Check Point NGFW Reviews

The Check Point firewalls are used to protect both the edge and datacenter firewall environment.

The firewalls have been deployed in a high availability design and are virtualized using Check Point VSX VSLS. This means we have multiple virtual firewalls protecting different parts of the data center (e.g., DB, Edge, WAN, pre-production.)

We have activated multiple software blades, including firewall, VPN, URL filtering, Application Control, compliance, reporting, and threat emulation, to name a few.

A similar design has been deployed at the DR with a similar set of firewalls.

The following has been improved:

1) The edge security posture has greatly improved. We are now able to detect and prevent threats coming from the public internet. The firewall is able to block know threats using the inbuild Intrusion Prevention blades.

2) We can connect with other organizations using site-to-site VPNs to enable inter-organization communication.

3) Check Point comes with a strong management solution that allows us to monitor and track threats that are detected and prevented. It also helps us be in compliance with industry standards.

The following features have been valuable:

1) IPS - The edge security posture has dramatically improved as we can now detect and prevent threats from the public internet. The firewall can block know threats using the inbuild Intrusion Prevention blades.

2) VPN - We can connect with other organizations using site-to-site VPNs for inter-organization communication.

3) Management Blades - Check Point comes with a strong management solution that allows us to monitor and track detected and prevented threats. It also helps us be in compliance with industry standards.

The following can be improved:

1) The management solution is currently using a desktop client for administration purposes. This should be improved by ensuring configuration on the firewalls can be done 100% using a web-based approach. This is currently a work in progress in R81.X, yet should be fast-tracked.

2) The Check Point TAC support has, in recent years, deteriorated. Getting support is usually a pain as the TAC engineers don't seem to understand our issues fast enough and are not readily available. This is in contrast to the amount of money paid for the support.

I've used the solution for five years.

A lot of improvement is required in how checkpoint TAC engineers handle their assigned cases. Tickets can be opened for very long without clear solutions.

Neutral

We previously used Cisco ASA 5585 Firewall.

The setup was fairly easy as the team is well trained.

We worked with Check Point professional services.

This is a premium enterprise product, hence the price is very high.

We looked at FortiGate Firewalls.

Check Point should review their pricing models especially for the African market.

The solution is primarily used as an edge firewall safeguarding any organization or company which are really considering it as their number firewall of choice. In addition, there were also companies that are only using the specific blades, for example, IPS or IPsec, only as their primary solution. It is mostly used as an edge firewall. Sometimes, all security blades are utilized. As a significant part of the whole network infrastructure, Check Point delivers high detection and prevention rates when talking about suspicious and cyberattack types of activities.

Primarily, Check Point played a very vital role in protecting our whole network infrastructure. Having been able to implement such a solution will keep one's organization's security posture well guarded. The best part of Check Point NGFW's operational mechanisms were the Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation blades respectively. The former delivers documents with zero malware in zero seconds and the latter analyzes the original document in an isolated sandbox, identifying unknown threats. 

I'd recommend this kind of firewall for companies considering it since the detection rate for any cyberattacks/suspicious activity is very high (more than 90%).

Check Point NGFW has all the security blades a certain company would want to implement for a network firewall facing the public internet. The upsides of choosing this kind of firewall are traffic acceleration, core acceleration, and interface acceleration which would help in maintaining smooth sailing activity, giving administrators less dilemma. 

Administrators always find it hard and disturbing when such a network bottleneck occurs spontaneously out of nowhere. With that said, Check Point still ranks first among other vendors.

It would be best if the security management server console access is simpler for ease of management. System administrators find it really difficult for the management settings to incorporate easily. Most administrators nowadays are looking into something that offers easy access to a management console or GUI. 

I could not think of other areas for improvement. This is the firewall that I liked the most among other vendors in the market. It's by far the best firewall in the security industry.

I've used the solution for three years already - since the start of my Network Security Engineer career.

Stability-wise, it is perfect! 

When you perform sizing, make sure that the necessary scalability is considered. There's no going back when things like this are compromised.

Lately, Check Point support is nowhere to be found.  We are always attending other customer sessions when, in fact, support is needed for a P1.

Neutral

Mostly, they are the Gartner leaders for NGFW. A switch was made when customers found the solution more secure per doing the proof of concept.

I could say that it is complex even though they are already CCSE and Check Point Expert. There is no way I could find its management easy to use.

We handled the setup in-house.

That there is a money-back guarantee for their business. A business being secured is a business of high return.

