Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

Most security solutions traditionally have been protecting physical assets within an environment, or reliance on an inline hardware appliance. CloudGuard takes the security controls that were previously packaged with physical appliances in mind and extends them to the virtual infrastructure.

It's an add-on capability to an existing virtual infrastructure, such as an AWS, Azure, or even on-premise solutions. It adds a security layer on top of your existing infrastructure with zero latency.

We're hosting it ourselves on our hypervisors, as well as starting to do so in some of our private cloud instances. It's solely managed by us with a pair of consolidated management servers.

This virtual platform is unique in the way that it augments our existing physical controls through a centralized management system. When many organizations, like ours, went from physical servers to virtual servers and desktops, there was a blind spot there. We no longer had visibility into what was happening within our environment, and that extended to the cloud as well where it's difficult, if not impossible, to introduce hardware — firewalls and other security protection. This solution takes what is still required around intrusion detection/prevention, anti-malware, and other threat protection capabilities and extends it to all of our virtual assets, regardless of where they live, in a private or public cloud.

CloudGuard has closed a significant gap that we had in our environment. We were searching for the right solution for many years, to gain visibility into, and protection of, all of our virtual asset servers, desktops, and workloads. There have been other products throughout the years that provided a similar type of technology, but had we purchased and move forward with those, we would have seen a degradation of performance within our environment, as traffic would have to be what's considered "hair-pinning" and going in and out of the virtual environment to another either virtual or physical appliance. We intentionally delayed our purchase of this kind of solution because we were not satisfied with that architecture. We weren't willing sacrifice performance degradation on our network. That's really the big benefit of the CloudGuard, it is able to live within the same virtual instances as the other virtual assets and workloads.

What's most valuable to me is that it's a contiguous solution that aligns well with the components that we've relied on and trusted from a traditional hardware, firewall, and unified threat management system. My engineers and analysts don't have to learn another platform. We have already entrusted our security controls to Check Point for perimeter and physical security, and now we can do so at the virtual layer as well, which is key to us. It really augments their current stack of capabilities. It all aligns well under their umbrella of their Infinity architecture, which we have adopted.

It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance. 

We are frequently in contact with Check Point's Diamond Support, Product Development Managers as well as their sales team, as we look to keep apprised of where the product ius and should be going. Most of our requests have been around our physical assets, the physical UTM devices — Check Point Maestro, as an example — as well as their endpoint systems. There has not been anything at this time where we've said, "We wish CloudGuard did X differently." CloudGuard, in my opinion, having recently talked with them, is continously improving and is incorporating some of their recently acquired capabilities, such as Dome9 cloud compliance. Those are areas I have been evaluating and looking to add to my environment. My preference would be that it be included in my CloudGuard subscription licensing, and not an add-on; But that's the only thing that I could say that would be beneficial to us as an enhancement to the system.

We've been using Check Point CloudGuard IaaS for about three years.

The stability has been great. There has been no concern at all. We have not had any known downtime or issues to speak of.

Scalability was well thought out and designed. I've spoken about this at several Check Point CPX events. Throughout the instances that we have, if a single Check Point CloudGuard instance is overloaded due to event load, it will intelligently redirect that workload to another service on a different host, so that it's not delaying the interrogation of the traffic.

It's being used throughout our environment. We will increase usage only when we augment our cloud offerings.

Users, in this case, are the IT security and networking folks that support it and rely on these controls being effective. They analyze the output of the event interrogation. Right now, I have three resources supporting CloudGuard. I don't have dedicated staff for maintaining the solution. They're shared resources who work on other network and security devices. From an operational standpoint, it's a fraction of an FTE that is required.

Check Point's technical support for this solution, overall, is very good. Check Point has architected this solution well enough that it has similar, if not the same, code base as the physical devices. It doesn't appear to be a big lift and can leverage the same support engineers for CloudGuard as we would have for our physical devices.

We never found a solution we were satisfied with, and which would not affect our overall operational performance.

