Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

Currently, we were counting on a hybrid cloud and we needed to integrate the latest generation of security. We came to lean towards one of the security leaders in the market. These powerful capabilities position it and allow us to increase cloud security elastically while keeping up with the dynamic requirements of our business. 

We use the cloud to integrate it into our hybrid cloud. It dynamically provides us with advanced security and consistent policy enforcement that automatically grows and scales with our cloud environment. With CloudGuard IaaS, we can easily protect workloads and applications.

Being able to move computing resources and data to public clouds means that security responsibilities are now shared between us and our cloud provider. While the cloud provider provides infrastructure protection, we as customers want to be able to control our own data and protect cloud assets while complying with internal regulations. On the other hand, we required complete traffic visibility and reporting, as well as proactive protection from even the most advanced threats within virtual network environments. CHKP offered us advanced threat protection to prevent the lateral spread of threats within defined data centers.

There are many important characteristics that for me are the best of the solution and come to support an emerging market:

• It improves the productivity of the company.
• It performs very complex or high value manual operations intellectual in a controlled and neglected way.
• There's a simplicity when performing tasks.
• It improves the availability of engineers to carry out projects.
• To all this we can add the ability to connect via API, and integrate solutions from developers trained for management from any location.

The solution from my experience is very good. What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America. These are markets that have been growing, however, the teams need a lot of time and training and in that period a specialized technician in the local language is required to support the constant requests. After that, I accept that Check Point surprises me as it has always done with its excellent work in innovation.

I've used the solution for around two years.

As a company, we are a value-added reseller. We have to use it first before we can propose it to our clients. We have to give it a clean bill of health before we can actually propose this to the client. We have to conduct a proof of concept, which runs for around 30 days. The client has to give the okay before we can actually deploy it for them.

Clients have been using it and they haven't had any negative feedback. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The product is scalable.

We find the stability to be quite good.

Check Point is one of the few solutions that pay attention to cloud security. Many others mostly focus on providing on-premises solutions.

To be honest, we don't have many clients who have taken CloudGuard, as the feedback has not been that great. There are a few clients who have taken the CloudGuard due to the fact that there is a lot of competition in terms of endpoint protection from Trend Micro and other leading vendors. 

There are few clients who have CloudGuard and the response is quite positive. However, it comes down to dealing with the challenge of when the client needs both protection for workstations and their physical and virtual servers. With Check Point, we don't have that ability. They have just CloudGuard, which protects the workstations and servers. With other vendors, there's a separation between the endpoint protection for workstations and for the servers and then something else for the virtual environment. The challenge comes in when you're trying to propose this to the client. They'll ask you how they can be sure that this will protect their virtual or physical data centers collectively, and also protect the workstations.

Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point.

Generally, visibility is the issue. Clients really just need more visibility to know they are protected. 

We find the stability to be good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is there if a company needs to expand it. 

Technical support is okay. It's average. The local support is good, however, now when you go to global support, there's a bit of a challenge. It takes time compared to other vendors. Their global support is not that active. I have some clients who have been complaining that they raise a technical issue and it takes maybe one or two days before they get any feedback. 

That said, here, in terms of technical support, the local Kenyan support is very good. They're quite supportive.

I also work with Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. 

The other vendors, they're not doing that well in terms of cloud security, as they tend to concentrate on on-prem security. The physical security, that's at the endpoint level. However, Check Point is doing quite well in terms of cloud security. 

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's quite simple and straightforward.

The solution is expensive. If I rate Check Point, Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto, Sophos comes in at a cost that is pretty low. Then Fortinet, and then Palo Alto. Check Point is at the edge. It's a bit expensive or it's quite expensive. When you are trying to propose Check Point, it's more of an OpEX and even a CapEx project. It cannot go through a normal request for a quotation. It has to be a CapEx project. At the beginning of every financial year, a customer or end-user has to consider this to be able to purchase a Check Point firewall.

For most Check Point CloudGuards, it's not actually deployed on the private cloud of the end-user. They usually deploy it on the public cloud.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The clients who are using it have nothing bad to say about its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution. They are doing quite unique workarounds with cloud security while many others are more focused on on-premises.

We had a big problem with how to protect our host services, which are directly accessed via the cloud. We wanted to protect our organization tenant and workload from any next-generation attack. For this protection, we implemented the Check Point solution named CloudGuard Network.

