Check Point NGFW Reviews

We're using Check Point Next Generation Firewalls to secure the internal LAN network from unwanted threats and for protecting the environment for business use.

The most valuable feature is the central management system through the Security Management Server. Apart from that, the graphical user interface helps us to do things easily.

The frequency of the antivirus updates which we get for Check Point firewalls should increase. They should be of good quality compared to the competitive firewalls on the market. They should give us stable antivirus signatures. That is an area in which they can improve.

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

These firewalls are very stable and, apart from the antivirus issue which I mentioned, everything is stable in them. The best thing is that they are the most advanced firewall on the market.

Per my experience, it is very easy to scale these firewalls, because they are combined with the central management point. It is very easy to push the same configuration to different firewalls at the same time. It does not take much time to extend usage.

We use them throughout our organization. Currently we have used them for around 50 percent of our needs and there is definitely a room to grow. In the future we will definitely try to increase usage, if it is required.

We have had a good experience with the Check Point support guys. The solutions they provide are very straightforward and are provided quickly.

I used Palo Alto firewalls. Compared to Palo Alto we are happier with the Check Point Firewall features. Key differences are the ease of operating Check Point firewalls and the use of Linux, as we are all trained in Linux. It is easier for us to work on the ELA of Check Point firewalls. And Check Point's support is good.

Check Point is the best firewall we have found for our organization so we went with it.

In our company we do setup of Check Point firewalls very frequently because we are a growing company and we are required to do them on a fresh basis for our new branches.

The initial setup for these firewalls is straightforward. There's nothing complex about Check Point firewalls. They are easy to install and configure. We have cloud-based VM firewalls. We configure them in our environment. It is easy to access them and it is also easy to implement the changes on them.

Deployment time depends on the condition and the space of the organization. In our case, it requires three to six months for the setup phase. We have the same implementation strategy for all our branches, which is very simple. It is a three-level hierarchy which is recommended by Check Point. We use the SmartConsole, we use the Security Gateway, and we use the Security Management Server.

In my organization there are six people who have the access to the Check Point firewalls. Two of them are network administrators and four are managers.

We are happy with the return on investment from the Check Point firewalls. We are happy with the features and with the protection they provide us.

The licensing part is easy for Check Point firewalls. You just purchase the license and install it on the firewall. The pricing is a bit high, but obviously it gives you advanced features. If you want to buy the best thing on the market, you have to pay extra money.

When implementing the product, follow the recommendations which Check Point provides. Follow the backup for the firewall so that in case of an issue, you have a secondary firewall active.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that there is a scope of improvement. Companies that are improving and providing updates frequently are growing more. In addition, improving support is a very key part of things. Check Point rates well on all these points.

It's an on-prem deployment where we use it to protect our client and end-users who are working with the internet, and to protect their servers from external access. They have about 100 users and two servers.

When we did not have SSO, we had problems related to attacks compromising our firewall. That has been mitigated. We have the traffic going through the firewall to the server, so those types of things have really improved. We are seeing less traffic going to the server. When there was direct access to it, there was more and more traffic going to our server. So it has improved our server performance.

My favorite feature is the UTM piece and that was the main reason we bought it. It helps us to fine tune the network. We use it to block certain websites, to block access to particular locations, such as in Singapore or say Malaysia, where we have offices. We keep the previous device updated and, based on that, we also have static MAC address binding.

We also use the VPN services. The VPN features are mostly for our cloud connectivity and for our remote users to have local server access.

When I was creating the VPN on it and the client side through the portal, that feature was very annoying. I could not use it. It was much more usable after downloading it to the laptop. That was very good compared to using it directly from the browser.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for almost two-and-a-half years.

It's a stable solution. In the time I have been using this product, I have hardly seen anything break.

In terms of scalability, they have products that can fit into the environment. It's a very scalable solution. For our requirements, it fits very well. You can go with whatever kind of setup you want: Active-Passive, Active-Active. Check Point is very easy. Their solution is ready for our market; it's very well suited. Wherever we want to go, Check Point can provide a solution.

Currently, we are using somewhere around 50 to 60 percent of the box's capacity.

Sometimes, when I have gotten stuck, I have reached out to support and it's okay. They have helped me very quickly.

We did not have a previous solution. We went directly with Check Point. We liked the features provided by Check Point and we went for it.

The setup is not complex. It's easy to deploy. The documentation provided is very good. Deployment takes me two to three days. The hardware takes one-and-a-half days and then I get all the features up and running.

We have a standard implementation strategy. We have a checklist. We plan it out. Then we go into the field for the deployment. We have one dedicated engineer for deployment, and I also check it on a regular basis. The two of us are also the ones who manage the solution.

