Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

We are a solution reseller, and we also assist our clients with support. This is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

This solution can be deployed in many ways. It is available in the cloud on AWS and Azure. You can install it in a virtual machine, you can have it as a hybrid, and you can have it on-premises.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM. You don't have to buy a UTM to start off with, but rather, you can buy a simple firewall and upgrade it. The simple firewall comes with many of the UTM features, in any case.

The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use.

I would like to see support for software-defined wirings in the next release of this solution.

I've got Check Point systems that have not been rebooted in two years, so it is quite stable.

This solution is quite scalable, but it requires hardware upgrades from time to time. Or, if you go with a virtual environment then it is very scalable because you start with one CPU and can increase to twenty-four CPUs.

Technical support for this solution is fairly good. We have got enough skill in our business to do most of it, but once you raise a call with support, they give you quite the fast and effective answer.

The initial setup of this solution is in-between, but more on the complex side. It's not the most complex product that I've worked with, but definitely not the simplest product that I've worked with.

The price of this solution varies from small to extremely expensive. On average, it is normally on the lower end, being less expensive than Palo Alto or Cisco.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from this solution is to never assume that something is simple, because there's always a hidden snag that we run into.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution is very important for our network. We use it for the data on our servers and for our internet connections. We also use it for all of our user devices to connect to outside corporations. The IPS on our devices prevents any issues from occurring. We use the on-prem version of this solution.

We currently upgraded our devices to a new version. We have noticed a performance increase. We tested filtering features and it's an interesting feature that helps us with our tasks. We don't need very complex features.

It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution. 

We have a local consultant for this solution. They can handle most of the operations with my team. We work together with the consultant sometimes for complicated scenarios like migration.

The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours. We migrated from an old to a new one. It's not so complex but Check Point is complex in comparison to other firewalls. For example, Palo Alto is easier to install than Check Point. 

We negotiate every deal to get a discount for a higher number of devices. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten and I would recommend this solution. Their support team should be faster because sometimes when we need support their responses are late. 

We have been researching this solution as something to provide for clients who are interested in implementing a high-security AWS environment.

This solution provides some security around holes that are uniquely present on AWS. We try to convey to clients and customers that when you move to AWS, the whole attack surface is different, and therefore you can't take your existing tools to AWS and then secure it in the same way as you can your traditional environment. You need to have tools that understand the nuance of AWS, and that's the reason we use Dome9. It has these unique skills and attributes in the AWS world.

Specifically, we are interested in securing IAM. It controls everything in AWS such as who can create computing instances and who can destroy them. Given that all of the power is with IAM, you have to make sure that you haven't over-privileged, or through the combination of people being users, groups, or roles, that they haven't collected too many privileges that you weren't aware of.

The feature that I found most valuable is the ability to scan IAM, the Identity and Access Management tool, for all of the privileged accounts.

Integration with other security tools would be of benefit.

I would like to see some AI on the back-end, just to assist with doing analysis and making recommendations.

The stability is rock solid.

I have no concerns with the scalability of this solution.

Technical support for this solution is excellent.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

This solution is easy to get going, although it requires a lot of training to get the best out of it.

It took us weeks to set it up, which was very quick. In terms of setting it up for a client, the strategy would depend on what holes they have in their security infrastructure, and how we can use this solution to close them.

We implemented the solution in-house and would assume this role for our customers.

This is the sort of tool for which ROI is not really considered. People implementing this solution are concerned with addressing a significant risk, and within the AWS realm, this tool does de-risk substantially.

It is a standard licensing fee, with no additional costs.

We evaluated another solution called Evident.io, but it had a lot of overlap with traditional tools, whereas Dome9 was unique in its approach.

This is a product that I would recommend because it does unique things that I'm not aware any other product can solve those issues. It is incredibly powerful and gives our customers a lot of assurance that we're taking AWS security seriously.

My advice for those implementing this product is to use every piece of it. Explore every option and feature and leverage it to the max.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is associated with a challenge whereby we have multiple cloud computing platforms. We have our past cloud platforms in AWS and ECP. Therefore, we can configure management and policy governance tools to deployment across all sites.

