Check Point NGFW Reviews

The main use case is Firewall provisioning and integration with Tufin and Skybox. Also, we focus on firewall compliance, rule review, VPN configuration, and network troubleshooting.

Working for one of the largest companies, I found that using Check Point has made firewall provisioning very easy for us, and integration with the above-mentioned tools has eased the process of PCI audit, security compliance, and rule recertification.

I think the VSX has been the most valuable feature for us. We use it for tunnel management, which is great. The configuration has been quite straightforward.

Debugging could be improved when compared to the competition.

I think the product release lifecycle should be improved.                                                       

We have been using Check Point NGFW for almost eight years.

Previously, we used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the fact that Check Point offers more stability and visibility into the firewalls. Management is easier, especially using the GUI version.

I think that the pricing is different for every organization.

We did evaluate Juniper, as well.

We use Check Point firewalls to secure our internal network from the outside world and to provide a good, comfortable, and secure environment for our employees.

We have various models from the R80 series, such as the R80.10 and the R80.30.

Before, we were using firewalls from Palo Alto. The benefit of the Check Point firewall is that it has more security features. It has antivirus signatures and additional features for which we should require additional hardware devices in the firewall. It also gives us a central management system, which was not present in the Cisco ASA.

Check Point's Next Generation Firewall has many good features. It has a central management system, and that means we do not have to go to each and every firewall to configure it. We can manage them with the central device. 

There are also additional features, compared to a Layer 4 or Layer 3 firewall, such as AV signatures and devices, which are very helpful for securing the company's network.

The only thing which I think should be improved is that training should be increased. In my position I also interview potential employees and I haven't found many people in the market, nowadays, who are familiar with the Check Point firewall. They are more familiar with Palo Alto and Cisco ASA and they are more comfortable with them. Check Point is one of the good firewalls and training should be increased by the company so that more people are familiar with it and with their switches.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for the last three-and-a-half years.

The stability is very good. The updates we get for the antivirus and the URL filtering sites are also very nice and happen very often. That is a good thing because there are various new attacks coming out but we get their updates on time. 

In terms of the scalability, it is very easy to extend the utilization of Check Point firewalls. We did so in the past. We extended our environment in our organization and it was very easy to extend it.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 people who are using the Check Point firewalls directly or indirectly. They are passing their traffic through it. Expansion of our usage completely depends on the organization. If they want to do so they will tell us and, if that happens, we will definitely go for Check Point firewalls.

We have used Check Point TAC to resolve our issues. We have had good support. They have good engineers there.

We were using Palo Alto and Cisco before and we replaced them with Check Points.

We used Palo Alto in a  few of our sites, but we found Palo Alto was more expensive and its updates and services were also more expensive compared to the Check Point firewall.

Cisco is a very basic firewall in the market, and it has a limited set of features, compared to Palo Alto and Check Point. Palo Alto has rich features, but it is one of the more expensive firewalls in the market. The Check Point firewall is not too expensive, but it is also a third-generation firewall.

The drawback of the Check Point firewall is the lack of training materials. That should be increased.

We have a team of seven to eight people who have all installed and configured environments so the initial setup, for us, was a very straightforward process. And these are the people who handle maintenance of the firewall and manage it, during different shifts. They are all network engineers.

It took us between nine and 12 months to do the implementation. We have Check Point hardware so we followed the recommended, three-level architecture, in which there is a SmartConsole, the hardware security gateway firewall, and the central management device.

The pricing is good. It is less than Palo Alto's firewalls. Check Point has the same features as Palo Alto, but the licensing and cost of these firewalls are not too expensive. It is one of the best firewalls in the market in this range.

Check Point firewalls have many features. Before configuring it in an environment, you should know each and every feature of the firewall. You should also follow the three-level hierarchy which is recommended by Check Point.

There are a few add-on features for Check Point firewalls. I only learned that by using the firewalls. I'm very happy with the way Check Point is progressing. They continue to work on their firewalls even after making their name. That is something we should follow in our lives as well: Once we have made our name, we should not stop there. We should further build the reputation of the company and product.

We are very happy with the Check Point firewalls. The only thing missing, as I mentioned earlier, is that training should be increased for the firewall by the organization. Otherwise, we are very happy with investment in this solution.

We have two clusters. We are using them as both perimeter firewalls and data center firewalls.

