Check Point NGFW Reviews

We use Check Point Gateways for securing our data centers including DMZ networks as well as gateways for our branch offices around the world. They are connected via MPLS, internet, or site-to-site VPNs depending on the branch connectivity.

A minimum standard for the whole environment is the NGFW. Firewall rules according to our security policy. VPN for site-to-site tunnels to our own gateways or to partners and customers. IPS is set primarily to prevent, and for some signatures to detect. 

Application Control is still in the early stages.

Firewalling is one of Check Point's core business attributes, and it just works.

Creating site-to-site VPNs between Check Point Gateways that are within the same management is unbelievably easy. If you create VPNs for 3rd parties and there are mismatches or issues, you will see logs that help pinpoint issues or misconfiguration.

Application control help with identifying applications and therefore makes firewall rules easier since changing ports don't have to be adapted every time an application changes or updates.

Generally speaking, all features are well documented and the two platforms help with configuration. Documentation and knowledgebase articles in the user center as well as user recommendation within the forums are great. The Admin Guides are really well documented, but it's a lot to read.

Check Point helps a lot with automatization which definitely reduces the effort to maintain the environment. The best example would be the CDT tool which helps with decreasing the amount of time for upgrading whole environments.

The policy installation length is still too long. It was promised that the time would be severely reduced in newer versions, but it is still too long. R81 promises at least parallel policy installations, which help in larger environments.

Check Point's advantage (to be able to configure everything) is also a disadvantage. The environment is quite complex. Troubleshooting is not always easy as there are a lot of possible debugs that can be taken, and the support will not always send the right or necessary debugs. Some debugs also can cause a heavy load, so you have to keep an eye on what you troubleshoot.

Our company has used Check Point for well over 10 years.

If it's running, it's stable. New setups have to be tested though.

The solution can be scaled from very small branch offices to huge data centers or even cloud data centers.

Support depends on how well you describe the issue and send information. Sometimes escalation is necessary.

The more features (blades) are turned on, the more complex the environment becomes. If something goes wrong, you have to rule out several issues (hardware, blades, et cetera).

I use CheckPoint in our data center to control the internet and to enable threat prevention. I then integrate it into my center and to my events.

I like the SmartEvent feature. When we see a threat, SmartEvent can create a rule for that. SmartEvent works with the SmartCenter to block a threat attack with a block monitor. The SmartCenter has the management for all the firewalls and data centers in a single dashboard.

It could be more stable and scalable. Check Point price and support could be better.

I have ten years of experience using Check Point NGFW.

Check Point NGFW could be more stable. I think the problem is that the kernel sometimes won't play ball and isn't stable. Sometimes, they have a block, and we have to spend a lot of time fixing it. In contrast, I think Palo Alto and Fortinet are more stable.

Check Point NGFW could be more scalable. I think Palo Alto has more plugins and features, and Check Point needs more features. However, Check Point integration is very complex.

Check Point support could be better. I think Palo Alto has a very clear pricing model. When we have an issue, we create a ticket and receive fast service from Palo Alto. It's good.

The initial setup, in my experience, isn't simple as Fortinet and Palo Alto. It would be better if the person doing it has experience. 

I implemented this solution by myself.

The price could be better. I think Palo Alto pricing is high, and Check Point isn't much better. FortiGate is cheaper. I think when I implemented this solution, I recommended buying a yearly subscription.

When I choose a solution for a customer, I must verify the features, current specifications and make recommendations. When we use an all-in-one firewall solution, we usually recommend using a Palo Alto external firewall. This is because Fortinet has an SD-WAN solution and firewalls, and Palo Alto is the same. But I don't think Check Point has one. When a customer doesn't want to implement many solutions, we recommend using Fortinet or Palo Alto.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point NGFW an eight.

The user interface is very good.

The level of security is excellent. It protects our organization well.

It's a good overall product and we have a high level of satisfaction with the features on offer. 

Technical support could be improved. It's hit or miss in terms of the level of service and getting the answers you need.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

We have hundreds of users that use the solution currently within our company.

We aren't 100% satisfied with technical support. Sometimes you get the help you need and sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's absolutely amazing. Sometimes they're great. However, you can't rely on them being like that all the time. We'd like the service level to be more reliable.

I can't speak to the installation process, as it was handled by an outside firm.

We had an integrator that assisted us with the implementation. 

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations especially if the company is looking for a certain level of security.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We implement Check Point in the front end to protect internet platforms and security platforms. 

Check Point provides very good performance with many solution options and many kinds of modules.

I'd like to see more integration with other solutions. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable and scalable.

We've rarely used support but they've been helpful when we needed them. 

We migrated from Cisco to Check Point. Check Point is easier for the administration console.

Before migrating to Check Point, we tested it in several environments. We used a consultant for deployment and we now have 800 users in the company and six engineers responsible for maintenance. 

We pay an annual license fee. 

I recommend this solution and rate it a 10 out of 10. 

