Check Point IPS Reviews

The integration is a valuable feature.

The solution’s deployment could be easier.

I have been using Check Point IPS for three years.

There was no issue with the solution’s stability.

The solution is scalable.

We ask about issues with the technical support.

The initial setup is not easy. You have to configure the same type of menu for each channel and send it to the portal. You can verify the name from your website.

Check Point IPS is a brand and solution for protection.

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

We use this product to control incoming and outgoing traffic to the company and to control the internal traffic between the various company subnets. 

We have many departments and have segregated the traffic via subnets controlled by the Check Point firewall. 

We also have some services exposed on the internet for which it is necessary to have control over intrusions. 

Our reality is made up of a series of Check Point firewalls in which we have activated the intrusion prevention system functionality.

With the introduction of this Check Point solution our company has significantly increased the level of perimeter security, once this was done we proceeded to configure the service also for internal networks where there was a need to control traffic.

With the introduction of Check Point, our company has significantly increased the level of perimeter security, once this was done we proceeded to configure the service for internal networks where there was a need to control traffic.

We are quite satisfied with the product.

The possibility of customizing the rules is great. Sometimes it appears a bit rigid yet it is still easy to use. There is an easy application of policies once the basic configuration has been done with the possibility of copying profiles to make them better meet all the needs of the companies. 

There's also the possibility to set alerts only in order to check whether a signature can cause problems or not before blocking traffic and causing damage to users. 

Overall, it seems like a good product even if sometimes a little unintuitive. That said, it is no worse than others.

The product could be improved in its configuration interface. I have seen that there are more points where exceptions can be made but it is not always intuitive to find the right point where to make them. 

Sometimes we had false positives where packages that were legitimate for us were blocked and we had to unblock them through exceptions. 

I don't see any other big problems and I hope not to find others in the future

I've used the solution for five years.

We did not previously use another solution.

We did not evaluate other options. 

The solution protects against the latest attacks. It is essential because collaborative tools and networks are necessary. The attacks are increasing, and we need protection in real time.

The support could be improved. We need quality information on the new products and solutions. We are implementing new solutions for Check Point, but these solutions are not thoroughly tested, which might lead to problems. If we had a lot of information and knowledge about the solution, it would be easier for us to implement it.

The solution’s scalability is fine. When I escalate an issue, I appreciate their efforts and their support.

The technical support is good. The engineers responsible for this area are expert people. The documentation in the knowledge base allows us to resolve issues. The blocks or columns help me understand what kind of issues they have.

Positive

We have worked only with Check Point. We were a partner of Check Point in my last company. We provided solutions to customers and encountered different challenges because of other solutions. Fortinet was much cheaper than Check Point. The competition is based on price, whereas Check Point is superior in quality and security.

The initial setup is easy and intuitive.

The solution has a high cost, but the relation between price and quality is okay.

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

I would like the product to provide us with intelligence to understand what we really have in our environment. 

The solution helps us to detect attacks and prevent them. 

The solution does not scale well. 

We have had problems with the management. 

Neutral

The product's initial setup is easy. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

Check Point IPS is an IT security solution that offers insight into potential attacks and helps to prevent them from occurring. This solution gathers various signatures and receives new updates when a new vulnerability is identified, thus safeguarding us from potential threats.

The solution has helped improve our security by blocking threats.

The solution is user-friendly and the interface is easy to configure.

The price has room for improvement. The solution's firewalls are quite expensive.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable.

The scaling of our system depends on the type of hardware we are using. If we are using a virtual environment, it is easier to scale as we can just add more virtual machines. However, if we are using a hardware appliance, we will need to purchase additional hardware to scale it.

Previously we used an IBM solution but it was expensive and hard to configure compared to Check Point IPS which was a common sense model, and easy to implement with our firewall.

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the ease of setup an eight out of ten.

We first deployed the license and configured the rules in test mode. After making sure there were no false positives, we switched the rules to prevent mode to block any incoming attacks. The last part of the process was to configure a certificate for HTTPS inspection.

The deployment took one month to complete.

The implementation was completed with the help of consultants. Two people were required to complete the work.

Calculating a return on investment for cybersecurity products can be difficult. However, we have not experienced any concerning cyber incidents in the past five years; this is likely due to our strong firewall and comprehensive production system. All in all, this is a positive outcome.

We pay for a bundle subscription that includes additional solutions.

I give the price of the solution a five out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

For maintenance, we need to review the log, identify any new signatures, and configure them accordingly.

The solution is used to protect 250 users.

We could potentially cause disruptions to our infrastructure if we do not use a good consultant to guide us through the implementation process.