In the past few years, we encountered attempted attacks on our company and we succeeded in finding that we were those attacks, or that some user or workstation was communicating with malicious sites. Without the Check Point Next Generation Firewall, we wouldn't have had the tools to identify these things and to remediate the problems.

A firewall is a firewall. It's a Layer 4 machine that blocks or allows traffic for ports. That's the basics and we don't need a next-generation firewall for that. But the features that are important include:

• IPS
• sandbox
• SandBlast
• Anti-Bot
• URL filtering.

A basic firewall is a basic firewall. You don't need Check Point and you don't need Palo Alto or the other vendors to block ports from source to destination. But we need the advanced features of this product to give us the visibility into, and the security and protection from, scenarios that are not the usual source-to-destination attacks. The solution needs to understand what the connection is, what the behavior of the connection is, and what the reason for the connection is. It can't be a stupid machine. It needs to know that if you're allowing port 53 from source to destination, that it has to check and give us the information that this communication is legitimate, and not something that is malicious.

We just upgraded to the latest software version of Check Point so we have a lot of new stuff to learn. The older version had a little bit of a problem with identity awareness and with HTTPS inspection with the visibility of the logs, and the implementing of rules. But as far as I can see now, with the new version, most of the problems were fixed.

In terms of new features, maybe it would help if we could start to manage all the stuff in the cloud and not in the on-prem servers. The management side could also be faster when you install policies. But other than that, I'm satisfied.

I've used Check Point NGFW firewalls for more than eight years.

In all the time I've been using Check Point there have been no major issues or problems. It's a very stable environment and a very stable solution, in my experience.

We have around 600 to 700 endpoints, workstations, points of sale, and mobile devices. We also have about 200 servers, a WiFi environment, and a networking environment that is not small. We have implemented it 100 percent but, because of the Coronavirus, the company itself is not 100 percent capacity.

For now, we have implemented everything that we wanted and the firewalls are working 100 percent. There are no plans in the near future to grow. Of course, if everything goes back to normal, maybe we will grow.

There are no problems for us in terms of scalability because we're not working at full capacity. We designed the new solution to give us the resources that meet our needs for the moment and for the future. There is no problem with scalability and we can add new firewalls, or replace what we have with bigger firewalls. Everything is okay in terms of scalability from our side.

We continue using our partner for resolving problems and doing the changes that we need. That is the way that most vendors are working. First of all you need a partner and then the partner will open up a case with Check Point.

But one of the best things about working with Check Point, especially here in Israel, is that there is a direct line to the support, because we have such a good relationship with them, to speed things up.

The support is fast, professional, and thorough. Those are the most important things when you have a problem. If we need to call for support from either our partner or Check Point, we get a quick response and, usually, a fast resolution of the problem.

We migrated from Check Point to Check Point

It was really pretty straight forward because we upgraded from an older Check Point product. The installation and the assimilation of the new firewall was very quick with almost no downtime and almost no problems.

We deployed four firewalls in two clusters and, all in all, it took about one day of work; half a day for each side. That includes the installation, the configuration, and the exporting of the configuration from the old system and, of course, all the fixes and patches.

On our side there was one person involved in the initial setup, just to make sure that everything was going okay and, after the installation, to do all the checks and verify that everything was working fine and as needed.

We deployed it with the help of a partner, called Spider Solutions, here in Israel. Our experience with them was good. The technician that came here to install the firewalls was professional and thorough. Everything went according to plan, with no issues.

The whole initial setup was done by the partner and our role was more oversight to see that everything was okay and to give the information that was needed to proceed.

The pricing in this category is a jungle, but Check Point was very competitive. They were very forthcoming and agile for our budget needs.

I have checked a few other vendors and solutions but, in the end, Check Point is the best candidate for our organization. That's true technology-wise and because of the support. Because Check Point is an Israeli company, it's very easy to get help very fast. We speak the same language and that helps as well. Doing support in Hebrew is very helpful for us. 

Other vendors were either more expensive or, to get some of the features, we would have had to upgrade to a bigger, stronger, and more expensive machine. But with Check Point, that wasn't the case.

Check this solution and see how it fits with your organization. See how easily you can manage and control the environment. The visibility and the management provided by the product is one of the most important things, other than the security features that the product has. And check the sizing carefully. Check that the machines you're going to buy are sufficient for your current needs and the future needs of your organization.