I was not personally involved in the initial deployment, as I'm the CISO of the organization, but I was closely engaged with my engineers. The CloudGuard portion of our installation and setup was extremely simple, in comparison to the integrated component on the virtualization side of things. Check Point made it extremely easy to deploy and configure, especially because it's done from our consolidated management devices that we're already familiar from our physical unified threat management devices.

The delays in deployment were mostly due to the virtualization side of things. If it was just CloudGuard alone, we probably could have had that done in about six to eight weeks. But there were several starts and stops due to the accompanying VMware component, which has really extended, I hate to say it, over 12 months.

In terms of our implementation strategy, the intent is that every host in our environment that serves up virtual assets and workloads would have an instance of CloudGuard installed on it. And then all respective HTTP/HTTPS traffic would be routed through Check Point for visibility and interrogation, so that if any of its threat controls determined that an asset was rogue or infected due to some malicious insider or outsider, it would automatically quarantine that device. We have tested that and it worked successfully.

We installed it with the help of Check Point-badged engineers. To be honest, we had to ask for a new lead engineer. And once that occurred, the project implementation went very smoothly.

ROI is a very difficult metric in the security space. We've been fortunate that we haven't had an event in which we would say that because of CloudGuard our MTTD and MTTR was low and we quickly identified and stopped a malicious adversary.

However, we are now more confident in our security controls and visibility. CloudGuard plays a significant role in our SOAR (Security Orchestration Automation and Response) initiative. We can now automate the isolation of an infected machine with the help of CloudGuard.  This in itself is the best ROI as it doesn't require manual intervention to detect and respond.

The pricing and licensing of this is much more digestible than that of its hardware equivalent. I've found, in times past, especially on the hardware side of things, that the licensing support and maintenance could be very daunting to understand. If that has scared folks away in the past, CloudGuard is much simpler. 

Licensing is simply by the number of hosts that you are looking to protect within your environment. It makes it much easier to ensure that you are covering your environment.

If you are not already a Check Point customer for the UTM and the SmartEvent, there likely would be an additional cost, beyond the standard CloudGuard licensing, if you wanted the reporting. It's a unique instance where we already had an established infrastructure of Check Point devices on our network, and then we added CloudGuard to it. Had we started with CloudGuard, and only had virtual assets to protect, it is possible that there would be additional cost. I would urge folks to look into what it would cost to add the reporting capabilities and log event management.

We looked at offerings from Cisco (ACI), Illumio and Gigamon. This was about three-and-a-half years ago.

The main differentiator, and the reason we selected Check Point, is how it integrated with our virtualization platforms. It lived there natively. It had the least amount of overhead to interrogate the traffic within our environment. It also aligned well with our consolidated reporting and management solutions that we have come to rely on from our Check Point physical UTM devices.

Intently know and understand the integration points within your environment. It is a great security solution, but understand how integrated it is with, and what level of partnership there is between, Check Point and the virtualization platform that you're looking to add it on top of.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that the Check Point CloudGuard features, although good, are only as good as the accompanying virtual platform and its level of integration. I have to be honest: Overall, this is the ideal solution for us and our organization, but it is slightly more complex. There are newer competitive products that take a different stance, that are agent-based. We did not want — and this is another key distinction — a solution that wasn't agent-based in which we had to deploy a piece of software on each and every virtual endpoint. Having this done at the hypervisor level definitely was the right strategy for us. However, the lesson learned, with this type of solution, is that it is very important to understand the nuances of your virtualization platform and what is required on that side to enable the Check Point CloudGuard.

You're relying heavily on the partnership and the capabilities of that virtualization platform. Going in, understand the degree of that partnership and the respective road maps of each, because the CloudGuard solution is only as good as the capabilities it has with the virtualization platform. That's especially true for large enterprises that want to constantly move workloads around and have their rule set follow in an event where they're having to ensure that systems are always alive and always protected.

