Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

We have a hybrid environment so we use Check Point Cloud Guard to protect the cloud workload. On-prem, we are already using the Check Point Firewalls so we can manage both environment firewalls using the same management server, AKA the smart console, which saves time and effort to look for logs during any type of troubleshooting. It helps us avoid creating the same objects for each firewall but also provides a single pane of glass through which we can see all gateways, logs, policies, objects, user management, and traffic tracing. 

It is a next-generation firewall that helps a lot in many ways to protect my workloads from threats, such as: 

- firewall blade providing protection at Layer 3 and 4

- application filtering blade providing protection from unauthorized applications or services

- URL filtering providing protection on malicious URLs based on various categories as updated by Check Point on a daily basis

- threat prevention and sandboxing capability to actually help with unknown or zero-day threats (it tests, removes the malicious content, and then releases or blocks by itself)

Overall, it provides good security.

The threat extraction and emulation module is a savior for us from unknown threats. We know that daily millions of new threats emerge over the internet so we like that it provides protection from them all. It's good to have a sandboxing environment that can first assess the threat before releasing it to the production environment. These threats are called zero-day threats for which there is no signature or update available whether it be on an endpoint, machine, antivirus solution, or other software. Therefore, it becomes very useful to use this feature to stop threats from spreading right at the gateway itself.

Their service needs improvement. Their vendor doesn't provide good support. Also, there is no way to escalate it to Check Point so that Check Point can take action against their partner. I don't have direct support with Check Point. We have collaborative support with one of the Check Point partners who do not provide good support. When we reached out to Check Point to escalate; they denied taking any action against the vendor.

I've used the solution for five years.

The solution is a core operating system, and we use it for threat intelligence.

CloudGuard has a better catch rate with respect to any attack which is happening. We once faced an attack in a customer's environment on one of our data centers, and Check Point Firewall blocked that attack. The solution's performance is on the higher side.

The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable. We haven't had any vulnerabilities in Check Point in the last six months, which is a plus point because the OS Check Point provides is hardened enough that it's not vulnerable to the newer issues, so the network security solution is given in a proper way. These features are an advantage for our customers.

The solution is easy to use once deployed if the administrators have a basic understanding of firewalling. Administrators just have to check the traffic passing through the solution, which will log the traffic properly. And if anything gets dropped, the solution will showcase that to you. The management server Check Point uses is a gold standard.

Check Point CloudGuard is not a feature-centric product because Check Point concentrates on security. For example, if a customer asks for reporting, it might not be available, like a bandwidth report. At most, the reports are given with respect to security, not infrastructure.

I've used CloudGuard for the last three years.

We have more than 50 customers.

Customer support needs to think about what the customer is talking about. They need to improve on that.

CloudGuard is not a plug-and-play product and requires proper technical knowledge to deploy it. You need the help of a proper professional to deploy it. Deployment hardly takes four hours, but that's only if you know what you're doing. You need to plan the deployment with respect to AWS. You have to know what exactly the customers have deployed in AWS or Azure, or any cloud solution, and based on the review, you need to do their architecture before you can start the deployment. The first step, then, is to understand the customer's data because everything is on a template when it comes to the cloud. You should understand which template you need to use on any cloud. It is impossible to deploy if you're not aware of the customer's environment and how the cloud infrastructure is made. After selecting the proper template, you have to do the implementation. The implementation will go smoothly if you understand the customer's requirements and infrastructure.

I would not say Check Point is very expensive, but when customers compare it with Sophos or any other products, the price is on the higher side.

In terms of features, FortiGate has more features in terms of routing.

Our customers use Check Point solutions both on-premise and on the cloud.

Check Point's research and development happening in terms of threat intelligence is better than its competitors, and Check Point's vulnerabilities are fewer. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has proper security in place with respect to the vulnerabilities. They do not have any vulnerabilities right now. And the research and development happening on Check Point is on the higher side. Most zero-day attacks are protected against. Customers should go for Check Point because of these two points.

If a customer wants FortiGate instead, it's all about whether they can map the budget with Check Point or any other security solution. I cannot compare Check Point and FortiGate, though, because each has its own market.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

We were providing infrastructure security. Our corporate headquarters at the time was overseas, so we had GDPR compliance regulations. It was helping us to keep in line with our compliance.

It saved us resources. We were a lean IT department, so I was able to reassign some staff to other projects because it didn't require so much hands-on manpower.

