Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is a firewall.

The most valuable Check Point CloudGuard feature is the firewall. I also value the user authentication, IPS, and application control features.

The clustering and HE from the scaling availability could be improved.

The documentation could be much better as well.

I have been using this solution for about a year. 

I would rate stability as average, too. It's not the best, but it's also not the worst. 

I would rate the scalability potential of this solution as average.

Check Point CloudGuard technical support is good.

I have not previously used any solutions. 

Deployment was easy. It took about half a day to do all configure everything how we needed it. 

The first time we deployed it was through a Check Point pre-sales specialist. After that, we deployed on our own. 

If we end up needing to scale, we would have to buy a new license. 

CloudGuard is cloud-native security that secures your public, private, or hybrid environment under a unified platform, which can also be automated. It comes with multiple installation availabilities such as Software-as-a-Service(SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service(PaaS), Infrastructure-as-a-Service(IaaS), and more.

This solution can be installed on leading Cloud Service Providers such as Amazon Web Services, Google Platform, and Microsoft Azure, as well as on other not-so-known CSPs such as OCI.

This is helpful for clients who always thought upgrading hardware in the DC or testing new versions to be difficult. Normally, they have trouble due to some issue at hand or maybe due to sizing, but now they have an easy way to test the solutions and they can be accessed securely from all around the globe. It provides features such as Auto Scaling to deal with unforeseen situations with minimal costs.

It is quite easy to construct and destruct and doesn't need anyone to actually step into a DC, which is good because sometimes this needs endless approvals.

The solution comes with Active Load balancing and policies that can be installed before the traffic hits the firewall module.

Auto Scaling is one of the features that make me want to choose CloudGuard over actual HW.

Cloud leaders such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft also provide an uptime of 99.99%, which might not be possible in a privately owned DC. Multiple instances where a hardware issue was found and it took weeks to replace the hardware and bring services up can now be fixed within few minutes by utilizing the available resources over CSP.

You get charged only for what resources you choose and how much traffic actually passes through the firewall, which in turn saves a lot of money.

Easier optimization techniques can definitely help with better performance of the OS, as using the vanilla software doesn't actually showcase the real capability of the software.

While there is a lot of documentation available on Support Center to understand how the solution works, it can become quite confusing. Some free training videos by Check Point would really help the engineers who don't have full access due to restrictions/unseen reasons.

A step-by-step guide for leading CSPs would really help.

Auto Scaling should be given as an option during a first-time installation, as it would be really beneficial and some users might not be aware of it.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network for more than three years, starting when it was still called vSEC.

I have worked with other products and find that this is the better solution when compared to other vendors in the market.

My advice is to use the trial and understand whether this is what you are really looking for.

The solution is very easy to use.

The product is quite flexible.

The installation process doesn't take very long.

We've found the stability to be quite good overall.

You can scale the solution if you need to.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

The user interface is okay, depending on who is using it.

We haven't had any issues with integrations. It seems to handle them quite well.

We're looking forward to the next Check Point with the solution and CloudGuard and everything on the same single cloud. Right now, that's not yet the case.

We're expecting more new features in the next release, however, I'm not sure precisely what is being added.

Check Point support, beyond CloudGuard, does need some improvement.

I've been using the solution for 18 to 24 months at this point. It's been a year or two.

The product is very stable so far. We haven't had any issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable.

The product can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not an issue.

We have 5,000 users on the solution in one particular case. They're on one account. It's kind-of a lot.

The CloudGuard technical support has been good so far. We have no complaints. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

From a firewall perspective, yes, we use some other solution, however, CloudGuard is basically filling a gap in the cloud area. Before them, of course, we didn't use any other thing. We were using something else that wasn't really related and when we moved to Check Point was when we first adopted CloudGuard.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment is fast. We managed it in about 24 hours or so.

We had 12 people that assisted in the deployment process.

We have to pay a licensing fee, however, we haven't really done any comparison shopping, and therefore I can't speak to if it is affordable or expensive.

Mostly, we are satisfied with the cost. We have some discount agreements and that's enough.

The solution always updates automatically, and therefore we are always using the latest.

We do plan to continue to use the product as we've mostly been quite satisfied with it.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. It is for the perimeter protection of our products. We use it as a UTM kind of environment.

The solution has good features.

It has good antivirus protection.

The solution has been quite stable.

The installation was straightforward and pretty easy to execute.

The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively.

We had been using the solution for five years. However, we are currently migrating off of it.

We found the solution to be stable when we were using it. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy and it doesn't have glitches.

The solution isn't scalable. In fact, it cannot be upgraded at all. This is the main reason why we are switching over to a different firewall under a different brand.

We have many users at the perimeter currently. 

The technical support on offer was very good. We were largely satisfied with the level of service provided. We found them to be helpful and responsive when we had issues.

We are currently moving from Check Point to Fortinet. We haven't yet started to use Fortinet, however. It's a work in progress.

The solution is pretty easy to set up. It's not complex. It's rather straightforward. It shouldn't give a company any trouble.

You need two to three people to manage the deployment process. You don't need a big team.

We handled the implementation ourselves using in-house personnel. We didn't need the outside assistance of integrators or consultants.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We aren't a vendor, consultant, or integrator.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution to other organizations. It would likely be 50/50. It really depends on the company's requirements. For us, for example, we needed to scale, and that ended up not being possible and so we have to move away from it.