This NGFW is provided by Check Point and has all of the capabilities that are required to protect against next-generation attacks at the perimeter level.

The modules or security features that we use are provided as part of the base license. These include VPN, IPS, Application Control, and Content Awareness. Together, these are strong and help to protect the organization.

This solution effectively protects us against any next-generation attack.

The most valuable feature is the centralized dashboard, which is used for managing all of the Check Point Security Gateways.

Whether it is hosted on-premises or on the cloud with the NGTX license, it provides additional security capabilities such as SandBlast, which is able to extract and emulate file execution in a virtual sandbox. It will identify activity and actions, and the system can be configured accordingly.

It provides hyperscaling capabilities for both on-premises and cloud-based security gateways. An on-premises security gateway can be configured for hyperscaling using the Maestro 140 or Maestro 170. In the cloud, on AWS it can be hyper-scaled using the AWS gateway load balancer.

It's able to protect against advanced threats and prevent zero-day attacks using both SandBlast and IPS signatures.

Throughput is impacted drastically once the security modules are enabled on the firewall.

As it is a software-based firewall, there is no dedicated throughput available for each module.

In case the device is inaccessible due to some issue such as CPU or memory, there is no separate port or hardware partition provided for troubleshooting purposes.

Throughput on the virtual firewall is an issue in case the organization wants to migrate a workload to the cloud, and it becomes a bottleneck.

We have been using the Check Point CloudGuard Network for between two and five years.

The combination of NGFW + URL Filtering + Antivirus + Anti Bot, with 8 vCore D4 v2, is able to provide a throughput of 4Gbps.

On Azure, the combination of NGFW + URL Filtering + Anit Virus + Anit Bot, with 8vCore c5n 2xlarge, is able to provide a throughput of 4.7Gbps. It is similar to AWS.

As we are moving our workloads to the cloud, it means that we now have a need to protect our cloud infrastructure. This will ensure that our business is deploying products faster and with all of the required security.

Our solution needs to be able to protect workloads hosted on multiple clouds with the required security control. The license should be a subscription-based model so that we can add or remove depending upon the requirement to scale.

It needs to support a microservice platform such as Docker or another container, and it should be quick to deploy.

This solution gives us advanced threat prevention to protect our workloads from attacks including zero-day and other types of attacks.

It is able to provide cloud network security along with orchestration and automation. It also provides consolidated, consistent visibility and management across all clouds including public, private, and hybrid environments.

This product is quick to deploy, scalable, and is a fully functional firewall available in the cloud. We were able to scale as required based on load and performance. With Covid-19, our users, including our Customer Center agents, are completely remote and rely on Check Point Cloud Guard to provide flexibility and seamless access. 

We have the ability to easily encrypt/decrypt traffic according to the security policy, as well as integrate between Active Directory, Cloud Guard Azure objects & application control.

It provides micro-segmentation functionality through complete visibility and control of traffic following between EAST-WEST and North-SOUTH with VPC and Outside VPC.

We are using multiple security features including the firewall, DLP, IPS, application control, IPsec VPN, Antivirus, and Anti-Bot. SandBlast provides Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation for zero-day attacks.

SSL/TLS traffic inspection features are used for advanced threat prevention against secure SSL traffic.

Unified Security Management provides security policy management, enforcement, and reporting for public, private, hybrid-clouds, and on-premises networks in a single-pane-of-glass.

Seamless cloud-native integration with Azure, AWS, GCP, Oracle Cloud, and more.

System hardening could be improved, as password complexity is not enforced by default on root / command-line passwords.

The documentation provided by Check Point can be rough and needs to have a lot more detail incorporated in order to help the implementor and administrator.

The HA failover time is not as fast as expected and due to this, the convergence time between cluster members is still not perfect. Consequently, there may be an issue in migrating the mission-critical business applications. 

Micro-Segmentation functionality for EAST-WEST traffic is not native and requires integration with a third-party OEM.

We are performing a PoC with the product. 

As with other Check Point products, this solution is scalable.

Support from OEM is excellent.

We have a different solution that works in silos and we are doing this PoC to check the functionality/features.

Integration and setting up the solution are straightforward.

We are performing our PoC with assistance from the OEM.

The cost is on the higher side, as it is based on workload, hence we need to decide which VPC or workload needs to be part of CloudGuard.

We did not evaluate other options.

The perimeter firewall provides me control over my perimeter servers and devices.