I use Check Point NGFW for controlling traffic and controlling access to the production server. It is a HA (high availability) environment. It is easy to use failover solutions.

We use it on our disaster recovery (DR Site) and it runs smoothly.

In the office, Check Point Infinity is the only fully consolidated cybersecurity architecture that protects your business and IT infrastructure.

Integrating the most advanced threat prevention and consolidated management, the security gateway appliance is designed to prevent any cyber attack, reduce complexity, and lower costs.

Check Point gateways provide superior security beyond any Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW).

Best designed for network protection, these gateways are the best at preventing the fifth generation of cyber attacks.

Overall, for us, it improves the private cloud security and helps to prevent the spread of threats while consolidating visibility and management across our physical and virtual networks.

The most valuable feature is the next-generation firewall (NGFW) protection.

Check Point has long been a leader in the firewall market. It offers Quantum Security Gateways for a wide range of use cases and CloudGuard FWaaS and cloud security products too. NSS Labs scored Check Point just behind Palo Alto in security effectiveness and ahead of Palo Alto in TCO. Check Point’s management features are among the best in the business, but SD-WAN capabilities are lagging.

A firewall rule is the same on all systems, and I am very happy with the correlation and the display of the rules.

From the logs, you can trace back to the rule with a click, which makes it easy to investigate cases. It is also easy to search the log.

They have few predefined reports and it would be nice to increase them since the logs are excellent.

They should be quicker to release fixes for known vulnerabilities, including those related to Microsoft products.

If you make a mistake when creating rules, it is time-consuming to fix them. However, there is no problem with traffic processing. 

Sometimes you are forced to interact on several different levels. On the one hand, you put the rules in, and on the other, you put in the route. 

I have been using Check Point NGFW for between five and six years.

They have a good support team that is fast to respond. However, there are open cases that should be resolved in a more timely fashion.

We used another solution prior to this one, but the updates were too slow and it was harder to monitor the log.

The initial setup is very hard.

The vendor implemented this product for us.

This product is a good investment and I expect a full return in approximately three years.

The price of the appliance should be decreased.

 I evaluated several other solutions and compared them before choosing Check Point.

This is a product that I recommend.

We use this product for providing perimeter security, as well as advanced threat protection capabilities to critical infrastructure. The solution is expected to deliver high-performance throughput for voluminous traffic continuously. 

We are using these gateways for multiple functionalities such as:

• Perimeter Gateways
• Anti - APT (Advanced Persistent Threat)
• Anti Malware / Anti Virus
• SSL Inspection
• Network Intrusion Prevention System
• Private Threat Cloud

All of our solutions are expected to run in high availability and have good resiliency. 

Check Point NGFW is the first perimeter security solution used in our environment and it is able to deliver the expected results. Specifically, it supports high-performance throughput for voluminous traffic.

The vendor has proven capability of identifying known threats, which can be seen while managing the firewall. The OEM has identified a roadmap in line with the emerging threat landscape and evolves the product to counter these threats. 

The central management console has helped with segregation, where planned interventions with management consoles do not have any impact on production or critical business traffic.

Next-Generation Threat Prevention capabilities provide security in a high-traffic load, ensuring detection and prevention of known threats by AME, AV, and Sandblast technologies. 

We are also using the system to create VPN gateways for our multiple partners and we haven't faced any issues with them.

 Check Point gateways are a stable product that can run without any issues until a major upgrade or vulnerability mitigation is required.

The support has been reasonable and they were able to minimize the impact during critical incidents.

There is a scope of improvement in detecting zero-day threats using the SandBlast technology, by introducing emulation of Linux-based operating systems. We have also observed issues while using the products with SSL decryption.

There is room for improvement in application-based filtering, as with other firewalls available in the market today. Check Point has improved its application filtering capabilities in the recent past and their latest version, R80, is more capable but still, creating an application-based filter policy is a little cumbersome. 

We have been using the Check Point NGFW for the past four years.

This solution is very much stable and does not require frequent changes in architecture. The patch frequency is limited, which reduces the downtime requirements.

This NGFW is very much scalable; however, I am not sure about other components such as PTC, etc.

Technical support is a mixed experience. Most of the time, issues are handled well in a timely manner but some issues have lingered for a very long time, causing multiple iterations.

We did not use another similar solution prior to this one.

As we use a lot of components from Check Point, the setup was a little complex in terms of deployment and traffic handling.

We had assistance from the vendor's professional services team to ensure smooth deployment. It was a green field project so the deployment was easy. The team deployed on implementation had expertise with the solution.

The ROI for security is the confidence that the solution is able to deliver the expected outcome. This includes stability, Threat Prevention capabilities, Granular policies, etc.

Licensing is pretty straightforward and is based on the blades available, such as NGFW, NGTP, and NGTX. Generally speaking, the pricing is in line with other players in the industry.

We evaluated products by Fortinet and Palo Alto.