We use the solution to protect our organization and workers from the outside Internet or any untrusted network.

We have the three-tier architecture of Check Point. We use its consoles, central management system, and firewall device for managing it. This three-tier architecture is recommended by the Check Point Community.

We protect our internal customers using Check Point Firewalls by providing them security as well as detecting vulnerabilities. 

The most valuable feature would be the central management system of Check Point because we can manage multiple firewalls through it at the same time. It doesn't matter the location.

I also like the advanced Antivirus feature of Check Point.

The Threat Management feature makes it very easy to detect the vulnerabilities and other factors. We can make new policy according to it. Policy creation is very simple in Check Point. Because the logs are very good in Check Point Firewall, this reduces our work with the reports that we are getting from the Threat Management. It is very convenient for us to use the reports to make new policies for security and other things.

It is very user-friendly.

The training for Check Point Firewall should increase, including the number of Training Centers. For most new people in our organization, we have to provide them training from our end, as they are not trained in Check Point Firewalls. So, we have to do the training, from our point of view, to make our engineers able to use Check Point Firewalls. However, with other firewalls, they are already trained, so we are not require to provide them training. This could be improved by the Check Point Community.

I have been using it for the past six years.

The Check Point Firewall is stable. 

The updates that we get are also very stable. We haven't found any stability issues in the updates at all. Features, like the Antivirus, are updated with almost every release and done on a frequent basis.

The scalability is very good for Check Point Firewall. It is very easy to increase. For example, during the COVID-19 period, we increased our deployment on an emergency basis, and it was very easy.

My organization has around 4,000 people. 

For Check Point, we have a team of around eight people who manage it. We are basically a team of senior network engineers.

The tech support is very good for Check Point. We get straightforward solutions for it every time, and they do not take a lot of time since we have to resolve the cases quickly in a live environment. So, they are very helpful and capable.

We are also using Cisco ASA, and we have been thinking that we need to go with Cisco or Check Point. At last, we have decided to go with Check Point because of its advanced features.

The initial setup was very straightforward. We didn't have many problems.

The deployment part took around nine to 10 months. We completely planned the deployment before doing it. Since we already installed Check Point Firewall in multiple branches earlier, we used those same plans to configure it.

We didn't require any external help for the deployment. Our R&D and tech were capable of doing it. Our deployment team consisted of six to eight people, working in different shifts, to configure it.

Overall, it is a good cost saving product. We do not have to purchase additional hardware for it, which is a good. This saves us 10 percent in costs compared to Cisco.

The solution saves us about 20 percent in our time, which is substantial.

The price could be decreased, because the competitors of Check Point Firewall are giving lower prices in comparison.

The licensing part is something that is very easy to do in Check Point Firewall. We just need to purchase the license, then we have to write the keys in while installing it. The good thing is that it is an easy process to update the license.

We are also using Cisco ASA and FTD. The problem with Cisco ASA is the GUI is missing, while the GUI is good for Check Point Firewall. Apart from that, in Check Point, there are advanced features, like Antivirus and Threat Management, for which we do not require other hardware, where it is required for Cisco ASA Firewall. So, Check Point provides us a cost savings in that way.

The central management system of Check Point is missing in Cisco ASA. This is a good feature because it saves time. We can use it to manage multiple firewalls through one central management device. It is also easy to use.

We are slowly eliminating Cisco ASA and using more Check Point Firewalls, bringing more Check Point Firewalls into our environment.

I have also used Palo Alto, but the organization is using Check Point because they have more confidence in things like Check Point's stability factor. However, more people are trained to use Palo Alto.

Get good training on Check Point, which is very rare to obtain at this point of time. Before implementing or deploy the product, you should be trained properly so you know all the features. It has heavy features in terms of quantity. You should know about each feature before using or deploying it.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of 10. 

We are using this solution for the security enhancement of our internal company network. This is to protect our customers as well as internal users from the untrusted network or outside world.

I am using the physical appliances of Check Point Firewall as well as virtual machines (VMs). We are using the same versions of R80 on our VMs that we are using for our physical appliances.

It saves a lot of manpower. If we have centralized management, then we do not require as many members on our team. So, this is a cost saving feature. If there wasn't centralized management, we would need 30 members instead of 11 members for our team. 