Overall, I would rate the solution six out of ten. Although it has some good aspects, for us, the lack of scalability was impossible to overcome.

We have an AWS environment with servers and resources. We also have a Cloud environment and CloudGuard is our solution to protect the internet access to and from the database environment. For example, servers on the AWS that need to do upgrades go to the internet and cross the CloudGuard solution. People that need to connect to the AWS environment, to a server are protected by CloudGuard. The environment is protected by CloudGuard. It's our perimeter firewall on the AWS environment.

We were already used to Check Point products and we needed to protect the AWS environment. It was very straightforward. We could use the same policies that we use on-prem. We were already used to the logs, for the kinds of things Check Point shows in terms of what is crossing to the internet. We didn't need to get used to a new kind of log that we were not used to. It saved us a lot of time. We were able to seamlessly extend our on-premise protection to Cloud and didn't require any effort.

Two years ago, we didn't know what the best way was to protect the environment but we found out that we could use the same kind of protection that we use on-prem. It helped our security team to be confident that the cloud environment is protected. 

The use of unified security management has freed up security engineers to perform more important tasks. We saved a lot of time, especially managing the threat prevention profiles because when we want to do some kind of exception or enable a new kind of protection, we can enable it on all our firewalls, not only the AWS but also on the on-prem firewalls at the same time using the same profile. That helps us a lot and saves us a lot of time because we don't need to go to the AWS protection to do stuff and then to the other premise. It saves at least four hours a week.

Compared to the security provided by AWS, CloudGuard is very easy to understand why something is being blocked. We can see it on the SmartConsole for Check Point, which is one of our favorite products for security. It's much easier to understand what and why something is happening. 

The most valuable feature is that we can use the same manager server that we use on our own Check Point firewalls. We integrated CloudGuard on that manager and we can use the same kind of protections that we use on the on-prem firewalls, like the IPS and antivirus policy. We can have the same kind of protection on the Cloud environment that we have on-premise.

• The block rate is good. It's what we used on-prem. We feel protected by the Check Point threat prevention that we used for many years. We are confident that it blocks everything that needs to be blocked.
• Malware prevention is also a good feature. It's the same kind of malware prevention we use on-prem and we never had any issues. We have used on-prem prevention for many years. 
• Exploit resistance rate - we never had any problems with it. We never had any security issues due to exploits on our diverse infrastructure.

In terms of the comprehensiveness of its threat prevention security, it was very easy for us to start working with because it's the same. Check Point has a very wide group of protections, dozens of protections. It's very good in terms of protection.

CloudGuard is very good in terms of ease of use, especially because it's very easy to understand the blocks and why something was blocked. You can see in a log why something was blocked, if it was identified as some kind of malware or suspicious activity. You can immediately see on the log the rule or the threat prevention policy that was blocking it if you want to do some kind of exception, or if you want to verify why. And it's very well documented with the description of the threat and why it should be blocked.

CloudGuard functions just like any other firewall. It functions very well. The only thing that could maybe be improved would be to integrate some tools that are not integrated with the SmartConsole, like the SmartView Monitor that we need to open on a different application to access.

I have been using CloudGuard IaaS for two years. 

It was always very stable, so we deployed it and now we only manage the policy, the application control, and the IPS. In terms of stability, it's very stable.

Its scalability is one of the best features because of the auto-scaling groups.

There are three users in the company who are all network security engineers.

It's has a 100% adoption rate. Our Cloud environment goes to the internet through the CloudGuard solution.

Support is good. We never had anything that they couldn't help us with.

We did the deployment with vendor support. It's not straightforward, especially because the solution was fairly new when we started to deploy. There wasn't a lot of the commutation that there is now. We had help through remote sessions and the vendor. We managed to do it, but it's not very straightforward.

We had to get used to the concept. We use the auto-scaling groups, which is when there is low internet access needs, we only have one gateway. And when a lot of people access the internet, the product automatically generates more visual firewalls. This was a different concept than what we have on-premises, of course, because this is not what's on-prem. The concept of auto-scaling groups was something we needed to get used to.

It saves us money because if for example, we have three firewalls running but at night, no one is working, the internet access is very low. The solution automatically reduces the number of instances to one, which is the minimum. Then, if someone is doing a lot of things that need internet access, it automatically spins more instances. This saves us money.

The deployment took one week.

The implementation strategy was to first do a proof of concept, only for our Dev VPC. Only the Dev VPC was using the internet through this solution, and then when we were confident that it worked as we thought it should work. We deployed it in all our accounts, production, and corporate.

We are aware of the overall perspective of the Check Point security products and the rates. We were already aware that it meets the ones that we use on-prem. So we are always aware of those results. 

The fact that CloudGuard has been a leader for many years in industry reviews of network firewalls was also important, but the most important thing was that we can also use it on-prem and we are satisfied with it. 

The consultants were very helpful. 

Pricing for these kinds of products is always expensive but I would say that it's in line with the competition.

We didn't evaluate other solutions because it was a good fit for us and not worth evaluating other solutions.

If you are already a Check Point customer, this is the perfect solution. If you are not used to Check Point products, you should also analyze other solutions and compare them before you buy.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that with this product, you can secure the Cloud environment the same way that you secure the on-prem, which helps a lot with people that are new to the Cloud security environment.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard IaaS a ten out of ten. 

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 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.