In summary, this is a good solution that is stable, and I recommend it.

Our primary use case is as a perimeter firewall for main and DR sites for a financial institution. It secures Internet access for users through IPS/AV/Threat Emulation/Application control and URL filtering with HTTPS inspection and geolocation restrictions. 

It secures our email and MDM solutions. 

We also use it to create site-to-site VPNs with vendors. Remote access is achieved through the use of a secure workspace and SSL network extender. Securing and inspecting HTTP traffic to our web servers is another important task. 

It secures several DMZs and segregates them from the rest of the network.

We use all of the security features available. 

It has helped us with controlling internet access, securing our external websites, and providing remote access that you can trust (secure workspace). The latter provides with a virtual Windows 7 desktop that only allowed apps can be initiated from. In our case, we launch RDP sessions from secure workspace. 

The latest version of the software is a big win overall, with major improvements in how the rulebase is scanned (it's not the top down classical rulebase checking, but a column based checking) and overall efficiency.

Remote access with a secure workspace provides a clear separation between the client and corporate network. 

Threat Emulation (sandboxing) is great for zero-day malware and it is easy to configure. 

Logging and administration are best-of-breed. You can quickly trace back on all sorts of logs in no time. 

IPS and AV rules are granular and specific for the rules that you need. 

The geolocation feature is good for dropping irrelevant traffic. 

Configuration through SMS is quick and easy. It eliminates administration errors while checking consistency before applying a policy.

I would like to have an improved secure workspace solution for remote access. I hear that the Apache Guacamole solution has been integrated into R81. 

The site-to-site VPN options are numerous, but they can get confusing. Interoperability with other vendors is not the strongest when it comes to setting up VPNs. It's totally different from any other VPN vendors I have come across. 

Improvements are needed in policy backups and reverting to the previous policy. This used to be better in R77.30. 

Policy installation tends to take a long time when the rule base increases in size, which can become frustrating. 

I have been using Check Point NGFW for 10 years.

We have never had any unexpected crashes or issues.

It should scale well as they now support more than 40 CPUs on a single system. 

Our experience has been great, although we don't have direct support. This means that sometimes, it takes a while to get to the bottom of issues.

Check Point is really the best NGFW I have come across and I have worked with many vendors including Cisco, Juniper, and FortiGate. It's a platform that a huge amount of research has gone into over the years. It has a great support community and clear guides to solve all sorts of problems and issues.

I didn't switch to Check Point, as it was always there. We haven't switched away from it over the past 10 years. 

We always need some help on installs or major upgrades. 

We have used several vendors and some are better than others. 

It is difficult to calculate ROI when it comes to security products. 

The hardware cost is not huge, but you need to push for good pricing on software licensing and blades.

Check Point was implemented in the company before I arrived. 

It's demanding for the administrator, as it takes years to get an in-depth knowledge of the platform. Otherwise, it is easy to use from day one.

We have a pretty small office and therefore, a small network environment, and the SMB appliances from Check Point were a perfect fit and exactly what we were looking for in order to improve our overall security posture in the office.

It was critical for us to be able to secure our network, including intrusion detection and prevention along with threat emulation and extraction for zero-day threat help, and Check Point fit perfectly.

After implementing the solution, we were able to get through a third-party penetration test of our network without issue.

Check Point NGFW has improved our organization by making our corporate network much more secure. Once our SMB appliance was installed, configured, and up and running, we could rest a little easier knowing that unauthorized access to our network just became much more difficult.

By turning on the various software blades, intrusion detection and prevention were in place, we had threat emulation and extraction in place, etc. It was a one-stop-shop for us and gave users on our network a certain peace of mind knowing that there was something in place to help keep them safe from malicious actors.

There are many aspects of Check Point NGFW that are valuable and important to our organization, but I'd say the top three are intrusion detection and prevention, threat emulation, and threat extraction. These three features have set a good baseline of security on top of the normal application URL filtering and other services of the firewall.

The way in which a computer is immediately isolated if it starts behaving badly and I get a notification of an infected computer is also extremely nice and a great feature.

When first looking into the Check Point offerings, it was fairly confusing trying to determine the differences between the different offerings. Specifically, SMBs versus other models, and which one would work best within my environment for my use case. I think we ended up in a good spot after speaking with a reseller in the area, but it would have been nice to be able to get there independently.

The WatchTower app that can be used to access the SMB appliance remotely is a nice touch, but it doesn't allow for many actions to be taken and therefore is relegated to mostly notifications. At that point, it requires me to gain local access to go further. It would be nice to add more features to the WatchTower app to be able to perform certain administrative functions without the need for local access. 

We have been using Check Point NGFW for two years.

This product is stable and we have had no issues.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

Easy setup and configuration by a non-network/security person.

Check Point brings good value for the money and is competitive in the market.

We evaluated Fortinet FortiGate but Check Point seemed like a better fit for us in terms of features and value.