The notifications, the visibility, and the deployment are the most valuable. It could be packaged in such a way that it took a lot of time and resources off our hands, so it was more efficient. I don't know how to quantify the time saved. It would have saved us at least two to three hours a day just because the traditional IT department has a lot of other tasks and duties. It didn't require a lot for us to become experts on the product. It was seamless. It didn't require too much learning. It was easy to use.

With the incorporation of a lot of AI and machine learning, they can build some sort of a matrix for low-level threats or low-level things that require attention. There can be automation of those tasks so that we don't have to take more time and effort. There should be machine learning to eliminate level-one types of tasks.

I used this solution for six years. I'm a Cybersecurity Instructor. I used it in my previous role. I'm not using it in my current role.

I thought it was extremely stable. I didn't see any downtime. Any of the maintenance windows were either on weekends or in time frames that didn't affect our organization. It was very good.

It would be able to scale up even bigger and beyond what our local site needed. There were about a hundred and fifty employees. It was a manufacturing organization in San Antonio, Texas, but we were just one of twenty sites all throughout the US and Europe.

They were helpful in total. I'd rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I believe we had a WatchGuard firewall with other services coupled around it. It didn't necessarily do all of the protection that we needed, but that's what we had at the time.

I was involved in its deployment. It wasn't too challenging. It was easy to medium. Configuration with the compliance side was what took time and effort and was challenging, but it didn't have anything to do with the way the software is built. It was about getting our settings and configurations to be in alignment with the compliance.

I believe headquarters had Check Point support. 

The return on the investment was probably more beneficial to the headquarters or the mother corporation because we were just one of the remote sites that had the checkpoint infrastructure sent to us to build up our site. The bigger benefit was for the headquarters because they could manage all these individual sites from one platform. The consolidation and the standardization would have made their lives easier, but I didn't sit in a seat, so I don't know what that looked like.

We have seen time to value with this solution. It provided us with great benefits across the entire organization. We could see its value within about a month. That was probably enough time to let all of the initial shakeout and other things take place. We created a baseline after those thirty days, and we could see where we no longer needed to spend time. We could also see things where we had to take some action but were not apparent to us.

They're a little high in price. The price could be lower.

I wasn't that high in the chain to be able to make that decision. Corporate pushed it down to our site, and that's what we had to go with.

Attending an RSA Conference provides the ability to connect with others in the industry. It allows me to have a line of communication where I can reach out to them in person rather than just a digital introduction. 

In terms of the impact of attending an RSA Conference on the cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year afterward, I don't necessarily think about our purchases, but considering I'm a Cybersecurity Instructor, the people that attend our classes are going to be able to benefit because I can provide them more solutions and answers to the questions that they have.

I enjoyed it as a product. It works well. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

We use CloudGuard to monitor the cloud IaaS, AWS, and Azure security postures, including cloud assets' configurations. Based on the framework in the rulesets, it will give us failing, passing, or partially compliant scores. It allows us to implement auto-remediation and guardrails. 

If a user exposes storage on the public internet accidentally or purposefully, a daily report is sent to the account owner. CloudGuard will automatically fix the issue if auto-remediation is appropriate. We have GCP, AWS, and Azure accounts. CloudGuard is a SaaS solution, and we onboard all our AWS accounts, whether public, private, or hybrid.

In our sandbox environment, auto-remediation kicks in, and everything is fixed. Users try to do it themselves but often don't know how because they're not trained to provide cloud support. We don't currently use complete remediation, which will break their production environment, but we're getting better by nagging the cloud account users. Our cybersecurity team can use the shared response score to encourage cloud account owners to fix the problem.

CloudGuard has specific instructions for how users should fix issues, but it's like pulling teeth sometimes. Users often don't respond, and we get to the point where we need to tell them that it's going through change management and we can't renew it. We will auto-remediate in production environments if they don't respond by that date. 

It helped some cloud deployment users understand how to improve security posture, but not all of them. It depends on whether they are reading the CloudGuard reports daily. Many don't want to manage that part, and we believe our cybersecurity will help fix that for them.

We automated account onboarding. When a user wants a new cloud account, the automation scripts kick in after the request is approved to create the cloud account. After the provisioning is completed, the account is onboarded into CloudGuard. It enables us to have full coverage because CloudGuard monitors all our organization's cloud accounts.