There are a lot of evaluations to be done prior to choosing the solution. It caught the customer's attention when the threat extraction/emulation blade really did well during the proof of concept activity.

So far I have mentioned all the things needed to be given importance with regard to an NGFW solution.

It's a unified policy table that combines threat prevention and segmentation policies. 

Smart Event allows consolidated event management and exporting features is very useful when we need to deal in reports, since, for some time now, everyone has been working from home and on the firewall from Check Point. 

This function is implemented very conveniently and securely. The VPN over this firewall works as well as a standard VPN device. All in all, I'm delighted with their security solution. It is making configuring numerous layers of security policies easy to use and it always has been one of the things I liked most about their firewall solution.

Check Point firewalls are one of the most easy-to-use complete firewall solutions on the market. They protect our LANs against intruders, offer VPN for site-to-site connections, and haven't had a major issue in about 15 years. 

While not being cheap, their pricing models are competitive. 

A better approach to security focuses on prevention, blocking malware and other threats was difficult before they entered the network. By blocking the infection of “patient zero,” an NGFW with real-time prevention eliminates risk, damage, and cost to the organization.

It provides an SSL inspection facility. The SSL/TLS protocol improves the privacy and security of traffic by wrapping network communications in a layer of encryption and applying robust authentication. While this is a major benefit for data security, cyber threat actors also use SSL/TLS to conceal their activities on the network. An NGFW must go beyond signature-based detection to use technologies capable of detecting and remediating novel and zero-day threats.  

Sandboxing (including static, dynamic, and behavioral analysis) is great.

It's nearly impossible to add an exception for threat prevention services - like antivirus and anti-bot. You will be stuck with Indicators of Compromise marked as detect only, caching issues, and random effects. 

There is no clear way to report incorrect classification to support and a business is neither happy nor forgiving when they cannot receive mail from a crucial business partner. 

The KBs article should also be improved as all the global KB articles do not provide all the activity steps related to every issue.

I have been using this product for the last five years.

I have not used any other product.

The setup is very easy with minimal cost for licensing as well.

I have not used any other product.

We primarily use the solution for central administration and management of a lot of locations worldwide. That's the main task for this solution for our Central IT Team. Central logging and troubleshooting are 2nd level topics that are great to handle with the SmartDashboard and other tools.

We started in the past with base features and checked the NGFW features. Application Control gives us the option to permit applications and not just some IP address lists. Before we had so much manual work for dealing with firewall rules.

For some topics, we've given the Service Desk permissions and it's working great.

We have so many standalone firewalls. The central management of Check Point with different sessions/permissions is great. We can administrate all topics smoothly. The Application Control brings us to the next level of controlling cloud apps and other stuff.

Anti-Bot and the IPS are good features to check/defend our servers and company. We can prevent servers easily for vulnerabilities from/to the public internet and we can see what traffic/actions is active on our lines. 

Our Security Operation Center is very happy about the solutions too due to the fact that they have so much transparency.

QoS, Anti-Bot, IPS, and Application Control are the main features we're using.

The QoS blade is very good for controlling traffic such as Windows patches, mail traffic and other stuff. In the past, sometimes we had no control and couldn't help when too much traffic had occurred.

Anti-Bot is great at preventing our clients and corporate network from calling the central control.

IPS is good in protecting our systems in DMZ zones when patching of servers sometimes can't be done.

Application control for controlling Cloud Apps like MS Teams, M365 Apps, or others, is perfect. Previously, we had only IP Lists for stuff like this.

Administration of the routing and system settings should be moved to the central dashboard. It's not good to go to all GAIA Interfaces to change settings there.

The client for the central tools is very big - maybe using web access in future releases, similar to other vendors should be possible.

The firmware for the Check Point Firewalls is very big. It takes a long time when we are using small lines for data transfers. Other vendors have updates lower than 100MB. For Check Point often we need a minimum of 2GB.

I've used the solution for nine years.

The scalability is great.

We previously used Watchguard. It was not so good with different vendors for some features.

We use Check Point Next Generation Firewalls as a perimeter firewall for all sites, including the DMZ, disaster recovery center, and branch offices. We also use IPS, Anti-Bot, Antivirus, Identity Awareness, Application Control, and URL Filtering blades at all gateways. At our main site, these blades provide additional security controls to our existing security solutions. For our branch offices, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls work as unified security products and we do not need to implement additional security solutions.