Dome9 has improved our organization in the way that we have a centralized view of all of our assets, our visible assets our ECs, our inventories. Then all the policies are centralized and it is easier to manage because everything is one component console. 

I would like to see Test B functions at the application access level.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is excellent; they are quite supportive.

The inial setup was straightforward.

The deployment took us about six months because we had issues while integrating. The issues weren't with Dome9.

We implemented Dome9 ourselves, in-house. We used our own set of experts.
I think there is less than six staff required for deployment and maintenance.

The licensing costs for this solution are on a yearly basis.

My advice is to try to get the trial period first because this will allow them to see if this is a suitable solution or not for their environment. They have to remember that this solution can only be compared to Test B, but it's not Test B. The trial allows for appropriate compatibility and suitability evaluations.

On a scale from one to ten, ten being the best, I would gladly rate this product an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is cloud protection for MC65 Operating System, AWS, and Microsoft.

Right now, we have a hybrid infrastructure. We needed security on the cloud, and this solution has provided the security that we were lacking.

• Traps prevention
• Security on the cloud

The product can still grow.

It is fast. It provides what we need at the moment, and it's still growing.

It is scalable. It's a cloud solution, so it's easy to implement and manage.

Technical support is fair. I have had some good support technicians when I call in. 

We were not on the cloud before. We're a big Check Point customer. Our secure perimeter is checkpoint, so we needed security for the cloud. So, it was a pretty easy decision right there. We evaluated other vendors, but it was easy decision.

The initial setup was straightforward, not complex.

We did our own deployment. We used a reseller for buying the product, but not for the implementation.

We also looked at Cisco's cloud products since we have a lot of Cisco products.

Look into it. I like how straightforward it is and simple it is to implement in the cloud. 

Our primary use case is for major cloud vendors: AWS and Azure. 

Moving into the cloud without having to change a lot of our internal processes and retrain staff is one of the biggest benefits of this solution. 

It is what we use mainly for on-premise. That is really what has us using the product, as it is sort of our standard for data centers.

I would like to see more focus on east-west traffic inspection and AWS.

Things are changing very quickly in the cloud. There is a lot more maturing that needs to happen as far as CloudGuard goes, specifically more around some cloud native type situations where everything is being shoehorned through one or multiple VMs is not optimal.

We definitely have to watch new versions and deploy them in a smart way, but that is the way with any type of software.

The scalability depends on the situation. Some situations are not very scalable. High scalability, in AWS, without matting is just not there. It's more of an AWS problem than it is a Check Point problem.

We are receiving our technical support through a partner. Therefore, we do not really engage directly with Check Point that much. We use the partner for technical support matters, who is great.

We did not use anything previously. Going to the cloud was a new requirement for us.

The initial setup was just as straightforward as setting up a physical Check Point box would have been.

We implemented in-house by deploying it ourselves.

We don't really track the ROI on this.

We also considered Fortinet. Check Point has better overall integration with Azure.

I was part of the decision-making process.

I would rate it a six out of ten. 

Other vendors typically are working with hardware acceleration and various other products, which you can't get in the cloud. One of the key things that made us more comfortable with Check Point is this is only thing that they do. It's the same exact thing as they are doing on-premise for the most part.

We use this solution to secure networks. We block unwanted malware. 

We have a development team who asked us to open reports. We asked that they initiate traffic to see what is blocking them. We then give them reports and after that, they ask to open the report for the traffic application and we work accordingly.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring. We can easily monitor what kind of stuff comes over to our network and we can then check the dashboard and work accordingly.

I would like for them to develop guides. If you compare it with Cisco, you can just type out any problem you're having regarding Cisco and you will easily get a solution. With Check Point, it's not easy to get a solution.

We maxed out scalability. 

The initial setup was a bit complex. Is take two or three months to implement and we have to continuously work on it. We needed two to three engineers for deployment. 

We researched the top firewall solutions and settled on Check Point and Palo Alto. Comparatively, both are good. 

Ultimately Palo Alto is a very advanced firewall. This firewall can easily identify what application is running behind the network.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We consolidated from three management consoles and three clusters to only one, which is a big improvement. 