Current cloud applications are getting good protection from CASB solutions but they are limited to data leakage and application control. Beyond that, I require something to monitor my data that flows inside of my cloud application.

Sophisticated threats, such as zero-day attacks, can't be controlled by CASB solutions. Instead, they require something that can work using artificial intelligence. They should have a correlation with machine learning algorithms to defend against today's attacks for my cloud applications.

Sophisticated attacks can't be prevented using normal SaaS security. CloudGuard SaaS is a technology that prevents not only sophisticated attacks but offers protection email threats.

Most attacks that succeed are because of SPAM emails. When users fall into an attacker's trap, Check Point's industry-leading technology provides maximum protection. It is effective against email phishing attacks and provides visibility over shadow IT applications.

Along with an email security solution, CloudGuard adds another layer of comprehensive security and we can completely rely on it.

CloudGuard comes with the best feature sets that include protection from Zero-Day attacks, which we usually get when we have blades on the perimeter firewall. These are analyzed using SandBlast Threat Emulation and SandBlast Extraction.

We are able to easily identify users who are going to use cloud applications when they log in from either a trusted network or device.

We have complete visibility of attacks originating from email including spear-phishing, spoofing, etc.

Based on the reputation of the domain and URL, the firewall allows traffic to flow.

I would like this product to provide functionality like a web application firewall, where we can fully monitor all traffic passing both to and from the cloud.

The latency should be minimized by having multiple entry points all across the world. Nearby requests will have lower latency access to cloud applications.

It would be useful to have AD integration with an on-premises server.

The API integration is complex, which is an area that should be improved.

Onboarding this product takes some expertise because it is complex compared to other services that Check Point provides.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network for more than a year.

Need to focus on stability.

This solution is highly scalable.

Technical support, along with presales engineers have good knowledge of the product.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is a mixture of straightforward and complex.

We deployed vendor

Although I don't have specifics for pricing, based on my overall experience, I can conclude that Check Point provides the best pricing when comparing to other vendors.

We did not evaluate other products.

We primarily use the solution when clients are for searching in the servers. We compare the solutions or servers that are available and we seek out new features for the new solutions for our customers. We're solution providers. This is one of the products we offer.

The solution, overall, has worked very well for our organization.

The reliability of the product is excellent.

The configuration capabilities are very good.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The capability and the response, in terms of the time of response of the transactions, is very important for my customers. It's something they need to continuously work on to make it better.

The memory and hard disk capability could be strengthened.

The product should integrate next-generation firewall features such as anti-spam and anti-spoofing.

I've been using the solution for 20 years or so. It's been a long time.

While the stability is okay, the servers could use more RAM memory.

In general, the scalability is good. If a company needs to expand the solution, it should be able to do so.

We typically work with medium-sized organizations. In some of the companies, there are as many as 1,000 users.

Technical support has been good. We don't have any complaints so far. If a customer needs to reach out to them, they can do so.

The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's rather straightforward. A company should have too many issues getting it set up properly.

The deployment process is quick and easy. It takes maybe an hour or two. It's not a long time.

In my company, we have 20 people that manage the deployment and maintenance for our clients. You only really need two to manage everything.

Check Point has moderate pricing. It's not the most expensive, however, it's also not the cheapest. Typically, when clients are looking for a solution, it comes down to the price.

Typically, our clients will also look at Palo Alto as an option. However, typically, it is more expensive.

Clients may also look at Fortinet products, which are a bit less. Check Point tends to sit in between the two in terms of pricing.

We're solutions providers. We're partners with Check Point. We offer integrations and support. This is one of the products we offer to our clients.

We're using the latest version of the solution. The platform is R80.40. It's deployed on VMware's virtual environment.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. The likelihood of running into issues is low.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've largely been satisfied with the product.

We integrate this solution, and we also provide the maintenance of the device. We are using this solution for those sites that are kind of medium in size and require a more complex solution but don't have too much space for big equipment.

It is useful for us for checking services, instead of protocols, because we have some services that are very smart and can change ports. It is also useful for verifying the logs. SmartLog is very practical, and it is easy to identify stuff and make corrections.

The Capsule solution and application filters are the most valuable. 

It is pretty straightforward to implement, and it also has good stability and scalability. Their technical support is also really good.

This application can be more integrated with web application firewalls. Better integrations would provide more granularity, which would be helpful for focusing on the application itself and preventing attacks.