In addition to legacy firewall features, by using Check Point Next Generation Firewalls blade technology, you can improve your security. 

By using the smart console, you can control tens of gateways from a single point. The smart console also allows you to control all the blades from the same GUI. These features decrease our manpower needs. 

The identity awareness feature makes it easier to implement and manage firewall rules. 

The ease of configuring VPNs can be very useful especially for companies with lots of remote locations.

Check Point Next Generation Firewalls have numerous blade options such as Anti-bot, IPS, and URL filtering. In most cases, one box could be sufficient to use all these blades. You can manage all these blades from a single console. This feature lowers your administrative workload. 

If you have comparatively small branch offices, in addition to administrative workload, instead of spending money for security products such as proxy or IPS, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls could meet your requirements. 

If you have a long ruleset, you may experience performance issues on the GUI, and installing rule changes on gateways can take a comparatively long time. 

If you use Check Point firewalls for a long time, it is inevitable to have long rulesets over the years. The need for using different GUI applications for different versions can be confusing. A backward compatibility feature for smart console versions could be useful - especially if you are an enterprise customer, you probably need to use different versions at the same time. 

We have used the solution for 9+ years.

I work as an internal network team member. We protect the company environment from outside threats, outside viruses, and ransomware attacks. It is kind of an IT administrator job.

They are protecting internal security as well as giving us security from the outside world or public environment. 

It protects the environment. It gives advanced features to our company, like Antivirus, more granular security policies, and more control over the traffic, e.g., what we want to allow or deny to our environment. 

What I like about this firewall is it has a central management system. We can configure or monitor a number of firewalls at a time from the central management system. 

They have a logging system where we can have our logs visible. The logs are easy to view and understand. 

While the logs are very good and easy to understand, when you want to download these customized logs, they don't have as many features compared to competitive firewalls. 

Check Point has a very good Antivirus feature. However, compared to the competition in the market, it is lacking somewhere. In my last organization, I worked with Palo Alto Networks as well. I found that while they both have an antivirus feature, the Palo Alto antivirus feature is much better. Check Point should improve this feature. It is a good feature, but compared to Palo Alto, it lacks.

I have been using it for the last three years, since 2017.

Check Point is already a very big name in the market. Our software updates, even the Antivirus updates, are very stable in the market. There are no problems with its stability.

Performing maintenance for a solution takes around 12 people. Maintenance is something that our team is capable of. Internally, we have had many training sessions on Check Point Firewall. Our seniors have managed that for us so we are capable of doing it. Most of our BAU is done by us.

Scalability is very easy. I haven't found anything that is the issue with the scalability of this firewall. If you have complete knowledge of it, the scalability is not tough.

I used their assistance many times. The experience with them is sometimes very good. They give the best solution in a short amount of time. Two out of 10 times, I feel that they are only looking to close their tickets. They are keen to do that. My personal experience with the support is an eight out of 10.

We currently use Check Point and Cisco ASA. The purpose for the company is to increase the security. They were only using Cisco ASA Firewall, which is kind of a degrading firewall right now because it lacks many features, which are advanced in Check Point Firewall. With Cisco ASA, we need to purchase additional IPS hardware. But, for Check Point, we do not require that. Also, if we want the same configuration for multiple firewalls at a time, then Cisco ASA does not support that. We have to create the same policy in each firewall.

We have our own on-premises firewalls, not cloud-based. The production time took around nine to 12 months' time. The setup was completed during this time.

We follow the three-tier architecture for this firewall, which is also recommended by Check Point. We have the central management device as well as the web console and firewall.

For the deployment process, there were only four senior network engineers involved from our company.

It is easy to control from the central management system. For example, if we have 10 firewalls, and we want to push that same configuration among them, we can use this solution's central management system to do that simultaneously. So, there is time saving in that way. The time savings does depend on the situation. For example, if I am running half an hour of work on each firewall, that will take around 300 minutes. However, if I do this work from the central management system, then it will only take 30 minutes to push the same configuration to those same 10 devices.

They sell it in one box. In that one box, they sell Antivirus and Threat Prevention. They have everything, so we are not required to purchase additional IPS hardware for it.

The cost of the pricing and licensing are okay. They are giving me a good product as far as I know. It is more expensive than Cisco, but cheaper than Palo Alto, which is fine. It has many good features, so it deserves a good price as well.