In general, Check Point VSX is a good solution. Its blades and VSLS (Virtual System Load Sharing) work fine.

Having a web UI in the VSX (or something similar) would be nice. However, you can do everything in the CLI.

We are replacing three old cluster ASA firewalls and concentrating it into an all-in-one VSX cluster. This allows our central management have more time for other tasks.

We have an FTP infrastructure that is accessed by customers. As FTP service is quite vulnerable if not secured properly, before implementing Dome9 we had to apply multiple security solutions on the FTP servers.

Dome9 wrapped the FTP infrastructure with its network security configurations. This gives us the ability to monitor FTP activity as well.

• Centralized firewall management for both Windows and Linux distros - This is something that everyone is looking for. The initial version of Dome9 was one where you managed all the rules centrally in Linux and Windows, which was quite challenging. Now, to see in a single pane of glass, all the agents, all the rules, everything that is going on in out datacenters, is quite valuable.
• Visibility of the security configurations
• Clear view of the security configurations and connections across environments (DMZ, external and internal networks)
• The user interface is responsive and quite intuitive; when selecting an object it automatically shows the relevant actions

I’d like to see more integration with third-party tools. For example, it would be helpful to have an integration between Dome9 and ServiceNow to manage security incidents and security changes.

I don’t recall any stability issue from the first time we used it. It has been solid and reliable.

I didn’t encounter any scalability challenges. According to the vendor, we are far from the limit that has been tested by the vendor so far.

The technical support has been very professional and helpful. They are knowledgeable and answer our questions in a timely fashion.

We had been using iptables on Linux servers but it was missing centralized management. Also, configuring firewall security rules was quite a nightmare, especially testing.

The initial setup was straightforward, as the solution is quite intuitive.

In order to obtain better pricing, I would advise taking into account the existing number of devices and add a forecast of the number of devices to be added in the coming year or two. The company has multiple modules that you purchase independently or in groups, depending on your needs.

When we did market research five years ago, there were not many alternatives in the market for our purposes. We looked at Kaspersky Lab and Trend Micro but they didn’t address our needs.

We ran a PoC with Dome9 and it was transformed quickly into production.

My advice would be:

• Share your project goal(s) with the vendor to help you map the functionalities and modules needed, to be implemented in phases, during implementation.
• Map your existing security configurations and create a lab to test them with and without Dome9.
• Implement the solution progressively and look at the logs in the Dome9 application to learn about the network activity.

We use Dome9 to control our AWS security groups, evaluate and map security group traffic, and conduct compliance checks of our cloud environment regularly.

Dome9 continues to be a major piece of our cloud security architecture and has given our senior leadership team a high degree of confidence in our ability to protect our cloud environment. We have more visibility than ever before, appreciating the valuable and proactive insight that we receive from the platform.

Clarity and Compliance have become two of our favorite features. Clarity allows us to visually depict our security groups and effective policy for both our current environment and can do predictive visualization based on cloud formation templates. The Compliance engine has helped put our auditors and senior executives at ease, as we can quickly and accurately measure ourselves against hundreds of compliance checks to include CIS benchmarks, PCI, and other best practices.

Dome9 continues to enrich its features at a blazingly fast pace. I would like to see tighter integration with other compliance tools, like Chef Compliance, in addition to Inspector. Also, I would love to add more richness to the Splunk add-on for Dome9.

None, it has been a solid performer for us, and well within the SLA.

We have yet to encounter any issues with scalability.

We have not needed it much, but when we have, they have been very responsive and they truly are helpful.

Initial setup was super easy. We were integrated in 15 minutes, then it was just another hour or so of tuning and kicking the tires.

They support either annual licensing or hourly. At the time of our last negotiation, it was either one or the other, you could not mix or match. I would have liked to mix/match. 

We evaluated native AWS features and a competitor, Evident.io, but found that Dome9 was able to do all of what we needed in one tool instead of two.

Start with read-only and move to full-control slowly. When you go to full control, there will need to be good communications with your AWS teams, so they know it is there. Do not do full-control on your lab environment.

They are a great partner to work with. Not only is the product solid, but we have loved having a good relationship with their leadership and seeing our feedback manifest into real product updates and features!