We have to consider things, cost-wise, when we are expanding into other locations. We don't have the budget to use it in other platforms. We have some servers that we deploy in AWS and other locations. But instead of going with Check Point, we go with other vendors to fit into the budget.

Check Point is really costly. When it comes to the Indian market, where we are located, we always consider budget solutions. So this is an area where Check Point could use some improvement.

In addition to the standard fees, support is an added expense.

The biggest lesson learned from using this solution is in terms of security. It is a really good product. I don't think there is anything missing from the Check Point firewalls. The features provided by the company are very good and provide what we need.

It's a very good security product, as long as you have the budget. It provides modern security and the architecture Check Point provides is good. And the application side will really help any size of business to deal with traffic based on the application.

The biggest thing is the central management. It is quite good and allows us to manage the different firewalls from it. We can implement and configure many firewalls and push our policies to them as well.

One of the most valuable features is the antivirus. It's very good.

We also now support cascading objects. We didn't support this previously, but on Check Point we do.

The dashboard is quite good, you can explore a lot of features there and it's easy to understand.

It also gives us SSL inspection, which provides more effective mitigation of defects and data leakage.

The antivirus is not as effective as it could be because updates are not that frequent.

Another area for improvement is that certifications are quite expensive with Check Point.

I've been using the Check Point Next Generation Firewall for the last year.

My role includes working on Check Point and Cisco ASA firewalls to make changes on them, per customer requirements or as the organization needs. I also explore new features and do troubleshooting.

It's quite stable. Until now, we haven't faced any issues.

The Check Point 44000 and 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to be quite scalable. 

If we do face an issue which is not our support boundaries, we involve the Check Point TAC. They're quite technical, so they help us to resolve things. They are always helpful. They're knowledgeable and their response time is very fast.

Previously we were working on Cisco ASA firewall which didn't support the cascading objects. Also, Cisco supports two gateways, whereas the Check Point supports up to five gateways.

We also decided to bring on Check Point because there are a lot of switches that are not supported in Cisco ASA. Also, with Cisco, IPS does not come with the firewall and we have to configure it separately. The Check Point IPS comes with it.

There are a lot of features which are not supported in the Cisco ASA Firewalls.

The initial setup of the firewall is straightforward. I didn't find any difficulties in moving from Cisco ASA to Check Point. The dashboard is quite friendly, so it didn't take much time to learn.

Deployment took about three days.

We have different stages in our implementation process like planning, approving, implementing, checking and validating, and the last one is matching. Job roles in our organization go according to these stages the approvals. I do the planning part and my approval request goes to my team leader.

We have about 400 to 500 users. They are semi-technical or non-technical people, such as network and security engineers, who are tracking and monitoring the firewalls. If we're talking about troubleshooting we have from different levels, like L1, L2, L3.

It's saving us a notable amount of time. 

Check Point is good. It has a lot of features which will support a lot of things in your organization, and the dashboard is quite good. There are a lot of features, such as data protection and data inspection, at a good price.

We use them to protect our edge infrastructure and for interconnecting our sites using the VPN.

One of the most valuable features is the data center object integration with Azure. We are using Azure a lot and there is very nice synchronization between the objects in Azure, and it's very easy to implement rules using this feature.

Other valuable features include: 

• the VPN — it's quite easy to configure it and it provides us with an easy way to interconnect our sites.
• the CLI, for automating things
• it is very easy to manage, to make backups, and to configure
• the support and the graphical user interface.

The NAT services part needs improvement. It's not sophisticated. It needs functions like range assignment for NATing. The way you assign a list of IPs for NATing is too simple. It just allows you to use pools.

There could also be improvement to the automation. They should provide a tool for creating and maintaining rules.

I have been using Check Point firewalls for more than five years.

The stability is an eight out of 10 because we have had some problems with URL filtering, with the domain filtering in particular. When the domain is under a CDN, it sometimes gives us problems because there is more than one IP for each domain.

We have also had problems with data center objects or Azure objects where we have created a rule and the rule stops working. We opened a case with Check Point and they answered us. We installed fixes and it looks like it's working now.

The scalability is quite nice at the firewall level. It gives us the possibility of implementing clusters and high-availability.

We are also working on an Azure implementation and it looks good. We have not yet deployed to the Azure Check Point implementation, but it promises a lot.

We have about 200 employees and, on the administrative side, there are 12 to 15 people working with the Check Point solution. They are mostly networking infra engineers. We are using about 40 percent of the firewall capacity. We don't currently have plans to increase capacity.