I have experience with Palo Alto Networks Firewalls and Cisco ASA Firewall. Compared to these solutions, Check Point has a very good, understandable log viewer. It is easy to view and understand the logs, which helps a lot while doing troubleshooting or making new security policies for the organization. Also, it is very easy to create new security policy rules.

The Check Point Antivirus feature lacks in comparison to Palo Alto Networks. Also, compared to other competitive solutions, the training for Check Point available right now is very expensive as well as the certification is little expensive.

Get properly trained. When I entered this organization, I struggled with this firewall. There are very few good quality training programs available in the market. Or, if it is available, then it is very expensive. So, I advise new people to get properly trained because it has many feature sets, and if they do not use them with the proper knowledge, then it could worsen their situation.

I am happy with the organization's progress, as they work hard on their product. It is a good lesson from a personal level: We should work hard and improve ourselves. 

I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.

I support multiple clients within the UK, the EMEA region, the US, and now in Asia Pacific as well. I specialize in Check Point firewalls. I design and secure their data centers, their on-premises solutions, or their businesses security.

The firewalls are mostly on-premise because most of our clients are financial organizations and they have strict compliance requirements. They feel more secure and have more control when things are on-premise in the data center. However, there are use cases where I have helped them to deploy Check Point solutions in the cloud: AWS, Azure, and in Google as well. But cloud deployments are very much in the early stages for these clients, on a development or testing basis. Most of the production workloads are still on-premise in data centers.

Most of my customers are still using R77.30, and they are on track to upgrade from that to R80, which is the current proposed version by Check Point.

One of our customers has just recently been attacked by malware and internal DoS attacks, and they have a multi-vendor, multi-layer firewall approach. The internal firewalls are Check Point. The great thing about Check Point is that because of its central architecture, you can very quickly pinpoint where the attacks are coming from. It gives you comprehensive reporting when the attacks start and when they've stopped, so you can see the complete, end-to-end picture: where the point of attack is, at what time, and what host. They can track all of that.

However, in parallel, that customer is using other firewalls which have no visibility. One of the main advantages of having Check Point firewall is definitely that it gives you absolute in-depth visibility.

Among the valuable features are antivirus, URL inspection, and anti-malware protection. These are all advanced features.

One of the great advantages of having Check Point as a firewall is that all of these are software blades, so you can buy a license or subscription and enable them and get the security up and running. With other firewalls, it's a completely different agenda, meaning some of them require hardware modules, and some of them have a complex way of adding the licensing, etc. Check Point definitely has a great architecture, where you can just enable the software blades and deploy a secure service. Overall, it provides ease of deployment and ease of use.

The area it needs improvement is the SandBlast Agent. It receives a file, or if it detects a Zero-day attack, it takes the file and analyzes it, either on-premise or in the Check Point Cloud, and then it reports back whether the file is secure or non-secure, or is unknown. That particular area definitely needs a bit more improvement, because there is a delay. That's one of the main complaints for most of our customers. Or if it is quick, then it's very complex. For example, if they have received a file which is "unknown" or has Zero-day attack malware, sometimes it doesn't get analyzed properly or it's locked into the cloud. So there are various small issues with the product that need possible improvement.

The SandBlast product on its own is a very good concept, and it works absolutely brilliantly. However, when you integrate it with existing firewalls, it just doesn't play very well.

The cloud solution is quite straightforward because it seems the SandBlast solution was designed, initially, for cloud deployments, where you've got multiple clouds or multiple vendors, and you are receiving files from different points. And on the cloud edge, for example in AWS, if you have Check Point sitting there, it works very well if you're running a virtual firewall. However, if it's on-premise and it's a dedicated appliance, then the performance is slightly different and the way it works is very different. So where it needs improvement is where it's an appliance-based solution rather than a software or cloud-based solution.

If I am using SandBlast on a virtual appliance — for example, I've got Check Point virtual appliances in AWS, and Azure as well, for a customer — those virtual appliances work absolutely fine as a service, as does SandBlast as a service. However, if it's an appliance, if it's a dedicated firewall on-premise in a data center and you add SandBlast as a software service, the integration is not that straightforward, so the experience is very different. 

It seems like they were possibly built by different teams, independent of each other.

I've been using Check Point firewalls for about 16 years. I am the main network or security lead and I have four other engineers who report to me. They also do design and deployment.

I work with approximately 40 companies that utilize Check Point.