My experience with the solution has mainly been implementing it with an auto-scaling on behalf of my clients. My job was to migrate an on-prem firewall to AWS cloud. I'm a senior security architect. 

I think one of the valuable features is the auto-scaling, which is based on traffic and  automatically spins one more firewall and adds it to the management server. The zero touch is also a valuable feature. After re-tagging the next internal load balancer within Check Point, it automatically writes up a mac rule and an access rule. As long as you're adding a server into the internal load balancer, you won't need to touch anything. In a Check Point firewall, the mac rules and access rules are automatically written up. Zero touch means there is no need to insert rules again when you're adding servers internally. 

There is definitely some improvement required. We currently use a deployment template provided by AWS each time. If I want to clean up the IaaS I have to use the IaaS template which should not be necessary. Secondly, because it's zero touch, I cannot write up any rules in the firewall. I understand these features might have been built particularly for zero-touch but from the perspective of a network and firewall engineer, some independence to configure something on the firewall would be appreciated. 

An additional feature that could improve the solution would be to enable both automatic and manual control that would allow the engineer complete control over the firewall.

The solution is generally stable although it crashed one time while I was implementing. 

The solution is absolutely scalable. 

The technical support is excellent.

My advice to anyone wanting to implement this solution would be to religiously follow the guidelines. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are a reseller of security solutions, and we also offer professional and managed services around them. We cover network security, web application firewalls, email, web security, security information and event management, privilege access management, and other such products.

Dome9 is one of the solutions that we implement for our customers, and they use it to help secure their cloud. It works on several cloud platforms, including Azure and AWS. It will handle security issues such as ensuring a proper configuration, that the credentials are set up correctly, and that the storage of sensitive data is appropriately configured.

Some of our customers use Dome9 for discovery, to help them understand the different accounts that they have in the cloud. Very often, there can be a proliferation of cloud-based accounts and applications that the organization on a wider basis is not aware of. Dome9 is very good if you need to get an inventory and reporting on the current state of your environment.

The most valuable feature is the discovery. People are often quite shocked when they run the analysis and figure out all of the accounts and servers that are running in their environment. These are accounts that they are unaware of.

The reporting against compliance is an important feature that helps you comply with policies and standards within your organization.

I have been working with Dome9 for about one year.

I have never had any negative feedback about stability, so I assume that it's perfectly stable.

Dome9 is very scalable, although as it scales it can become quite costly. As such, for some of our customers, scaling is not possible because it is cost-prohibitive.

I have not personally deployed Dome9 so I have not had any contact with technical support.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. You can get it up and running in a matter of hours. Because it is cloud-based, it pulls the information in via APIs. As long as you can put in the relevant account details, it can work almost immediately.

There is a language that you can use to create policies and rules, which gives you the ability to do more complicated things, but it will take longer to set up.

It only takes a few people to deploy this solution. One from our side and perhaps two from the customer's side.

It is a very straightforward licensing model that is based on the number of assets you are discovering and managing with the solution.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is to look at the free proof of concept that is available. This makes it very easy to try out at no cost. I suggest trying it out on a subset of the environment first, just to get everything working well. After establishing what reporting you want, and what policies you want to check your environment against, you can expand to cover a wider set of your environment.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that organizations are very uninformed about their cloud presence, what assets they have, and what shape it's in. It's huge exposure for the organization to have all of these assets in the cloud but not have the visibility and traceability around them. Organizations that don't have a solution like this are often insecure because of what they have in the cloud.

Overall, Dome9 is a good product and I haven't received any negative feedback from our customers about it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we are evaluating multiple tools for cloud workload security and vulnerability management. We are evaluating products such as Dome9 to figure out which one would be best for our customers.

This solution is used to replace a variety of cloud security and management tools.

Dome9 can be used centrally manage many different functions that take care of operations such as scanning the network.

All of the features are very useful in today's market.

Dome9 should also support deployments that are on-premises and in a hybrid cloud.

This solution needs DLP support.

I have been using Dome9 for less than one year.