I wouldn't say that CloudGuard has freed up staff for other projects. I have two or three dedicated SecOps people to monitor and follow up with remediation when auto-remediation isn't possible. We also deal with CloudGuard account requests and just-in-time user account access. It's difficult to assign a specific user to view the cloud accounts only they can see. 

I'm an SME for the product and train people annually because SecOps folks come and go. So far, we have had this software for three years. A lot of other organizations will switch solutions after two or three years. Training is essential because it's a high learning curve for people unfamiliar with the cloud. I don't think CloudGuard has made it more accessible. While it has decreased the resources, we still need at least one full-time admin dealing with CloudGuard, especially with the bugs.

We saved some time. We always go for a Unified Enterprise Platform. In terms of Cloud Security Posture Management, we wanted an enterprise solution with GCP, AWS, and Azure support, so we chose CloudGuard.

The posture management and remediation features are the most valuable. We use GSL Builder to build custom rules in alignment with our organization's policies. CloudGuard has canned rules using multiple standard frameworks, but we also have additional rules. Building custom rules with GSL Builder is medium difficulty. They have several examples of other compliance rules you can use. The GSL documentation is decent. A non-technical person can learn to use GSL Builder in about a week. GSL Builder saved us time and reduced human error. 

The auto-remediation works when it works. It does its job and is based on the rule instead of the alert's severity. In our company, we say, "Okay, this rule is a high severity. We don't want the data to be exposed on the internet." For example, if someone puts a public IP on our database, we will set a rule to shut it down immediately. That's how we define remediation. 

It isn't based on the severity or the level of work. Some rules may be defined as lower severity by default, but they might be higher depending on the organization's policy. It kicks in when there's an alert matching the remediation rule. The effectiveness of the remediation is 50%. Some of their bots used to fix issues automatically need to be updated. We had to make a few custom changes to some bots because they don't wake up.

CloudGuard's effective risk management only scans accounts every hour. We have more than 150 AWS accounts and 20 Azure accounts. We sent Check Point a request asking them to increase the frequency to five to fifteen minutes. I want the flexibility to scan it as often as possible based on the account's importance. That part is lacking. 

When rules change, it messes up the remediation. They haven't found a fix for that yet. The remediation rule goes into limbo. It's an architectural design flaw within their end compliance engine—a serious bug. We must spend extra time reapplying the rule when they periodically update the compliance presets. Auto-remediation breaks if you're using that particular out-of-the-box rule. I haven't experienced this recently, so maybe they fixed that part. However, that's what it did in the past.

Check Point is slow to respond to bugs. They resolve bugs maybe once every two weeks, and their R&D is slow. They're in Israel, and it's not just the Israeli holidays. I would probably pick a large US company if we did this over again. 

They don't give us continuous feedback. I want live feedback when they change something. Stop breaking things. The company should let us know what they're doing when they add new features. They don't have an official beta program, so you can't test the new features. 

That's the other bad thing about this product, but I don't know about other Check Point products. They're a firewall company but not a software company. If you put out a beta, customers should have the option to test it and give feedback. I've been putting a lot of work into CloudGuard to fix all the bugs. They should have paid me to fix their bugs for them.

They need to decrease their bug resolution time. Anything longer than two weeks is problematic. It's why we don't jump into the deep end with all these other features they've added. Our primary feature is the CSPM cloud part. The solution is useless if the reporting or remediation breaks, as it has in the past. It requires an SME for CloudGuard to dig in deeper, which takes time away from our SecOps folks.

We've been using CloudGuard for three years.

CloudGuard is pretty stable.

CloudGuard is scalable. I don't need to worry about it.

I rate Check Point's support a seven out of ten. They respond within a day. 

Neutral

Setting up CloudGuard is straightforward, and it takes a few days. We handled the deployment in-house with two full-time employees. It's a SaaS solution, so the only maintenance required is backups. 

We implemented this solution in-house.

The pricing of CloudGuard increases annually, and we don't see the value because we don't use all the features. We're primarily using CSPM and maybe Workload Protection. We did the Kubernetes part and used Network Explorer as a one-off. We only used Network Explorer for diagnostics. 

We use the Intelligence module for CSPM but don't analyze network traffic with CloudGuard. It's an expensive subscription, so we don't use the intelligence part.

We evaluated Palo Alto Prisma Cloud and Twistlock. Back then, the solution was owned by an independent company called Dome9, and Check Point acquired them. It had the best rule set out there. We chose it because it had all the rule sets out of the box and supported GCP, Azure, and AWS. 