Check Point firewalls are very stable. One good thing about Check Point is that they do rigorous testing internally before releasing updates, which is something I have not found with any other firewall products. With most of the other firewall products, when they release something, it's like the customer becomes the guinea pig for that particular version, whether a minor or a major update. However, with Check Point, you can see all the white papers and what ways they have tested a minor or major upgrade of the software version, and what the performance was like. What are their known issues and is somebody working on them or not?

So the software releases are very stable and you have visibility into how they operate and what the known issues are, so you know whether you should go ahead with them or not. And in case there is a problem, the support is excellent. You can reach out to Check Point and say, "Look, I've done the software upgrade and I'm experiencing these problems. How can I deal with them?" They are there to help you out.

There are times when we have problems in terms of software or hardware defects. We have sustained downtime, but most of the architecture I design is resilient, so if one device is down, the other one is working fine. Then in the background, I or my support team will deal with Check Point directly, to get a replacement. They're definitely quick to respond and very efficient. 

In the past, we had a lot of problems with licensing, specifically, but Check Point has redone the whole way they do licensing. It's very quick now, and very efficient.

Check Point firewalls are extremely scalable. Recently, I deployed Check Point in an AWS cloud solution for one of my clients, and it's been absolutely excellent in handling growth. They've grown from 10,000 users to a million users. The way Check Point has advertised the product, it is supposed to be highly scalable, which means it grows as your demand grows, and that has been the case. 

Recently we have set up a test case where we are moving over management servers from on-premise to a Check Point-provided Infinity cloud solution. We are still at the testing phase but, overall, it's been a great experience so far.

The teams we deal with within Check Point are extremely knowledgeable. They know how to understand the background of the problem, and they're very good about articulating how we deal with the issue, whether it's a minor software upgrade issue or it's a major failure of the hardware itself. They know where to look for the right stuff. The key point is they're very knowledgeable and very technical. And if somebody doesn't have the technical capability, they will definitely help you out to make sure you get to the bottom of the problem.

In the past, most of the customers I've worked with have used different firewall vendors, such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Juniper.

I've recently seen deployments where customers have tried to move from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and the deployment has gone horribly wrong because the product has not been tested by Cisco very well and is not a mature product. I've gone in and reviewed their business requirements and technical requirements and, based on that, I've recommended Check Point and done the design and deployment. They've absolutely been happy with the solution, how secure and how capable it is.

We use Check Point across multiple types of customers, such as financials, retail, and various other public and private sector organizations. I review their security architecture, which is firewall specific and, based on that, I have recommended Check Point. In most cases, I've managed to convince them to go ahead with Check Point firewalls as a preferred secure firewall solution.

The main reason is that Check Point is far ahead in the game. They're definitely the market leader. They are visionaries when it comes to security. Another reason is that a lot of firewall architecture starts from the firewall itself, which is the local firewall. It can easily be hacked and manipulated. However, the Check Point architecture, out-of-the-box, is very secure. They have a central Management Server and all of the firewalls are managed through that one central point. So in case somebody breaks into your firewall, the firewall is encrypted; they will delete the database. The architecture is secure by default. The good thing is that other firewall vendors have realized this and they've started to copy the same system that Check Point has used for the past 20 years now.

When working with the Check Point team on deployment, they're really helpful and very talented people. When you speak to other firewall vendors, they just think about the firewall from their point of view. The good thing about Check Point engineers, or technical staff, or even management staff, is that they understand what the requirements of business are and how they can improve or align the proposed solution. Overall, Check Point staff are very knowledgeable, they understand different industries, and they understand the product very well. That's definitely a competitive edge compared to other firewalls.

Once the design is done, for something simple the deployment can take half a day, whereas for a complex deployment in a data center it can take about five days.

Our implementation plan is divided into different phases. Phase One might be the physical cabling of the firewall device itself. Phase Two would be the logical setup, which means defining the interfaces and the virtual setup of the firewall itself. The final phase would be to bring it online in parallel with production, in a non-prod service, and test it to ensure it works as per the design.

A customer I'm working with right now was running with Check Point and they wanted to move to Fortinet firewalls. However, when I worked with them on the design to upgrade the existing Check Point firewalls, what we worked out was that even though the Fortinet might have seemed like a cheaper option, it didn't have the security capabilities that Check Point is offering. On that basis, the customer signed off on a project for upgrading their existing firewalls, on-premise and cloud, from R77.30 to R80.10.

It can be expensive, but it's value for money. What you pay for is what you get. You can go down in price and buy some cheap firewalls, but you're not going to get great support and you're not going to get the level of protection you need. With Check Point you get all of that.