We have not experienced any issues in terms of stability, although we are still exploring the tool.

We are currently running Palo Alto Prisma and evaluating it together with Dome9.

It is easy to implement Dome9 but there are many policies that need to be configured.

Once the deployment is complete, the policies have to be set up and validated. All of the policies need to be relevant to my customers, which means that some of them will have to be disabled. For example, policy requirements will vary from country to country.

This solution can be used in many different markets such as medical or insurance, and different challenges will be present depending on the market.

 The process can take a month or a month and a half.

In addition to evaluating Dome9 and Palo Alto Prisma, we are considering Qualys, as well as a customized solution by Security Compass.

One of our customers is also using Check Point CloudGuard, which we are trying to replace with Dome9.

I would like to understand the reporting, how secure the solutions are, and how it can be implemented such that my framework is mapped to those tools.

The functionality that is used will vary depending on the use case. For example, in a recent use case that I worked on, the data packets had public access without exception. However, this should not have been allowed.

I definitely suggest that people use Dome9 because I have used it since last year and I really like the features. It is also stable. There is only one feature, DLP, that is not present and we have found in Prisma.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use this solution as our perimeter firewall. 

The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support. We have been using this for a long time, so it is not a feature from the latest version.

We would like to be able to scale out such that we can increase performance within a cluster with more active nodes.

Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDS/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with a recent hardware upgrade.

A great enhancement for this solution would be an active-active or multi-active scalability.

As we need to fulfill higher bandwidth demands due to increased cloud usage and research-driven data exchange, we might need to look for other vendors with more competitive pricing.

This is a stable solution.

Six months ago, we updated our version to the most recent one.

The scalability of this solution is limited, which is why we have started looking for alternatives. Currently, we have about twenty-thousand users.

Technical support for this solution is good. They have a quick response and the solution was available within a short period.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

This initial setup of this solution is complex.

The preparation for deployment took two days, and the deployment itself took about two hours.

We have three staff who are responsible for maintaining the firewall, although there are more tasks that they handle, in addition to it.

We enlisted the help of a service provider to assist us with the implementation. 

The price of this solution could be improved. We pay approximately ‎€150,000 ($166,000 USD) per year. We receive four days of support every year from our service provider before we have to contact Check Point. 

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution, although we are currently considering alternative solutions from Forcepoint and Fortinet.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to start by identifying high-bandwidth use cases. If you have any, and you have a high-security requirement, then I suggest considering other options.

This is a secure and reliable solution for us, although we are a bit disappointed with the limited scalability and resource consumption.  

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

As per the solution's blade design, there are many options. For example, you have to buy a UTM blade and an advanced malware blade, etc. If the blade license is there, we can configure from the firewall GUI. 

The net policy and routing are also great features.

If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration.

Also, we have to inform customers that with Check Point there's no need to purchase any routing device. Check Point can do that routing as well as the Firewall and the IPS. The marketing should be stronger, to show that customers only need one box to handle all the features. It will be cost-effective and enhance the performance and value, but because of their poor marketing, customers don't realize this.

In the future, a color string would be powerful. Sandboxing should also be offered. Many people want the Trend Sandbox but not on the cloud. In the Middle East, there is a policy for Sandboxing that states it should be on Trend as per the government law. They have Sandboxing solutions on the cloud, but they have to bring the solution onto Trend also. Palo Alto has Wildfire, Cisco has Talos, and Forcepoint has one available as well.

In the future, routing protocols should be more supported like OSPF and BGP. There needs to be integration with the SDN. I don't know if SDN is there or not in Check Point, but SDN is one of the major requirements nowadays.

The solution is very stable.

We just deployed the solution, so scalability I cannot speak to right now. But, as per Gartner and NSS Lab, they're allegedly very good. I don't think there will be an issue with scalability.

I am currently also working on Cisco ASA, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

I'm an Operation Engineer; I handle the deployments myself. 