The nicest feature is the centralized management of multiple firewalls. With the centralized management, we can easily use and operate multiple firewalls as well as create a diagram of them. 

It has various features, like Threat Prevention and Antivirus. It is easier to use and have knowledge of a single device rather than multiple devices/technologies when doing an installation. It is also easy to use because of having Antivirus and Threat Prevention features within the same firewall.

I would like the user interface to be more user-friendly. I want the UI to be easier to use than Check Point's competitors. 

We have been using this technology for the last four years.

Check Point is the one of the most trusted vendors in the market. All the Checkpoint Firewall updates are very nice. We get the updates every months, and they are very stable updates.

The solution is very scalable. It is easy to expand it, if required. and doesn't take too much time. It also doesn't require too much manpower.

There are 2000 to 4000 people who are indirectly using Check Point Firewall.

It is always a good experience to work with their technical support. They are knowledgeable, always finding a solution. If we send them a bug, they fix it as soon as they can. 

I previously used Cisco ASA Firewalls for network security. 

Check Point is more advanced in comparison to Cisco Firewall. It has many good features, like central management, Threat Prevention, and Antivirus included in one device. With Cisco, we didn't have that.

The setup is straightforward, not complex; it was a simple setup. For the physical firewall, we just required a physical appliance, then we set it up according to our requirements. We had the complete setup guidelines. We used the three-tier hierarchy, which is standard and recommended for Check Point. We could also purchase service from Check Point to assist with the setup process. So, it was a good experience.

Our deployment took six to eight months.

We didn't require Check Point's help during deployment. After deployment, we did require their help for critical cases.

This product provides a complete return on investment. It gives us the level of security that we expect and should have.

The pricing and licensing part is something that could be improved. Check Point license and pricing are a bit higher compared to competing firewalls. I think they can work on that.

We didn't require an evaluation process. We knew that we had to go for Check Point.

I would rate the solution an eight out of 10.

Our primary use cases for Check Point NGFW are for perimeter security and content filtering for browsing behavior.

We have a lot of flexibility now and a leg up identifying zero day threats. We have multiple ways of doing policies now that we didn't have before. The options are more robust over previous products and I would say that we're pleased with the product. The reports I'm getting are that we're satisfied, even impressed, with the options Check Point offers.

Packet inspections have been a strong point. Our Identity Collectors have also been helpful. In many ways, Check Point has been a step up from our SonicWalls that we had in-house before that. There's a lot of additional flexibility that we didn't have before.

We saw a noticeable performance hit using SonicWalls. Whether it's because we've provisioned the Check Point gateways correctly from a hardware standpoint or whether it's the software that is much more efficient (or both), we do packet inspection with very little impact to hardware resources and throughput speeds are much improved.

With SonicWall, after it would calculate inspection overhead, we might see throughput at, and often below, 15%. My network administrator gave me data showing Check Point hovering at 50%, and so we were actually seeing Check Point fulfill its claims better than SonicWall.

Because there's quite a bit of flexibility in Check Point, improved best practices would be helpful. There might be six ways to do something and we're looking for one recommended way, one best practice, or maybe even a couple of best practices. A lot of times we're trying to figure out what we should do and how we should handle a particular problem or scenario. Having a better roadmap would help us as we navigate the options.

The VPN setup could be simplified. We had to engage professional services for that. That's not a problem, but compared to other products we've used, it was a little more complex.

We started putting Check Point NGFW into production late first quarter this year, right before the pandemic hit. We put in two gateways and one management server.

Stability is there especially compared to previous security products. Certain things had quirky behaviors. For instance, once we upgraded to 80.40, a couple items inexplicably acted up (not uncommon for any software upgrade). Certain policies would drop and then show up again (remained in force, just briefly disappeared from management console). I would have to get some specifics from my network administrator, but I do recall some strange behaviors. One of them was fixed by a patch and another one still has a backup issue that's pending right now about how to best back up the device before we upgrade.

I haven't had to test scalability yet because we purchased it for our existing needs and as a company, our performance and our needs are pretty flat. We don't really have need to scale yet.

We are adequately equipped for what we need and we have room to grow and to add all of our users and possibly add additional products down the road and still have plenty of room to do so on how these gateways are powered.

We have a total of about 620 employees that use Check Point NGFW. I would say we are 80% there. There are still some users that have to be migrated to it once we test their accounts, their kiosks, that kind of stuff. 

