Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

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.

Three to five years.

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.

Less than one year.

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.

Monitoring using SmartConsole and all its features is extremely easy, and I find SmartEvent an excellent monitoring tool for spotting threats and user behaviour.

The multiple virtual firewalls on one box are extremely useful and the interconnection with virtual switches is simple and easy to understand.

We need a product that is logical and for which we can find people skilled who are interested in learning it. Check Point is always a winner, as its an industry standard.

We have Microsoft CASB cloud app security and it's one of the least compatible firewalls. They really need to look at this, as both Check Point and Microsoft are major players. Why aren't they compatible? If we had Palo Alto then we wouldn't have this problem.

Three to five years.

No stability issues, not even once. The firewall is set up and and the various parts are interconnected. It works just fine. R80.1 is also a major improvement.

No scalability issues but I don't think we are utilizing the device to its maximum capability.

Good. We go with a distributor but they work okay. It is a lot more reliable with the latest OS than it used to be.

No previous solution. It's always been Check Point, though before the virtual firewall we used to have a Juniper fw. Now we are just Check Point because for the threats we face now, I don't think we need different firewalls at different layers.

The issue normally is getting SIC working between the gws and the management server. Actually it's reasonably straightforward, though you have to get it right. It used to be you had to have a certain type of disk drive but this is a better solution.

Look into this carefully and be sure you use all you buy. We haven't bought SandBlast or the bot solution but they look effective.

We did not evaluate other solutions. It was decided we would stay with Check Point.

Make sure you can make use of the virtual firewalls and read up on the device or take a course before you implement. Or, if you get it installed, make sure you have the right devices in the right virtual firewalls.

Valuable features include centralized management using the MDM solution of Check Point and the Log Management module. The latest version of VSX supports all blades of Check Point's security suite.

I get maximum flexibility as I can use a standard management server to manage all virtual gateways along with a dedicated log server for each virtual gateway. Sometimes I can use a single server to manage all virtual gateways.

Earlier versions only supported the Firewall and VPN feature. Now I can run Anti-Bot/Anti-Virus, URL and App Filtering, Threat Emulation, and other blades.

I can assign weights to each virtual gateway depending on how critical each virtual gateway is.

The VSLS feature provides linear scalability so I can keep adding hardware (maximum of eight) to meet my performance expectations.

It is somewhat difficult to upgrade the entire hardware without downtime.

We have been implementing this solution to many customers in India and the SAARC region for seven years now. This is one of the most popular virtual firewall products in the industry.

We have not encountered any problems with stability.

A sufficient amount of planning is required to deploy a solution that is scalable. However, as Check Point allows an Open Server to deploy its VSX solution, scalability is not a problem once the base hardware is chosen appropriately.

Support is one area where efforts should be required from Check Point. Customers having multiple, more than ten, gateways are encouraged to consider Diamond Support services.

We did not use any other solution previously.

Engineers having less than three years of hands-on experience on Check Point products may find this product somewhat challenging. However, the best part is, once the product is deployed, there is no difference between virtual gateway and physical gateway from the operational perspective.

Check Point pioneered this product, so don't look anywhere else if you are looking for a stable and scalable product with top-notch security blades.

We did not evaluate any alternative products.

Choose your implementation partner very carefully. Choose someone who has done multiple, large-scale implementations and can show proof of the same in terms of customer references through emails or phone calls.

The ability to host multiple virtual systems, categorize them based on their function and importance and the ease of use with which these can be deployed.

We do not need to keep provisioning hardware each time there is a requirement for a new firewall. Having a physical server capable of hosting many virtuals and also provide performance and redundancy is a big benefit and hence our preference for VSX.

Each new version does offer a new set of features plus also incorporates bug fixes identified during the life cycle of the previous product. Hence, this product keeps on maturing as newer versions are released.

More than 15 years.

Not from a product point of view. The critical aspect here is proper planning, performing several dry runs and identifying potential issues to the best possible extent. It's really about planning and testing prior to implementing.

No, because we keep on top of our installations. We maintain them by performing routine maintenance, and hot-fix applications. Stability wise the product is stable but we had issues when we had really old hardware that had a less than stable OS.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

Excellent – the vendor always supports us and is very proactive. We have excellent relations with the vendor.

Technical Support:

Definitely excellent. It’s a pleasure to talk with the tech support people and know they fully understand the issues – this gives us a sense of comfort.

No previous solution used.

It was simple. That is because the solution is architectured and designed from the ground up and the relevant teams were involved from the beginning.

We did an in-house implementation.

Cannot give exact figures but we have made a lot of saving by implementing this product in our organization.

We were clear on our options – no we did not choose any other options save for the most important ones.

Think of VSX as similar to VMware ESX solution. It will, in the long run, save a lot of money with the return it gives to the company. It is easy to maintain by a capable support team and can easily fit within the network where there is a requirement.

Easy to setup and use as its based off Redhat Intuitive ACL menu for writing rules Pre-populated common ports Customizable ports Suite of tools to report and troubleshoot network conditions

At the beginning the design can be overwhelming, where to start Getting used to the CLI syntax but do-able

This enterprise class firewall appliance is great and very intuitive menu. Great for inline firewall access control to work with Cisco or any vendor switch. It has a suite of applications to help you setup virtual firewalls and provide redundancy or bandwidth to whatever application or service you are providing.

Most of all, depends upon your environment.

It has improved the way our organization functions in terms of visualization, simplicity, manageability, and support.

Areas for improvement include other Security Features like AntiVirus, AntiSpam, DLP etc.

I have been using this solution for a decade.

No issues with deployment.

No issues with stability but it completely depends on how you/ at what stage you implement. Additionally, what features you enable.

No. You need to look upon sizing, one should never oversize nor undersize. Detail understanding is a requirement one needs to keep in mind.

Customer Service: Good customer service.Technical Support: Good technical support.

The initial setup was normal.

Vendor, but internal team should be aware of the technology.

Recently we have upgraded to new model, now looking into 3yrs cost, this is the first year. So cant say much.

Yes, we evaluated Cisco.

Only advice I can give is that whatever product you select, it's important to keep in mind your Requirements, Budget, and POC.

The tool's most valuable features are inspecting internet traffic and IPS. We can manage the firewall using shared policies from a single management server. 

The challenge mainly revolves around the slower functionality of virtual IP switching in Azure Virtual Network compared to on-premise solutions. On-premise, switching between clusters is faster, taking only a few seconds, while in Azure, it can extend up to five minutes. The downtime is a concern for us. 

CloudGuard Network Security's stability is good. 

Overall, my experience with Check Point support has been positive. There were instances where basic questions were asked, even though I had already provided the information in the ticket. One ticket took two years to resolve. 

Positive

The tool's deployment is more complicated than an on-prem setup. Setting up and managing CloudGuard Network Security in Azure presents some challenges. There are complexities in handling downtime in on-premise and cloud firewalls. Additionally, difficulties arise in deploying a new cluster for an upgrade, as the in-place upgrade might not function as expected.

The process of exchanging virtual machines in Check Point is currently complex. You cannot simply deploy a new machine and use it; instead, you need to navigate through several steps. This involves associating the new machine with a network group, entering various details, and sometimes providing the entire path to locate the object in the cloud.

The tool is working well so far for normal use cases. I rate it an eight out of ten.