Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

We use the product as an internal firewall between Azure, on-premises, and the internet. 

The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours. 

It eliminates the need to manually import hundreds of IP addresses into firewalls and architecture objects. This process now happens automatically. 

The tool helps us to automate processes. Operating it is relatively easy, especially for standard tasks like implementing firewall rules for source, destination, port, or URL. Our team can handle these tasks. 

We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations.

I have been using the product since 2016. 

The product is stable. 

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is easy. 

The tool's first response is usually prompt, and issues are generally resolved. Additionally, the support team proactively follows up, reminding us to provide necessary details when we might be on a high workload.

The deployment experience varies depending on the structure of your environment. In our case, we invested significant time in designing our network and aligning it with our existing Check Point environment. Once the overall design was complete, the actual deployment was straightforward. We have automated most of the process, enabling us to set up the environment within a few hours. Additional nodes can be added in just 20-30 minutes.

We had evaluated Barracuda before CloudGuard Network Security. We chose CloudGuard Network Security since Check Point knowledge was available in-house. 

Invest time in analyzing the templates provided by Check Point and tailor them to your specific requirements. Understanding the deployment process is crucial, as it allows you to benefit from it in later stages. You can optimize it later based on the needs. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

The architecture proposed is based on Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework enterprise-scale landing zone architecture. Enterprise-scale is an architectural approach and a reference implementation that enables effective construction and operationalization of landing zones on Azure at scale.

We're using CloudGuard solution in a NorthBound - SouthBound design to protect and filter both incoming and outgoing traffic.

Also, we are using a VMSS solution deployed in Azure, with a minimum of two instances

The design is based on a "Hub & Spoke" model in which the environment is set up as a system of connections arranged as a kind of bicycle wheel where the spokes are connected to a central point in the hub, and all traffic to and from the spokes passes through this hub.

The NorthBound/SouthBound design solution allows traffic to be scanned and filtered both when entering (NB) and exiting (SB) the organization.

This design is also extremely suitable for segmenting a network. Network segmentation is usually done to reduce the attack surface of the network and limit the ability of a malicious threat to spread freely across the network.

Also, CloudGuard came with a new benefit in terms of scalability, with the VMSS solution capable of auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include:

• Easy to administer and also to deploy, thanks to automated setup with pre-configured templates. On top of that, security comes first.
• The proactive threat detection results in huge risk reduction.
• It has a user-friendly interface; it's best in the market for policy management and log monitoring.
• There are multiple options to deploy (clustering, standalone, VMSS and single management solution, SMS or MDS, and even better: Infinity Portal).
• It has a really strong user community, which seems to compensate for the very poor vendor support.
• The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great.

Vendor support might be the weakest point of the CloudGuard solution. You really struggle to find a CloudGuard specialist, even for simple tasks. As mentioned before, you can find better answers to the user community (which is actually a downside of the product).

There are lots of limitations and discrepancies across different Cloud provider deployments.

Documentation might become too complex or too spread out, especially for newcomers.

As in the past, with traditional Check Point firewalls, it sometimes seems to be moving too fast with software releases and upgrade cycles, which are difficult to keep up with.

I have been using Check Point for more than ten years - and CloudGuard for almost a year.

CloudGuard constantly monitors cloud systems for misconfigurations and vulnerabilities that attackers could exploit. Many processes associated with cloud security management, such as asset detection, risk assessment, and remediation, are automated by CloudGuard. This allows security teams to concentrate on more strategic efforts. CloudGuard is intended to assist organizations in securing their cloud environments by continuously monitoring and analyzing cloud setups for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and compliance violations.

Many of the duties associated with maintaining cloud security are automated by CloudGuard, including asset detection, risk assessment, and remediation. 

In addition to improving compliance, this frees up security personnel to concentrate on more strategic initiatives and enables organizations to adhere to industry standards and laws like PCI DSS, HIPAA, and GDPR. 

It offers security advice and insights to assist organizations in acting quickly to address concerns. It also has automated remediation capabilities to address found problems and automatically enact security policies.

The asset detection, risk assessment, and remediation processes are only a few of the duties that CloudGuard automates while managing cloud security. This improves compliance, enables organizations to adhere to industry standards and laws like PCI DSS, HIPAA, and GDPR, and frees up security personnel to concentrate on more strategic objectives. 

It offers security insights and recommendations to assist organizations in acting and remediating issues swiftly. It also has automated remediation capabilities to address found issues and automatically enforce security policies.

Compliance checks on cloud resources against various industry standards and compliance framework templates need to be improved, to ensure that organizations meet regulatory requirements with clear visibility action controls. This can make it difficult to create and manage custom security policies. 

Cloud security posture management is a proprietary solution, which means that there is no open-source community to support it. This can make it difficult to get help with troubleshooting and other issues.

We have been adopting the solution for more than a year.

CloudGuard is known for being highly scalable and reliable. It handles big cloud workloads with ease and may be implemented in complex cloud infrastructures.

In terms of cloud solutions, the scalability was a fairly simple and entirely software-driven approach.

The customer support is good and offers regularly updated new features and security patches. This ensures that CloudGuard is always protected against the most advanced threats.

Positive

We adopted our cloud journey last year, and while developing the cloud, we took all security precautions. CSPM was a priority solution, and we have apt.

We implemented CSPM in 30 days. Since the solution was simple to implement and the transition was painless, we added many of our cloud environments.

We implemented the solution through a partner.

CloudGuard's return on investment (ROI) varies based on the organization and its cloud environment.

CSPM is an invaluable resource for any organization that makes use of cloud computing. It can assist organizations in improving their cloud security posture, reducing the risk of cyberattacks, and adhering to industry norms and regulations.

We evolved various CSPM tools such as PAN, TRELIX, and Fortinet, however, our management opted to install CloudGuard as a strategic step.

CloudGuard provides a comprehensive set of security solutions for cloud environments.

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.

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 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.

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.