We are satisfied with the support. When we have a problem, it's very easy to contact the support center and they give a fast response. I would give their support a nine out of 10.

I have worked with the Cisco ASA firewalls and with firewalls from manufacturers like MikroTik.

It's hard to measure ROI, but our sense of security, as a company, is good with Check Point.

In terms of quality versus price, Check Point is very balanced.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Check Point firewalls is that if you know how to work with Linux, you will be able to manage almost all the features.

We recommend to clients who are installing applications that they can work with Check Point Next Generation Firewalls. Our role is to support our customers in terms of their migration, firewall room cleanups, and implementing all the security features that the firewall has.

Our clients have branch offices in Mexico and Bermuda. Check Point is one of the top names in these areas.

Our clients come to us to fix holes in their endpoint security management infrastructure, which might be letting things through like ransomware. We recommend Check Point Firewalls and some other endpoint security management solutions to mitigate these risk factors. We use this solutions to help build a perimeter for the company, as it helps filter threats from affecting our clients' infrastructure.

The application authentication feature of Check Point is the most valuable as it helps us keep users secure. 

It works smoothly when managing clients' on-premise and cloud firewalls.

Permissions from the client regarding troubleshooting and how well we can packet capture have not been smooth.

Check Point should quickly update and expand its application database to have what Palo Alto has. 

There have been some issues with third-party integrations.

I've been using Check Point Firewalls since 2012. This was right from the beginning when it was hardware from Nokia and the R65 and R66 models. So far, that has gone well.

They are stable. There are no standalone Check Point boxes. If a module goes down, it doesn't affect the base as a whole. Check Point Firewalls have nice redundancy.

Scalability is a good feature that this solution has. It is easy scale out and do site-to-site implementations. Sometimes, you have to clean the OS or RAM to free up availability. However, if you do this, then there are generally no issues with scaling it.

The documentation is really good. 

Their support guys response is really quick. Though, sometimes it takes them more than four to five to get back to us via email and acknowledge an issue. If you have the diamond support, it is definitely fast. However, if you don't have that sort of expensive after-sale support, then it is a problem to engage a Check Point technician at a very fast pace.

We actively participate in the community group.

Our clients are migrating over to Check Point NGFW from Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet because they want the Check Point Application Intelligence feature. 

We set up the management tool for the clients to manage all their infrastructure.

The migration is generally seamless and takes one shift or day (about nine hours).

We migrate clients to Check Point from other solutions. We also have situations where it's a clean install for deployment, which is the most common scenario.

We are working with Check Point Firewalls to provide installation, migration, updates, setup, etc. 

In the beginning, we needed help from the vendor with the setup. The support was good.

Our clients have seen ROI.

Cisco pushes clients to purchase their hardware, and this is not the case with Check Point. This helps to easily manage costs.

There are now more competitors in the market, like Palo Alto and VMware. 

Palo Alto is a bit more smooth and cost-efficient than Check Point. Palo Alto has Unified Threat Management (UTM) coupled with a dake lake database that is huge. Also, its migration is more smooth than Check Point's. 

Look for a software with licenses that support the features you want. I would recommend doing an RFP before purchasing. Get in touch with Check Point's sales team and compare it with other solutions.

Check Point features are always evolving. They try to stay abreast of the market. I would recommend not using older, obsolete models of Check Point because of this. 

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

The primary use of the firewall is to allow or block some traffic. Mainly, it is the perimeter firewall for the Internet. It filters the traffic from external to internal, e.g., to secure the traffic. 

Some of our customers have been demanding Check Point as their firewall product.

I do the installation, support, firewalls, etc.

It provides a central station where it is very easy to deploy our firewall policy in one click to many firewalls. This is one of the leading perks. It saves time by having one central station because I can deploy the same kind of policy to many firewalls at once. 

With the latest release, it's easy to configure firewall rules with the scripting. This is one of the features that we have been demanding for some time so we can script some actions for automation.

The best part is that it is very intuitive. It is easy to configure, deploy, and maintain. If it works, it works.

The troubleshooting: When you find something that is not working, it is very easy to check in the logs what is failing and fix it in a short time.

The login tool is really nice.

We can virtualize the physical firewall in a virtual environment. However, the virtual environment is not stable at all. We have some customers who are using the virtual environment feature, and sometimes it crashes. We have many tickets open and the response is not as good as expected. We have to wait months for a resolution.

If you use all the features available on the firewall, it's not working. If you keep it simple, then it works. When you try to do cool things, you start to have some problems because that kind of integration is not fully developed.

I have worked with Check Point since 2007.

When it is failing, it is a nightmare. The stability has room for improvement. Sometimes, it is not working at all.