I rate Check Point CloudGard Posture Management a seven out of ten. CloudGuard does its job, but the remediation is not perfect. Other CSPM tools do a better job of using remediation exclusion rules, especially scanning and putting out reports at a custom frequency versus every hour.

If the price isn't an issue and you don't care about using all the features, it's an okay product for enterprises to use to cover all cloud IaaS. If you're thinking about implementing CloudGuard, you should consider two things. First, the price is marked up every year by 10-plus percent, whether you use a particular feature or not. It's an annual subscription model, so you can always cancel at any time. 

Second, you should think about the modules. Workload Protection is okay if you use Kubernetes. You can use intelligence if you need to analyze traffic within your cloud environment for regulation-specific reasons, but it will cost you extra. CloudGuard's strong suit is that they support a lot of the features and AWS cloud assets.

We use the solution to secure cloud infrastructures and manage incoming and outgoing traffic. Our clients operating in hybrid environments must ensure robust security for their applications and data.

The platform has significantly improved our organization's security posture by providing comprehensive threat detection and response capabilities, enhancing the overall security of our cloud applications and data.

The solution's most valuable features include sandboxing, application control, and the remote access blade. Sandboxing is essential for isolating potentially malicious files, while application control allows us to manage user access effectively.

The solution's future releases would benefit from incorporating more advanced machine learning capabilities for real-time threat detection and enhanced user interface options for ease of use.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for six years.

The product is highly scalable and easily adapts to the growing needs of our clients' cloud environments.

The technical support team is knowledgeable and responsive. 

Positive

The initial setup was relatively straightforward, requiring careful configuration to align with our security policies.

We implemented the product through our in-house team, which was well-trained in the solution's features.

The return on investment has been substantial, as the enhanced security features have prevented potential breaches, saving costs related to security incidents.

I evaluated other options, including Palo Alto, but ultimately chose Check Point for its robust security features and user-friendly interface.

I highly recommend CloudGuard for organizations looking to enhance cloud security due to its comprehensive features and strong track record.

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We use CloudGuard to secure apps we develop in the cloud.

Before Check Point, we didn't have a cloud solution. Having a CNAPP solution gives us confidence that our cloud apps are secure. From day one, we saw that the product was working and detecting issues in real-time. 

CloudGuard's best feature is real-time detection. We can detect incidents and vulnerabilities in our code with one click. I was amazed by CloudGuard's VM protection. It's easy to deploy, and I feel safe. I'm absolutely satisfied with it. 

I have used CloudGuard for about one year.

CloudGuard is stable. I haven't had any issues. 

CloudGuard is scalable. We've had no problems implementing it for our cloud infrastructure. 

I rate Check Point support 10 out of 10. Check Point's technical support is excellent. 

Positive

The implementation was fast and easy, and Check Point's professional services are highly effective and professional. We deployed it with an in-house team of two to three people. 

The cost-effectiveness of this investment was high. The money was well spent because I solved my security problems. 

I would like CloudGuard's pricing to be cheaper, but I think that's impossible. The pricing is the only thing I think they can improve.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP nine out of 10. I recommend that complex corporations test CloudGuard before implementing it. When you see the solution in action, you can witness its security and power.

We are using CloudGuard Network Security to protect North-South traffic or VPCs. We are using the CloudGuard firewall between the Internet and VPCs. All the traffic needs to pass through the firewall.

CloudGuard Network Security provides features, such as threat emulation, that native cloud solutions do not offer. AWS, Azure, and GCP have a lot of features, but you sometimes need to pay charges for specific features. With Check Point products, you have all these features in one license. You pay once and you can use everything.

CloudGuard Network Security improves our security against advanced threats. Others do not offer features like threat emulation out of the box. CloudGuard Network Security protects very well against advanced threats.

We have a high level of confidence in our cloud network security by using CloudGuard Network Security. The product is similar to what we use in traditional data centers. The infrastructure is almost the same. The way to manage the policies is the same. It is very easy to implement and manage CloudGuard networks. There is some difference when you are using auto-provision, but in the end, it is the same technology. It is easy for a traditional network engineer to work with CloudGuard.

We did not go for the cloud vendor's cloud firewall because we wanted to be able to manage all the firewalls, policies, and other things from a single point. 

The most valuable feature for me is that you have just one license. You can test and implement everything you need with one license. You do not need to pay for separate module licenses when you want IPS or other features. The license includes everything that you need.