With Juniper, one of the biggest downsides is support. The support portal is slow and I won't say the staff is competent in terms of understanding. They're very disconnected internally. What I mean is that the team working on the software development of the firewall has no interface with the support teams that are handling day-to-day TAC cases. They definitely struggle when it comes to understanding challenges, problems, and incidents with the firewalls.

In the past, Juniper firewalls were good, but recently the security offering has just not been there. They don't have anything like SandBlast from Check Point. They don't have up-to-date Zero-day attacks control. They're still running a very old architecture. They can do things like antivirus and URL proxy, but those are very simple features. They have none of the advanced feature set that Check Point has.

Palo Alto is very competitive with Check Point when it comes to security. However, one of the challenges with Palo Alto is that, overall, the solution can be extremely complex and expensive. That is one thing I've heard from customers again and again. Either they have existing Palo Altos or they plan to go to Palo Alto, but when they do a comparison with Check Point, what they find is that the overall value with Check Point is much greater than with Palo Alto firewalls.

If you're looking to implement Check Point as a security solution, definitely do your homework. Do some research, not just in terms of firewalls, but overall security architecture. Which ones are the leaders in the field? Which ones are there to deliver what they promise? And overall, how does the architecture work? Is it secure or not? And does it come from a team that understands how to support the solution itself? Are they consistent? Look at their track record for the past 10 or 15 years, or are they a new player? If they are, you don't know whether they're going to stay in the game or not. A good thing about Check Point is that its core product is security. They've been doing it day in and day out. You know they're there to stay in the game. You can trust them.

Check Point is a proven solution. A lot of customers and clients already rely on it. And for the Next Generation Firewalls, they're coming up with new features as security threats become known.

If somebody wants a secure and stable environment, Check Point is definitely the leader to go to; definitely the number-one choice. It's not only what it says on the box. In reality, I've worked with hundreds of banks and they're happy with the product because it works; in practice, it works. That's the main thing.

Our customers primarily use it to safeguard their organization's network against malicious activities and closely monitor user internet usage. The key objectives include implementing controls on web and application usage to restrict unwanted activities among users.

The primary advantage stems from the precision of the application engines. Customers can rest assured that unwanted infiltrations into their organizations are unlikely due to the advanced nature of the IAV engines. The algorithms employed are notably stringent, and while they may not be publicly disclosed, they play a crucial role in thoroughly scanning all incoming network traffic. Leveraging this technology, customers can swiftly and effectively protect their LAN network with Check Point.

Its most significant strength lies in its superior threat detection engines.

I would highlight the need for enhancements in technical support services.

I have been working with it for four months.

I found it to be reliable and stable.

It provides good scalability. In total, we are responsible for around three hundred and fifty endpoints.

Our experience with their customer support is not very satisfactory. We've encountered an incident at one of our customer sites, and despite reaching out for support and raising the issue with them, we haven't received a satisfactory solution from the support team in the past three months. I would rate it three out of ten.

Negative

Compared to other vendors such as FortiGate and Kaspersky, Check Point's protection engines stand out for their intuitiveness. However, the drawback lies in the pricing.

In our deployment process, there are two methods available: standard and distributed. The predominant choice in our country is the standard deployment, utilized by approximately ninety-two to ninety-five percent of our customers. In the standard deployment approach, a separate server is configured with three ports, situated between the firewall and the switch. Configurations are not directly applied to the firewall; instead, they are made on the server. After completing the configurations on the server, the changes, such as creating new firewall rules, are not immediately connected to the firewall. Instead, they go through the server, where calculations are performed, and the configured rules are loaded. If a misconfiguration is detected, the server notifies us, highlighting any inaccuracies in the rules or policies. This preventive measure helps avoid applying flawed configurations directly to the firewall. Regarding the ISMP modules, I believe a single individual is sufficient. Given some time for research, this person should be able to deploy it efficiently for me. The deployment time varies depending on the configurations. Maintenance primarily involves updating the firmware; aside from that, there are no additional requirements.

The greatest value is evident when an immediate threat targets your organization. Check Point firewalls excel in preventing such attacks, thanks to their highly advanced protection engines.

It is a notably expensive product in our country compared to FortiGate and other servers. The support services, licenses, and the additional requirement for another license to avail 24/7 support from Check Point contribute to its overall higher cost.

My recommendation is to allocate time for thorough research when working with it. Relying solely on their support may not be sufficient. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.