I use Check Point IPS to prevent attacks, such as malware, spyware, and any other malicious activity.

What I like best about Check Point IPS is that it can prevent attacks. I also like that it has a log feature.

The hardware-based version of Check Point IPS could be more scalable. Right now, it's not scalable.

I've been working with Check Point IPS for two to three years.

Stability-wise, Check Point IPS is eight out of ten.

Check Point IPS is a scalable solution if it's cloud-based, but if it's hardware-based, it isn't scalable. Scalability-wise, it's a six out of ten.

The Check Point IPS technical support is excellent portal-wise and callback-wise, so it's a nine out of ten.

Positive

Setting up Check Point IPS is straightforward.

Before I deploy Check Point IPS, I'll put it on IDS mode, and then I'll see the current user activity, any malicious activity, and the logs. I then switch to the IPS mode.

You can pay for Check Point IPS yearly, or you can go with a three-year license. There's no extra cost apart from the standard licensing fee.

My company has two hundred users of Check Point IPS.

I recommend Check Point IPS to others because it's scalable, reliable, and easily managed by all users.

My rating for Check Point IPS is eight out of ten.

We are using Check Point IPS for the detection and prevention of threats for our PCI firewalls where it's mandatory to use it.

The most valuable feature of Check Point IPS is the management of devices and policies.

Check Point IPS' main problem is it is mostly software based. The performance is dependent on the CPU power, and the limited number of patterns.

I have been using Check Point IPS for over five years.

Check Point IPS is stable.

The stability of Check Point IPS depends on too many factors. It always depends on the usage and the traffic. However, we did not have any issues with scalability.

We have approximately 40 to 50 people involved in using Check Point IPS, such as the firewall and IPS managing teams.

We have onsite engineers from the Check Point IPS directly on our site.

I rate the support from Check Point IPS a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of Check Point IPS is straightforward because there are security profiles with default recommended configuration. However, these were beneficial at the time when produced but they are not that helpful anymore. 

It can take some time to do verification because there are some protocols where you know that there could be problems. For example, for some of the sharing features, you have to be careful. Those there are the profiles you can use for the setup, you do have to do a lot of manual work to have everything work correctly.

I rate the setup of Check Point IPS a two out of five.

We did the implementation of Check Point IPS in-house.

There is a license needed to use the Check Point IPS which is not expensive. However, the Check Point IPS device is expensive.

We are replacing the IPS from Check Point with a different solution, which is related to the IPS functionality. The reason for the replacement is because Check Point IPS are at their end of life and are not creating or not using the security policy for the traffic, it mostly acts as an IPS.

We are planning on using Trend Micro. It will be better because there will be a dedicated device that is doing only the IPS. The performance will be better and it has a larger number of patterns updated weekly.

I have a very long and extensive experience with the Check Point ISP. It is a good solution, but sometimes it's causing issues, but it's a general problem for all the networks and security devices.

I rate Check Point IPS a nine out of ten.

The company needed to improve its compliance with traffic risk management before all the company employees went full WFH. 

This has turned into a more efficient operational control of internal traffic, where numerous threats had been identified while working in the office as most malware is somehow admitted by someone with access to the company network, either unintentionally or not. This actually drove revenue growth as fewer resources had to be spent from the IT department to fight cyber threats.

We've seen how this firewall has operated on real-time threats to both cloud and physical servers by detecting, neutralizing, eliminating, and then patching against malware. 

We can test these patches post-deployment in less than one day. We'll then generate reports that include the activity for the time we desire and gauge the performance of the software. 

From all this data, the IT department can determine future precautions, what kind of traffic will be blocked, and what users will be restricted.

We've been able to monitor all the devices in the network after activating and configuring the software blades. This shows us who's connected and who's not and how many disconnections there have been. 

The firewall picks up malware traces that may have affected other users and networks and notifies when a particular site has been the source of infection. 

There's less admin burden to detect these threats as Check Point IPS will do it all for you and suggest the best preventive actions to protect the network.

When exceptions need to be done for certain profiles, it is easy to get them done, however, implementation on some general ones may cause some extra work as the IPS is not easy to overwrite. 

There are updates that have been scheduled that have been delayed more than expected, which impacts the performance of the firewall when the traffic is high. This can cause false positives and release alerts for harmless traffic, which results in a deviation of the attention from the security administrator when it's not relevant.

We've used Check Point's complete protection package for our network for more than two years.

We primarily use Check Point to provide visibility into our network. It lets us see the east-west traffic, and it gives us a lot of information to work on as far as what kind of traffic was passing through.

Overall, it give me a lot of insight into my network that I didn't have before.