The version upgrades need improvement. We faced issues while upgrading our CloudGuard Network Gateway. When we tried to use the template that Check Point offers on their site, it was not available for the second to the latest version, so I was forced to upgrade my management server. That was very challenging for us.

I have been working with Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for 8 years.

I cannot remember the last time I had an issue. It is stable, but every product has a few bugs. If you maintain the configuration and the versions, everything is fine.

We do not have any problems because we can use the auto-provision templates. If I need to scale up or scale down, I can do this. If there is any issue, it is very transparent. For example, if I lose my gateway, the manager will automatically create a gateway and bring everything up.

Their support is very good. Their response is fast. You can contact an engineer in a few minutes, but it depends on the severity of the issue. In the case of a high-severity issue, you can talk to an engineer to assist you with an issue.

Compared to other vendors our company has been working with, Check Point has better support. They have the best technical staff.

Positive

We only use Check Point products. In our data center, we are only using CloudGuard.

It is very easy. With a few clicks, you can implement your firewall. 

It is fair. Its license covers all the features. There is a cost-benefit. The licensing for the cloud is better than on-premises because, with on-premises, you have to pay separately for different things.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

In our Azure deployment, CloudGuard Network Security serves as our cloud firewall.

Using CloudGuard Network Security has streamlined our transition to Azure by providing continuity with our on-premises setup, ensuring seamless management, and allowing us to maintain our existing security protocols without disruption.

We find all the features valuable, particularly the firewall, application control, URL filtering, and HTTPS detection, as they cover our primary security needs effectively. We realized the benefits right away upon deployment.

Improvements needed include better integration with Azure features to match on-premises capabilities, particularly in areas like identity awareness, to ensure seamless functionality across both environments.

I have been working with CloudGuard Network Security for a few months.

We haven't had any stability issues with the product so far.

We haven't had to scale much yet, but we are confident CloudGuard Network Security can meet our needs effectively if required in the future. I would rate the scalability as a nine out of ten.

Overall, Check Point's service and technical support are good, with an effective resolution of issues, although there is currently one open ticket, they typically address root causes efficiently. I would rate the support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have seen ROI in time saved due to our familiarity with deployment, integration, and policy creation, avoiding the need for extensive learning or adjustments.

We wanted to maintain familiarity with Check Point while transitioning to the cloud, opting for CloudGuard Network Security in Azure over Azure's native firewall for its effectiveness and seamless integration with our existing network infrastructure.

CloudGuard Network Security offers unified security management across hybrid clouds and on-premises environments, ensuring comprehensive protection across all assets.

Unified security management simplifies our security operations by consolidating all aspects, like web filtering, application control, and firewall management, into a single, easy-to-use platform, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness.

I have high confidence in CloudGuard Network Security because it runs seamlessly like our previous setup and offers robust protection. I chose it over Azure's firewall because Check Point focuses solely on security, providing more features, logs, and insights.

CloudGuard Network Security is deployed across multiple departments and business units, with various consultants connecting in, although the user count isn't high yet, it is set to expand across multiple businesses.

I would advise evaluating CloudGuard Network Security based on what is most effective and familiar, rather than just what's convenient or included, prioritizing what suits your needs best.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Network Security as a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for CloudGuard Network Security are to scale the technology for protecting and filtering traffic within AWS and Azure environments.

The main challenge I was looking to address by implementing CloudGuard Network Security was the need to establish a firewall on our cloud perimeter for enhanced security.

The flexibility to rebuild the firewall in CloudGuard Network Security has helped our organization eliminate downtime.

CloudGuard Network Security has improved our organization by allowing us to easily deploy firewalls from the cloud wherever we might need them.

The most valuable feature I have found in CloudGuard Network Security is the flexibility to rebuild the firewall as needed.

CloudGuard Network Security could be improved in the area of upgrading in place.

I have been working with CloudGuard Network Security for five years.

The scalability of CloudGuard Network Security is very good and we can scale it as needed.

Check Point's service and tech support are very good, especially since we have access to their Diamond-level support. I would rate the support as a ten out of ten.

Positive

I find the pricing and licensing of CloudGuard Network Security to be pretty straightforward.

The main benefit we have seen from using CloudGuard Network Security is the ability to filter traffic by URL. We realized these benefits approximately six months after deployment.