There is one primary employee who is dedicated to maintenance and there are another two who back him up but our network administrator is primarily responsible.

Mixed experience, mostly satisfactory. Some support engineers are quite helpful and efficient, others required more patience working through support incidents. ATAM support has been high quality, and as previously mentioned, local support has been key to resolving some cases much more quickly. If we were giving their support a letter grade, it would be in the B range.

We were previously using SonicWall. We switched because we were struggling with performance, support, and strategy. There were things that were broken that did not have coherent or reliable fixes. At the time we did not consider it to be next-generation technology. There were problems with GeoIP enforcement. There were also quite a few performance problems, especially with inspecting traffic. It would literally bring the device to its knees once we turned on all the inspections that we really felt that we needed. It was under-provisioned, under-specced, and coupled with all the support problems we had, we started shopping for a new solution.

The setup was both straightforward and complex. There were some complexities in there that required us to get help. We have some local representatives that are very helpful and so we frequently contacted them for guidance.

We're still migrating people behind Check Point, especially in our main facility, but the heavy lifting was done by early summer. It took around three to four months.

Our strategy was to set it up in parallel with the existing firewalls and begin setting up policies and testing the policies against individual services in-house. Then, as we were successful, we would grab pilot users and migrate them to Check Point and have them start trying to break things or browse to certain sites and see what behaviors they were getting.

It was a slow migration with a handful of people at first. We tweaked their experiences and just kept adding people. It was gradual. We tested, fixed, and then migrated a few more incrementally.

We had two different ways of getting help. We have local representatives who are in the same metropolitan area and they were very responsive. Then when we would have to contact standard support. We were satisfied about 80% of the time. Sometimes follow-up was not there. Sometimes there would be delays and occasionally there would be rehashing of information that didn't seem like it was efficient. Eventually, we would get the answers we would need.

That's why we rely heavily on the local people because they could sometimes light a fire and get things moving a little bit quicker.

Primarily it's offered stability and caught behaviors and given users (and administrators) a level of confidence as they are doing their daily jobs. The inspection that Check Point does, even when we download a document or a PDF, offers a bit more peace of mind in those types of transactions. GeoIP is working like we had hoped compared to SonicWall.

We have a lot of granularity in our policies. We can accommodate some really interesting scenarios on our operations floors, certain groups needing certain types of access versus other groups. We're accommodating them fairly seamlessly from migrating from SonicWall to Check Point. We might have struggled to try to make stuff happen in SonicWall, and Check Point just seems to ingest it and run with it. Having access to Check Point's AI ThreatCloud cloud has given us a lot of peace of mind. ThreatCloud is 25+ years worth of exploit research that informs and feeds CP technologies and gateways.

Another feature that's been helpful is the sandbox feature. A lot of companies offer this type of thing now, but CP has been offering it for quite a while. If end users are browsing websites, and they download a payload-infected document from a website, SandBlast will detect it and take it offline. It will sandbox it, detonate it there safely, pull out the content that we're actually looking for, then re-present that cleaned content back to the user.

Strongly consider augmenting standard support with Check Point's premium option or by purchasing ATAM/professional services time blocks, especially during deployment.

Standard support is decent, though occasionally frustrating from a turnaround perspective. While we sometimes wait a while for resolution on some cases, the information we receive is usually quality; that's been our experience.

We looked at Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos. I brought some of that experience to bear on our decision but our shortlist was Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point.

The reason I selected Check Point was partly its pedigree, knowing that Palo Alto formed out of Check Point. Both companies are built from the same DNA and each has a history and a culture I respect and trust. Check Point Research is regularly in the news it seems for finding exploits and vulnerabilities in popular cloud platforms. 

Check Point offered quality local support, including our technical sales representative and a support manager that live in the area. A couple of executives also live in the area. If we needed to escalate, we had the people here locally that could help us with that.

My former company used Palo Alto and, while I didn't interface with the products on a regular basis (we relied on the network team for analysis), I'd overhear frustrations with support. Palo Alto is also a great product and it wasn't an easy decision choosing between CP and PA from a technical perspective. I had never used Check Point prior to this position, but it outpaced its competitors in a few key areas, especially the pre-sales phase, POC engagements, local support options, and the maturity of Check Point's ThreatCloud technology.