The scalability is good. I haven't had any scalability issues. If the firewall gets stressed, we buy a new firewall.

There are many options, such as, virtualization. They have also release a new product, Quantum, that makes it possible to scale up and have more firewalls. 

As an integrator, we have very big companies (like banks) to small companies, who have only 200 users or less. 

I would rate the technical support as a six out of 10. I have customers with no tickets open with Check Point and other customers who have many tickets open.

Solving some issues with them is a nightmare. They don't reply in time. They always ask the same questions. I expect better feedback from them, but that usually never happens.

Before Check Point, I used Cisco and Fortinet FortiGate.

The big differences is really the full integration firewall, e.g., Cisco doesn't provide this. Also, the Check Point central console is so much better because it provides that one central station, which is a plus.

The con for Check Point is the stability. The hardware for Check Point fails more often than other vendors. Usually, other firewalls are more stable than Check Point so I don't have to open as many cases with other vendors, like I do with Check Point.

There are two parts:

1. In the physical, you deploy with a wizard, which makes it very easy. It is a standard wizard where you click "Next, Next," then you see the GUI and everything is done there.
2. It is possible to do it in automatic way with the scripting. In the cases that you have some experience on it, it's very easy to deploy some scripts and the firewalls. For example, in the cloud, I created my own firewall with the same setup every day using the auto-integration since it's possible to integrate Azure with Check Point, which is very easy. One of the best features of the Check Point is its integration with the cloud, because not all vendors have that kind of integration.

The deployment time depends. If I do any scripting, it takes 30 minutes. If I do it manually, the deployment takes two hours. It also depends on the size and scope of the deploy, e.g., if I create a basic firewall rule or do a full automatic migration. However, It does take less time than other firewalls.

The implementation strategy depends on the customer.

I can deploy one firewall in an easy way. I can do it quickly by equiping firewall rules in text mode or in the API. However, when I have a problem, it's totally the opposite. I lose a lot of time.

The pricing and licensing are the worst part of Check Point. I usually don't know what I really am buying. When I have to do an inventory of the license, I don't know what it is being used for. Sometimes I feel I am being cheated, and the others times, I feel it is a bargain. Nobody knows! Even the Check Point representatives, they aren't clear on somethings, such as, what is the right license for what I need.

There is a possibility to have diamond support. You can have a technical engineer who is there just for you. When you have that type of feature, it's more expensive.

Cisco NGFWv

• Check the price first. 
• For migrations between different vendors, it's a nightmare. You need to do some tasks manually, otherwise it doesn't work when you migrate it. 
• Check the performance if it is working as expected. 
• Try to keep it simple.

It is a good product. I would rate the solution as an eight out of 10.

For the SMB appliances, the use case is tricky because I don't actually like them too much. If you have a very small branch office, you could use one of them, but in that case I would just go for the lowest version of the full GAiA models. But for small locations that are not that important, it is possible to use one of the SMB appliances, the 1400 or 1500 series. 

The full GAiA models, starting with the 3200 and up to the chassis, are the ones we work with the most, and you can use them in almost every environment that you want to secure, from Layer 4  to Layer 7. The only reason to go higher is if they don't perform well enough, and then you go to the chassis which are for really big data centers that need to be secure.

About a year or a year-and-a-half ago, they introduced the Maestro solution, which gives you the flexibility of using the normal gateways in a way that you can extend them really easily, without switching to the chassis. You can just plug more and more gateways into the Maestro solution.

It's difficult to say how these firewalls have improved our clients' companies because a firewall isn't meant to improve things, it's meant to make them more secure. Nine times out of 10, it's going to give you something that the end-users aren't so happy with. But Check Point Next Generation Firewalls improve security and, indirectly, they improve the way users work. They can access practically everything on the internet without being concerned about what's going to happen. They give users more confidence when doing something, without having to worry about the consequences because the gateway is going to help them out where needed, preventing malicious stuff.

The feature I like the most is their central management, the Smart controller which you can use to manage all the firewalls from one location. You can get practically all information — but not all the information, because not everything has been migrated from the previous SmartDashboard version into the SmartConsole. Being able to access almost everything in one location — manage all your gateways and get all your logs — for me, is the best feature to work with. 

As for the security features, that depends a bit on what you're doing with it, and what your goal is. But they're all very good for application URL filtering. Threat Prevention and Threat Extraction are also great, especially the Threat Extraction. It's very nice because your end-user doesn't have to wait for the file that he's downloading to see if it's infected, if it's malware or not. It gives him a plain text version without active content, and he can start working. And if he needs the actual version, it will be available a few minutes later to download, if it isn't infected. That's a great feature. 