Unified management of the firewall has positively affected our security operations by making it easy to manage from one place.

My advice for those evaluating CloudGuard Network Security is to remember that licensing is critical, so ensure that central licensing is configured properly.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Network Security as a ten out of ten.

We've implemented CloudGuard in Azure, configuring it as firewalls and file management systems. These functionalities skillfully oversee our API application and various aspects of our data center environment. Our entire infrastructure, hosted within Azure's data centers, is effectively managed by CloudGuard, ensuring comprehensive security coverage.

One of the notable benefits we've observed is the ease of deployment in our environment. It offers remarkable flexibility in how we configure and utilize the resources. This flexibility allows developers to seamlessly collaborate with network security experts to ensure that our applications are secure. This level of assurance has instilled confidence within our teams, knowing that we're deploying solutions that will be effectively managed.

CloudGuard Network Security offers unified security management across hybrid cloud and on-premises environments. With this comprehensive feature set, we benefit from enhanced flexibility. We can seamlessly manage both on-premises and cloud environments from a single interface, simplifying our operations and providing a centralized view of our data.

On a scale of one to ten, our confidence level in CloudGuard Network Security stands at an eight. This rating signifies that it surpasses the average level of confidence. While we acknowledge that there's always room for improvement in technology, we believe that CloudGuard Network Security has demonstrated its effectiveness and reliability.

The data center objects, checks, and other components are thoroughly examined, allowing us to incorporate them into our policy definitions. This approach has proven to be highly effective, akin to the standards typically seen in on-premises environments.

There is room for improvement regarding the technical support provided. Having a more refined and advanced feature would offer significant benefits.

I have been using it for three and a half years.

In terms of stability, it's rock solid. I haven't encountered much trouble over the past three and a half years.

It performs well in terms of the use case scenario where deployment is required, and its scalability is satisfactory. Overall, I would say it's good enough for our needs.

In terms of tech support, I would rate it a four on a scale of one to ten, which is lower than it used to be. Previously, I would have rated it a seven. Over the years, I've noticed a decline in the technical expertise of support staff. While I have extensive experience with Check Point products spanning fifteen to twenty years, I find it increasingly challenging to get the level of assistance I need. Support personnel nowadays seem to specialize in only one or two products, making it difficult to get comprehensive assistance for complex issues. This lack of holistic understanding delays problem resolution and frustrates customers.

Neutral

We've been loyal users of Check Point products for quite some time now. The company has a strong reputation in the industry, and I have more experience with Check Point products compared to others. It offers some of the best services available in the industry.

When comparing CloudGuard Network Security to other solutions for identifying security threats, it emerges as one of the leaders in the field. Our statistics demonstrate its effectiveness, with a notable ninety percent or higher success rate. Check Point covers the majority of our security needs, achieving a remarkable ninety-nine percent success rate, which is among the best in the industry. In terms of setup and reliability, we have a strong preference for CloudGuard.

We opted not to proceed with our vendor's cloud firewall solution because it lacked a comprehensive understanding of our network infrastructure. These solutions are primarily tailored to the specific environment of the vendor, which may not align with our needs. Instead, we prefer utilizing an NGFW appliance or a more versatile NBI device, such as those offered by Check Point. This approach allows us to avoid vendor lock-in and leverage familiar security devices. By partnering with third-party vendors like Check Point, we gain flexibility and can choose products specifically designed for security purposes. This contrasts with relying solely on the cloud service provider's offerings, which may prioritize their products over comprehensive security. In my opinion, solutions like those from Check Point offer a more mature and reliable approach to network security.

During the initial deployment phase, we encountered a learning curve as we transitioned from traditional firewall deployment methods to cloud-based environments. One concern was whether the throughput would match that of physical appliances. However, we ultimately found the performance to be satisfactory and were pleased with the results. We engaged with both Check Point and third-party experts to assist with deployment, given that it was a new process for us. Drawing on their expertise proved invaluable in navigating the deployment process smoothly.

The return on investment has become evident over the past three years. As a global company, we've successfully migrated over two hundred applications from on-premises to the cloud. This transition has provided us with greater flexibility and enhanced security measures, allowing us to efficiently patch and maintain applications without significant downtime. Overall, it has significantly improved our operational efficiency and streamlined our processes.

We explored both pay-as-you-go and build-your-own-licensing models, and found both to be competitive. While everyone desires lower prices, we're content with the current pricing structure, as it meets our needs effectively.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.