My advice would be to look hard at premium support options. Know what your tolerances are, and if you expect fairly quick turnaround on support incidents, go ahead and invest that money in support. Definitely take advantages of pro services, buy a block of hours, whether that's 10 hours or 20 hours, and use that to fill in the knowledge gaps, especially during deployment. If you rely on standard support during setup, depending on how complex your environment is, you may be frustrated.

We did well doing what I recommended here. We bought two rounds of pro services (20 hours). I don't want to pile on standard support - it's not bad - it's just that if we were to rely only on standard support, I think our migration would have taken longer, and there might have been more frustrations. Because we had local support and because we bought pro services, it accelerated our timeline and it got us into production much quicker.

From what I've seen and heard from my staff, I would rate Check Point NGFW technology a nine out of ten.

The Next Generation Firewalls, the 64000 and 44000 series, provide us with support for large data centers and telco environments. They're quite reliable and provide great performance.

There are a lot of features which help us in providing a more secure environment for our organization, such as when we have Active-Active.

The most valuable feature is that the scalable 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to excel in large data centers and the telco environment as well. We have a lot of these types of customers, and these Check Point firewalls support them.

In addition 

• it supports dynamic objects, which we use for security purposes
• the antivirus is quite effective
• the logging and tracking are quite easy
• overall, it is easy to use.

The area where Check Point can improve is the antivirus, as it only provides a small number of updates for it. Updates should be more frequent.

In addition, the certification process is quite expensive. It should be a little cheaper so that everyone can be trained and certified and have better knowledge of Check Point's products.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for more than a year. My responsibilities include implementing changes on the firewalls and troubleshooting.

They're quite stable and quite good. Management is simple because we can implement a lot of changes on the firewalls through the central manager.

They're quite scalable because they support large data centers, while offering reliability and performances as well.

The initial setup is quite easy. You don't need much training for it. Deployment takes around one week.

We have different stages in the setup process and we follow all the stages. We have to give structure to the plan, outline what we need to do. That goes to our manager, our senior experts, for approval. Then we implement the changes after their approval. Once the changes are implemented, we have our team leaders who validate whether everything is good and as expected or not. Then we close it. This is the basic strategy we follow in our organization.

About 500 to 600 employees work on Check Point firewalls in our organization and they have different roles. For example, I handle network and security admin. There are also security associates, consultants, and analysts.

The pricing of Check Point's firewalls is good. It is not that expensive.

In my previous company, one of the clients was a big chocolate company. They had this payment card infrastructure (PCI), where they needed to have auditors from PCI check the firewalls to see if everything was okay. So, they had web-based authentication. 

I'm working with the 5800, 5600, and 5200 models. I work with the UTMs as well. These are physical appliances as well as open servers.

It helped clients get through big audits for PCI, which has been very cost-effective for them. In one hour, they make 30,000 to 40,000 pounds worth of sales. A PCI audit has actually threatened them, "If you don't do it by this date, you will have to stop taking payments." Even if the audit is delayed about an one hour or so, they'll have thousands of pounds worth of losses. The previous company may have spent a lot of money on Check Point, but they save a lot as well. So, they were quite happy with that. 

The most valuable feature is definitely the logs. The way you can search the logs and have the granularity from the filter. It's just very nice. 

I love the interface of R.80.30. The R.80 interface is very nicely thought out with everything in one place, which makes Check Point easier to use. When I started in 2014, I was just confused with how many interfaces I had to go on to find things. While there are quite a few interfaces still in the older smart dashboard versions, most things are consolidated now.

The naming in the inline layers and ordered layers needs improvement. It makes things very complicated. I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. For audit policies, it is okay since it's very simple to see. However, this area is for very large organizations, which have too many policies, and they need to share all these policies. For small to medium-sized businesses, they don't need it. Even if somebody has 500 rules, if they try to use it, it can be very confusing.

In R77.30, the only thing which I hated was having to go into each day's log file and search for that day. However, in R.80, we have a unified platform, so you can just filter out with the date, then it will give you the log for that date and time. 

I would like Check Point to have certification similar to what Cisco offers. Check Point's certification doesn't cover a lot of things. For example, Check Point Certified Security Expert (CCSE) should be actually included with the Check Point Security Administration (CCSA), as a lot of people just go for the CCSA and get stuck when it comes to a lot of things on Check Point. 