Compared to Cisco Firepower Threat Defense, the solution is cheap. However, not as cheap as Fortinet or Palo Alto. If clients have smaller budgets, we would have to advise one of those instead.

There are two deployment model modes in Check Point. One is a gateway level and one is a no gateway all-in-one box solution. With the gateway level, only hardware will be there, all operating systems are stored in a VMware and if there are any issues in the hardware, you just replace the box; all of your policies will be saved into VMware.

The all-in-one box you have the GUI policies and also the gateway so it's secure. If there is an issue in the box - like failure or downtime - all of the networks will be affected.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We haven't been using it too long, so we haven't had a chance to look at all aspects of the solution. I would recommend Check Point to customers because it is an affordable option.

We install the solution for our customers and Check Point is our preferred solution in any firewall deployment. The two-layer architecture with the administration and security makes a difference and in every instance, we know who the user is.

The touch features are very different than other brands. From the feedback I get from my customers, Check Point is the best.

Check Point gives us a strong solution that we can depend on when deploying it for clients.

The most valuable features are within the unique architecture that creates flexibility in the deployment.

The knowledge base that is available is limited and it is on a closed network where only a customer or certified engineer will know about it. A beginner who wants to learn about the product actually has to enroll in training or get certified and have a valid license or certification to access information. That is something I find strange as most users would like to know about it. The new users would like to be able to see those areas and what type of concerns or any configuration issues they may have before deciding to work with the product. To me, that is a simple open-mindedness. In terms of the availability of the system and functionality of the product, there's no concern. But the problem is that efficient VSX (Virtual System Extension) deployment is complicated. Most of our customers are afraid to deploy any configuration changes because they are afraid something will happen.

It's not the same situation as with other products. I guess the reason behind it is the kind of architecture which they are using. There are more possibilities to crash than other products. That is the feedback I normally get from end-users, but even so, for us, I would say it's one of the best product.

Check Point is very stable. I would say that initially there were a couple of issues we had during deployments. But now we have climbed the learning curve of the product and all installations are very stable. We have most clients running on version 7.3 and didn't upgrade most further from there because we know that 7.3 is stable and it is what we are running most of the customers now.

Scalability is fine. In fact, we are demonstrating the hyper scale with most of the customer now. There is no doubt about the scalability and it is not a problem.

Up until now, we have not had to register with technical support from Check Point. If we needed help we got support with the presale technical support team from our region. He was able to help us internally. The team helps us to get products stable. Up until now, we did not contact them. It is not very transparent. They approach resolutions through a partner and the partner solves the case. They seem to mostly depend on partners for the resolution of issues.

We deploy a variety of products for our clients depending on their needs. Check Point is one of the most reliable.

I would say that the installation is straightforward when you have learned about the architecture. Before that, the installations may be a little confusing.

We are partners with Check Point so we handle the installations and deployment. In the beginning, we did have some engineers from Check Point assist us in the initial installations, but after that it was fine and we were able to manage it by ourselves.

Check Point pricing is high. It is a sector where there is heavy competition so it does not help when trying to sell the product. But one thing is that the sales chain is fantastic. The price is usually the most difficult thing when we discuss Check Point with customers, their feedback is that it is not a competitively inexpensive product. Clients want to know why that is and if we could scale the price. Check Point can have more presence in the market, but if they want it to compete, they have to come down in price a little more. I would say 20 to 30% lower. The product is fine.

The web application firewall is commonly used in most firewalls now. If they can add that as a feature, it would be a very strong scenario. When we use Check Point on a perimeter or a DMZ zone, the first thing that clients ask is if there is wireless protection. Check Point has IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) but it does not have wireless protection. So if production is using the cloud if they can integrate mobile app protection, mobile shielding, there's more value for Check Point, but if they include that, Check Point could be the very best firewall option.

On a scale from one to ten, when one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Check Point as an eight. It needs to do better in pricing and with broader features for mobile.