It lets us know about anomalous behavior and it provides alerts regarding activity on certain ports. It lets me decide, for example, whether something is a valid connection, or causes me to question why a certain port is open.

The pain point that I have with this solution is contacting technical support.

I have been working with Check Point IPS for more than a year.

Stability-wise, this product is great.

The scalability comes from the fact that this is an on-premises device that ties into a cloud service. It's a hybrid application. Once you have it installed, it's collecting information. You put it right there in front of your input into the network, and it picks up all of the traffic.

Sometimes, technical support takes a long time to get back to you.

I used Check Point Endpoint Security, as well as the Network Detect and Response (NDR) appliance.

I am currently using Darktrace and Vectra in addition to Check Point. I've been using all three and I find that Check Point is the one where I get the most information from. I will stop using Vectra this year but I will retain Darktrace, as long as they keep it at a certain price.

Darktrace takes a lot more configuration; unlike Check Point, there are a lot more changes that need to be made. When it's fully integrated, it requires a lot of time and it may end up being as useful as the Check Point.

The reason I keep all three is because they all give me a different kind of view. They all give me different information. If they gave the same information, it'd be useless to keep them.

With respect to similar security products, I have demoed CrowdStrike, worked with Symantec, and am also using Check Point.

Check Point was fairly usable out of the box.

I am using an on-premises appliance that ties into a cloud service.

Pricing for this solution is negotiable and I'm happy with our pricing.

I suggest negotiating either at the end of their fiscal year or at the end of every quarter. At the end of the quarter, they have an incentive to lower the prices to sell as many units as possible in order to meet their end-of-quarter quota.

If I could only keep one of my security solutions, it would be Check Point. To me, it provides the most valuable information.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The product protects our environment from specific threats; we 'approve' signatures manually (or automatically) based on the applications/appliances in use in our company. We are a logistics company hosting several websites/order management. The company is about 1000 FTE across several locations (in the Netherlands & Belgium). We have been using this for the last 10 years at least (since I have worked at the company). It's easy to use. The reporting is good. Usually, when threats emerge on the internet, there are signatures for this within a few hours.  

We manually approve the signatures daily, for the software/appliances that we use. Based on the experience of the administrator, we prevent threats if they are present in our network; and we sometimes use the signatures in detect mode to gather intelligence (for instance to detect TLS1.0/TLS1.1 usage through the firewall). 

This has helped us to identify several key webservers that would be vulnerable to 'downgrade attacks'. We could easily identify the vulnerable servers and remediate the issue based on the information we got from the reports we can generate. 

The quick updates of the signatures when a new threat is identified are great. For instance, when Microsoft releases patches, we usually see new signatures for those issues that have to be patched in a day. This gives us time to test/deploy the patches while already being protected from the threats. 

Also, it's very good with reporting. I can generate reports for management automatically based on the threats of the last day/week/whatever is needed. 

It also clearly states the performance impact of a signature and the 'confidence' of a signature so you can quickly evaluate if you need to start panicking or not.

Sometimes protections are 'aggregated' into a single threat name when you look at the logs. I would prefer to see all protections named individually (for example, right now, 'web enforcement' is a category that contains several signatures). 

I also wish there was an option to run reports of the individual signature 'usage'; it's not easy to generate views based on the number of 'hits' a signature has generated. (it is possible, however, there could be an easier option). For example, if you have a signature activated, for instance, a MS issue then patch your environment, it's 'hard' to identify if the individual signature has been 'hit'.

I personally have used the solution since December 2012 - almost 10 years.

It's very stable. I haven't seen issues with signatures, downloading, or implementing the signatures, or the 'hits' that it generates. 

The product is very scalable; if you size your requirements properly when buying and don't 'prevent all signatures' and customize it for your environment. 

Customer support is fine. We have a vendor we use, and, if needed, can fall back on Check Point (I had a few very good remote sessions when we had issues with our firewall; no issues were seen with IDS/IPS). 

Positive

The company I work for has used it since I've worked there; no switching was needed. We are happy with the solution. 

When implementing the solution, you must activate the blade on your firewall and decide if you want to do it manually or automatically and then (when doing it manually) approve/detect/ignore the relevant signatures. It is pretty straightforward. 

We had a vendor team install the firewall and handle the basic configuration, then we went on training. In terms of implementation, I can do it myself now. The vendor team was very good and had a high level of expertise. 

I'm a network admin; not involved in the money.

I'd advise users to bundle the things they want; so they get a cheaper offer. 

We've had the same solution since I've worked there.

I am happy with the solution and have been using it since i started working for the company (10 years now). I dont want to be without it.