can be valid, yet the response still violates data minimization and privacy expectations.
Example: An analytics API returns a list of user events, including email addresses and internal identifiers in the payload. WAAP sees a normal authenticated call with a valid schema. It does not know that business policy says emails must never leave that boundary. These are not “attacks” in the classic sense. They are design and configuration issues that require visibility into runtime behavior, not just filtering at the edge.
4. Shadow, Orphaned and Drifted APIs
WAAP can only protect what you know and what you can configure. Modern teams ship fast. New routes appear. Old versions linger. Partner specific endpoints get added in one cluster but not another. Over time, organizations accumulate shadow APIs, orphaned routes and drifted behavior that diverge from documentation. WAAP policies often do not get updated at the same speed.
Example: A deprecated version of a customer API is still running in a staging cluster that handles limited production spillover. It has weaker AuthZ checks than the main version. WAAP rules were never updated for this path. Attackers find and target it specifically. Without continuous discovery and runtime mapping, these APIs remain exposed, even while dashboards show a “protected” WAAP perimeter.
5. Compliance and Risk Require Proof of Correct Behavior, Not Just Blocked Attacks
For regulated industries, it is not enough to show that WAAP blocked some malicious traffic. Auditors and risk teams want to know whether AuthN and AuthZ work correctly, whether sensitive data is contained, and whether APIs behave as intended in real use.
Example: A fintech firm must show that no user can access another user’s loan details. WAAP logs show no blatant exploit attempts. However, without systematic testing of authorization paths and runtime data flows, the firm cannot prove that a subtle BOLA condition does not exist.
Compliance, risk management and board reporting increasingly expect evidence that controls work, not just that traffic was filtered.
Where Levo Fits in the WAAP/WAF Landscape
WAF and WAAP protect traffic at the edge, but neither can validate how APIs behave inside the application, between microservices or across different environments. Levo complements both technologies by providing visibility and assurance where edge controls cannot operate. It focuses on API behavior, authorization paths and data exposure patterns that firewalls cannot understand.
Levo works alongside WAF and WAAP, not as a replacement for them. It adds depth where edge filtering ends, giving CISOs confidence that API logic, internal surfaces, and business workflows are secure across the full lifecycle.
Levo Strengthens Both WAF and WAAP
Levo brings intelligence and testing that WAF and WAAP do not provide. It ensures that the APIs behind the perimeter enforce the right rules, expose only the necessary data and behave safely even as code changes.
1. Complete API Visibility Across All Environments
Levo discovers public, internal, partner and shadow APIs across modern architectures. This includes endpoints that never pass through WAAP or the gateway.
Example: A deprecated internal reporting API is still accessible in a staging cluster with weaker checks. WAAP does not see it. Levo identifies it through runtime traces and flags it as a risk.
2. Targeted API Security Testing that simulates real world exploits for Real API Behavior
Levo runs thousands of custom-generated targeted payloads and behavioral tests per endpoint. It detects injection issues, misconfigurations and logic flaws that are invisible to traffic filters.
Example: A mobile API accepts a parameter intended to be read-only. Levo discovers that modifying the parameter leads to privilege escalation.
3. Authorization Testing With Real User and Role Context
Levo maps API behavior to users, roles and objects. It tests horizontal and vertical authorization systematically across all endpoints.
Example: A customer service API allows one role to view another customer’s profile. WAAP accepts the request because it is well formed. Levo identifies the broken authorization path.
4. Runtime Intelligence That Connects Issues to Code and Services
Levo ties findings to specific microservices, code repositories and routes. It shortens remediation time by showing teams exactly where the issue originates.
Example: A data exposure issue is traced to a single function in a microservice. Developers can fix it immediately instead of searching across the stack.
Levo Covers API Security Risks WAAP/WAF Miss
Levo focuses on the core risks that WAFs and WAAPs cannot detect or validate. This is what closes the API security gap.
1. Business Logic and Workflow Flaws
Edge tools cannot detect problems where the request is valid but the action is not allowed.
Example: A user updates another user’s settings by modifying an ID. WAAP sees a valid request. Levo identifies the misuse through logic testing.
2. Internal Service to Service API Calls
Internal APIs between microservices often bypass all edge controls.
Example: A microservice retrieves sensitive data without verifying user privileges. WAAP never sees the call. Levo surfaces the behavior through runtime mapping.
3. Shadow, Orphaned and Drifted Endpoints
Levo detects endpoints that do not match documentation or WAAP policies.
Example: A versioned API remains active with weaker schema checks. Levo identifies the drift before it becomes an incident.
4. Data Exposure Through Misconfigured Responses
Valid requests can still lead to sensitive data being leaked.
Example: An analytics endpoint returns more personal data than necessary. WAAP allows it because the structure is correct. Levo flags the exposure based on runtime evidence.
5. Continuous Assurance for Compliance and Audits
Regulators want proof of correct API behavior, not only blocked attacks. Levo provides audit ready evidence of data flow, authorization decisions and endpoint behavior.
Example: A financial services team uses Levo reports to prove that no unauthorized access is possible across transaction APIs.
Conclusion: Full API Security beyond WAAP and WAF
WAF and WAAP remain essential parts of modern application security. WAF protects legacy web applications from common attack categories, and WAAP extends protection to APIs, automated threats and behavioral anomalies. Both are valuable, but neither provides full visibility into how APIs behave across internal services, mobile clients and distributed cloud environments. They secure traffic at the edge, but they cannot validate the business logic, authorization paths or data flows inside the system where most API incidents occur.
Organizations that rely on APIs, microservices and partner integrations need more than traffic filtering.
Book a demo through this link!