Biggest lesson learnt: Never assume. We had issues when we enabled DHCP server on one of the firewalls. We tried to exclude some IP addresses so the rest would be allocated, but that didn't work. We had to start from the beginning to include the rest of the IP addresses.

Six to seven years.

It is very stable. 

The headache with these firewalls is when they failover. The client will ask us why. We have a separate service desk and Tier 2 guys who monitor these firewalls. But, in these cases, they can't tell why, because you have to deep dive. The reason was unclear on R77.30, so I had to find it in the logs. However, in R.80, it's quite clear. We will just use a cphaprob stat to tell us the failover reason for the last time. 

Sometimes, it is very difficult to find something in Check Point Firewalls when you are stuck. Therefore, you need to know exactly what you are doing.

They do scale well as long as a company is not scaling rapidly. This is the reason we have a CPSizeMe tool. With normal growth, they will easily go for five to 10 years. Normal growth means setting up a few offices, not doing big mergers.

We have about four to five Check Point users out of 20 network engineers.

In my new job, we have 80 clients in user center.

I would rate the support as a three out of 10. It seems like they are all Tier 2 guys. If there is a problem, you search everything and read all the articles, then you contact their support center who forward you to the same articles. It is very difficult to work with their support guys, unless you work with the guys in Israel.

From my last job, I had a web UI issue on one of my firewalls. It's been a year now, and it's not been resolved. Although it's been to the Israel as well, It's still been delayed. We couldn't live with the issue, so we decided we would buy a new open server, as the previous open server was quite old, then we did a fresh install of R.30 on it.

if you buy the appliances or licenses through partners, they will try to resolve your issue or talk in a way that makes sense.

My previous company used to have Junipers that used to send all the credentials via HTTP. Because all Juniper SRXs didn't do that, since they were quite old (version 570), they had to buy new firewalls. I tried to do it, but I couldn't do it on the Junipers, especially since they were out of support and nobody would help me from Juniper.

I told my previous company, "Check Point would be the best solution for them. In the long run, while you might have a lot of issues with auditors, we will actually be able to combat this using Check Point firewalls if you get the proper licensing." Then, we did web bots on Check Points. 

About five years later, an auditor said that we needed to do a RADIUS Authentication, not a clear text password nor the Check Point local password. So, we implemented that as well. This was a bit tricky because they didn't want the local guys to have RADIUS Authentication, but anybody coming from the outside would have to go through RADIUS. This was a bit tricky with Check Point because I had to involve Check Point support in the process as well, but we were able to do it. This was one of the client use cases.

The initial setup was straightforward. I told one of my colleagues in my last job, "Just follow the prompts and you should be able to install it. It is a very simple, basic thing. Just do it as a gateway, then that's it. You are done". 

Before, on R77.30, there were cluster IDs and people needed to know what they were doing. In the R80 cluster, the cluster ID is gone, so it is very straightforward and you don't have to be an expert to install it.

A new installation on the VMs (about a week ago) took me around 20 minutes or less. This was a lot faster than I imagined, and I've created quite a lot of resources to their management and Gateway as well.

If the firewalls go down, then the employees' car payments would stop. This would be a disaster. 

There are three types of licensing: Threat Prevention, NGTP, and Next Generation Threat Extraction. Before, it used to be you would just enable the license of whatever blade you wanted to buy. Nowadays, Threat Prevention would be sufficient for most clients, so I would think people would go for the NGTP, license which includes all the blades.

All sorts of councils in London use the solution. In my new job, there are quite a lot of councils and schools as well. They need to know the web traffic from their users, e.g., what they are searching and looking for and where they are going. Therefore, its application and URL filtering comes in quite handy. I've seen the application and URL filtering on Palo Alto, and it is a pain to get those details from it and create a report for users. Whereas, the user report is very easy to get with Check Point.

I have not seen another firewall offer the same level of logs that Check Point offers. I have worked on ASA and Juniper SRX. While they are a bit similar, they are not exactly what Check Point has to offer.

This is not day-to-day firewall work, where maybe a node can do it. If you get into a trouble, you can't actually involve Check Point support all the time, especially when you won't get a response. You need to employ people who are certified. Check Point has a lot to sink in, and it's not an easy thing. You might just expose your environment, even after spending a lot of money.

It is future-proof. I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.