It would be good to include the cross-domain search. If you have multiple firewalls that are managed on the same platform and you want to check who is using some particular objects or where a specific ID is being used, it should provide an option for this kind of search instead of having to check one by one on each firewall.

I have been using this solution for more or less ten years.

It is pretty stable.

With the virtual assistant, its scalability is very good.

Their technical support is really good.

The initial setup is pretty easy. Where it is not that simple is the integration of different blades and the customization of rules, which are really dependent on the policies of a company. When we are dealing with a small company, it is easy, but when we are dealing with global corporations that have previously-defined policies and the integration with the profiles, it is a little bit more tricky and complex.

The deployment takes a couple of days, but when the deployment is more complex and requires assessments, it could take one or two weeks.

We are an integrator. The number of people that are required for the deployment and maintenance of this product depends on the organization. The deployment could be done by one or two people, but for the maintenance of the device, big companies require more people because they are establishing new connections with third parties and so on, which means that it requires many changes.

It is not expensive, but it is a little bit above the middle range. There are other solutions that are a little more expensive than this, but they also have some interesting features.

Our clients also evaluate Palo Alto and Cisco. Palo Alto, Check Point, and Cisco are the top solutions at the moment. In terms of performance, all three are pretty much the same, but it is much easier to check logs on the firewall in Check Point than Cisco or Palo Alto. Check Point is also quicker and more intuitive. Its view is also better than others.

I would recommend this solution. It is pretty straightforward to implement. It is easy, and it doesn't require too much time to make a clean implementation. I am not really sure about using it in a really small company. It depends on the budget.

I would rate Check Point Virtual Systems a nine out of ten.

We mainly used CloudGuard for IPS and IDS in our AWS environment, and we also used it for additional logging to see what was going in and out of our network in AWS. We have very limited visibility, especially when it comes to logging, and AWS does not support IPS and IDS as of now.

The way they implemented their auto-provisioning, where you just change a port or a security setting on AWS and it applies it automatically to all your firewalls, is good. You don't have to go into both of your firewalls, if you have redundancy like we did. You just need to change it on one of them in AWS, and that change applies to both of the firewalls. That saved us a lot of time. Usually, on physical firewalls, if you have to do that, you're going to have to either do command line, or if you don't want to do command line you have to do console and do multiple changes everywhere, from firewall rules to access rules. With Check Point, all you have to do is one change in the AWS console, and it will apply it within your firewall. Without that we would have had to do that in AWS, then go into the SmartConsole for Check Point.

I'm the only one who does security for both our on-prem and our cloud environments. Having Check Point there, I didn't really have to do much. It gave me peace of mind that it would do its job. I did check on it on a daily basis, just to make sure everything was okay and that there was no unwanted traffic during the day or during the night before. I didn't see anything unusual and if I did see something, it was one of those one-offs because another team was doing testing or something like that.

The IPS, IDS and logging were some of the features that I found useful. Also, the automation using AWS CloudFormation, the way we deployed it to our system, was very simple.

The comprehensiveness of CloudGuard's threat prevention security, looking at the logs, was really good. It would tell me if there was any unwanted traffic on our system, it would keep track of that. We checked it to make sure that everything was okay. It gave me the information that I needed to keep our network safe.

It's also pretty user-friendly. I've used multiple firewalls, both physical and virtual, and to me, Check Point is on top when it comes to ease of use and understanding the firewall installation. It's very very simple. And the way they implemented CloudFormation and the auto provisioning, is hands-down one of the best.

We did not use the AWS Transit Gateway, and that's one of the things that we're currently using. I believe we will be working with Check Point again, in the near future, to implement it, once they start having proper support for a single customer with multiple accounts. When we were using them, we had to install Check Point on each and every single account.

I believe they're working on a solution for that. I know they're utilizing Transit Gateway for it, and that is exactly what we're using right now. I'm excited for them to have that ready, and for us to put it in our system.

In general, cloud infrastructure or a cloud-based environment, is very fast when it comes to technology. Things get developed right away. Check Point just needs to adapt to those changes quicker.

We used Check Point CloudGuard IaaS for over two years. We stopped using it about six to eight months ago. Our environment basically expanded to such a large scale that it wasn't feasible for us to use CloudGuard in our multiple-account production environment.