One thing that I learned from multiple installations of Check Point is that you have to train the customer before implementing. Unless the customer is already a highly skilled security engineer so that they know what they can get out of the product, they will not be as satisfied. Otherwise, just before the deployment, we have them go for training so they understand the product and what it can do.

They will be happier and they won't choose to go with another product in the future. Even with my engineers who understand many other products, I trained them properly before I send them out for deployments. Check Point is not a product that if you don't know you can just install without knowing anything about it. You have to know the architecture first. You have to know each and every option than work on the product. Then it will be far better and say no to certain features which are not important to use. On the other hand, knowing it is available is fantastic and becomes an option in the right situations.

We primarily use the solution as firewall security for our clients.

The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features.

Reporting needs improvement. It's difficult to utilize properly. Currently, I'm in a situation whereby a client of ours is looking for reporting on their organizational unit. Check Point has failed to do that. We've been trying to do it for the past month and we haven't been able to. We've also gotten techs from Check Point to call us to help and we just can't get the solution to do what we need it to do.

Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself. 

The stability of the solution is fantastic.

The scalability potential of the solution is great. We use the solution quite extensively. We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If I were rating technical support out of ten, I would give it a seven. They're inconsistent. Sometimes you do get guys from Check Point to help you out and then sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's hard getting a hold of them.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the organization.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

I am familiar with Fortinet, although I didn't do a direct comparison. I did compare other solutions as well.

For those who want to implement the solution, they should make sure they have a very strong networking background.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are able to use the solution for cloud protection and in parallel with or just for network protection. In our scenario, we use it as a border network firewall, which is based on a virtual environment and we're using it for the border protection of our network. 

We find Check Point valuable because they are 100% focused on security. It totally closes the potential vulnerability channel. We can check our mail and our attachments and we can scan everything easily. We get an immediate report about the situation of the attachments. We can discover if the target's security attack was started from phishing, etc. We also enjoy using the additional features that protect our internal customer from targeted attacks.

The stability of the solution could be improved, but this is the problem of all the solutions in the market. This isn't just a problem specific to Check Point.

The stability is good. It's really good compared with Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco, most of all. But it definitely can be better.

The scalability of the solution is good. Right now, the solution protects about 400 customers.

The solution's technical support is good. If we have problems, we can speak directly to Check Point, or we can speak to one of their partners or a local partner. The solution has a great community that surrounds it.

The initial setup was complex because we were using a complex networking architecture. It took us about two days to implement the solution. For administration of all of this infrastructure, we need two people. For deployment and maintenance, we need just one person.

We used the implementation guide provided by the company to assist with deployment.

Our licensing is yearly at a fixed cost.

The solution has a very flexible pricing model. It can provide the same level of security and performance, but in parallel, can be subscription-based.

The solution is the on-premises deployment model which we use in our server environment.

We are an integration company, and although we deal with other solutions, we mainly focus on Check Point.

The solution is a great mix of user experience, flexibility, security features, and cost. After five years, I believe the total cost ownership will be much cheaper than any competitor.

The advice I would give to others interested in implementing is that this solution does have security problems. Not Check Point, per se, but in the network environment. The security recommendation from the Check Point and from us is to use the VSX in the internal network. It should not protect your border because there are some issues around bugs, etc. It could cause vulnerabilities if it's used this way. 

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for security.

The IPs and the VPN are the most valuable features of this solution.

I would like to see an improvement on the zero-day threat detection. It is also not very user-friendly, so it would be great if it could be less complicated and easier to operate. The dashboard needs to be easier to use.

Also, if the solution could be cheaper, it would really help, because it is very expensive. 

I would like to see sand boxing added to the new version.

The program is very stable.

The technical support is excellent and they always responded when we had an issue.

The initial setup wasn't too complicated, but it wasn't very easy and straightforward. Deployment took us about a week. 

It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees. So I would like to see it being more affordable in the future.

I will recommend this program to others and my rating is seven out of ten. I do recommend that users should always use the checkpoints and backup as often as they can.