We are definitely planning on redeploying CloudGuard at some point because we always need IPS and IDS and better logging. AWS only has two or three companies that do IPS/IDS. We definitely need those kinds of protection and Check Point, in my opinion, is one of the best so I still want to put it in place. But their solution doesn't really match our requirements. That's the only reason we moved away from Check Point.

Its stability was really good.

They do implement Auto Scaling and that was one of the requirements that I asked them about. One of their southbound firewalls did not have Auto Scaling at that time, so that's why I requested it.

The scalability is very good; again, very user-friendly. I wouldn't even say "user-friendly" because, as long as you deploy it properly, you can kill an EC2 and it will spin up another one right away, within about a minute and a half. And it will be ready for production right away.

Our production environment never decreased, it only increased. Our presence in AWS quadrupled over the time that we used CloudGuard. I'm managing about 32 accounts that, obviously, need protection. Once they implement that particular solution, we'll be very happy to have them integrated within our environment.

The number of users of CloudGuard, because we had deployed it in our production environment, was as many customers as we had. All traffic went through CloudGuard.

I never dealt with tech support. I dealt more with our account manager. We never had issues with Check Point, so I never had a chance to talk to their support.

We were using native AWS protection.

The initial deployment wasn't too complicated because they had CloudFormation. The only thing that I had issues with was having to integrate that within our company's requirements. Our needs kept changing because we were new to AWS. But that was not an issue with Check Point. And once the requirements within the company had been solidified, we deployed the solution to four or five environments in our AWS and it was fine throughout. We even did their second version of CloudGuard, and again, it was easy.

It's pretty straightforward. It's literally just a matter of selecting the right version of Check Point, your VPC, your management, your password, and that's pretty much it. It's pretty simple.

With the way AWS does things, our deployment took about half a day. And that was mainly because there were dependencies on CloudFormation, where it would wait for a task to finish, and AWS depends on the region that you're in. If you pick a very busy region, then it takes longer than usual. So half a day is giving it padding, in terms of time.

Once it was up and running, it required just me for maintenance.

I was the only one from our organization involved with the deployment.

In the initial installation, the first time, I was working with a Check Point engineer, because we were new to AWS and the Check Point integration with AWS. We came from Azure. We needed somebody just to make sure that we were doing the right thing. But after that, we never needed Check Point support. They would check in on us, just to make sure everything was good.

The engineer was really good. He was there to walk us through and to make sure we understood every piece of the deployment. After that, I put together some documentation based on our needs. From then on, future deployment was fairly simple.

The ROI is in the number of people managing it. Technically, you don't need to manage it. If you have an on-prem, you constantly need to manage the firewall. You need to make sure everything is okay, when it comes to hardware, software, and managing the actual firewall. With CloudGuard on the cloud, we eliminated two of the three. We didn't need to care about the hardware or about the software upgrades. If we did need to upgrade, it was just with respect to CloudFormation. We didn't need to do any firmware. The only thing we needed to do was manage an interface, which is what you're going to do anyway. 

You only need just one person to do it. When it comes to return on investment, you don't need to hire a full team to manage your whole network. If you have a firewall team, with Check Point CloudGuard, you don't need it anymore. It's just a single person because, if a Check Point goes down, it gets spun up right away. You don't need to call anybody or order hardware or anything like that.

Pricing of CloudGuard is pretty fair when you have a single account. It's comparable with other cloud providers. But for our use case, it got really pricey when we had to deploy multiple CloudGuards on multiple accounts in different regions, because you can't have CloudGuard protecting multiple regions. That's the big thing.

Before picking Check Point, I checked Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. At that moment, when we were doing a PoC, Check Point was ahead of them when it comes to implementation, deployment, and ease of use.

Deployment was the big thing for us because we knew that we were going to be deploying this multiple times. We wanted redundancy, and ease of use and deployment. Check Point nailed those top-three requirements, so it was the clear choice for us. The others didn't have the robust capabilities of Check Point or CloudGuard, to do the things that we wanted. Those included ease of deployment using CloudFormation, scalability using Auto Scaling and the auto-provisioning within CloudGuard.

My advice: Get it. It's a great product. It's a great solution.

In terms of CloudGuard's block rate, malware prevention rate, and exploit resistance rate, we didn't really do much testing when it comes to those types of scenarios. But I've used Check Point as a physical firewall before, and it was great. It detected threats and gave me an alert as soon as it detected them. It was really good.