Anti-Bot also is also very nice because if a PC from an end-user gets infected, it stops it from communicating with its command and control, and you get notification that there is an infected computer.

It's difficult to distinguish which feature is best, because they're all good. It just depends on what your goals are. As a partner, we are implementing all of them, and which ones we prioritize depends on the client's needs and which is the best for them. For me, they're all very good.

The MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) may not be the greatest, and the full proxy that you can activate instead of just doing application control is also not the greatest, but they don't even recommend using those. They're just available if you want.

But the biggest improvement they could make is having one software to install on all three levels of their products, so that the SMBs, the normal models, and the chassis would all run the same software. Now, while there is central management, everything that has to be configured on the gateway itself works differently on the three kinds of devices. That is a bit hard because you have to update your skills on all three.

A practical example is that I have a client that I run scripts for to get information from 40-plus firewalls. That client is thinking about refreshing and there may be SMB appliances in the roll-out that don't run those scripts. That would make my job a lot harder. So the best improvement would be standard software on all their devices.

I started working with Check Point firewalls in 1999, so it's been about 20 years. In the last year I have worked with all the SMB appliances, through the full GAiA and up to the 64000 series.

There's not much difference between a Check Point 3200 and a 5200 because they're running the same OS. There are just performance differences. So I can't say I've worked on every model, because I don't always check the model when I come to a client. But I've worked on every model that runs different software. I've worked with all three kinds of software that are used by Check Point.

The SMBs have room for improvement in stability. They're not as stable as they could be.

The chassis are great, but they are running behind. Maybe "running behind" is an overstatement, but the roll-out of new features on them is really slow because they want them to be tested and tested and tested. The clients installing these chassis are large banks or very large customers that can't have any downtime whatsoever, so it's normal that they test them more thoroughly. 

For the mainstream models, we do run into bugs on a regular basis, but they're mostly not showstoppers. You can run into a bug, but either there's a possible work-around or it doesn't impact things so much that there are huge problems for the client.

The SMBs are not scalable. New devices come out from time to time that are more performant. The mainstream devices are also not scalable except if you go with the Maestro version, and then you can just plug in an extra firewall and it scales up. With the chassis you just plug in an extra blade and it scales up also. So the Maestro and the chassis are very scalable, but for the other models it comes down to buying new boxes if the current ones aren't sufficient anymore.

Check Point support is a very difficult question because not so long ago I had a major complaint with Check Point about their support. Now, they give us much better support because we have the highest level of partnership. They recognize that the people from our team, in particular, are very skilled, so we don't go to first-level support anymore. The moment we open a ticket, we get tier-three support, and that is good.

But we haven't had this privilege for that long and, in the past, support could be a bit tricky. If we got a tier-one engineer it could be okay for support that wasn't urgent but if we were doing an implementation, especially since we had a lot of experience, they were mostly asking questions about things that we had already checked. Often, we had more knowledge than they did.

For us, it's great that we now immediately get access to tier-three. I just wrote an email to the support manager this morning about an issue we had last night, and I told him the support was great; no complaints anymore. It took a while, but now it's good. I can't complain anymore.

It depends on the partnership you have with Check Point. If you're a lower-level partner, you have to go through the steps and it takes a bit of time. If you're working in a company that has a good partnership and you can negotiate some things, then support is good and you get very good people on the line.

The initial setup of these firewalls is fairly straightforward for me, but they're not the easiest ones to learn and to set up. But I've been working with Check Points for 20 years. So if you're a new user, I wouldn't say it's easy. If you have experience, it's not really that difficult. But the learning curve is higher than some of the competitors.

The time for deployment depends on the features you want to enable on the firewall and the environment you want to put it in. If it's a branch office with a small network, a DMZ and an internet connection, that would take half a day or a day. It also depends though on if it is a completely new installation where you also have to install a Management Server. On average, we count on about one day per gateway and one day for the management, but it depends on the complexity of the environment, of course.

Our implementation strategy differs per client, and it even differs by the engineer who does it because everyone has his own skills and tricks from the past that they're using. But a uniform implementation approach, especially for different clients, is very difficult to do because every firewall is a complex product. You can't do for client A what you're going to do for client B.

If it's an installation we go the standard route, with a high-level design and get it approved by the clients. Then we go for the low-level design and implementation. A standard implementation is a clustered environment with a separate Management Server. We almost never deploy one gateway, so one cluster with a separate Management Server is the most basic level. We usually set up the management on a virtual system, not an appliance, and we try to go for appliances for the gateways, depending a bit on the customer's needs; it could be virtual.

Make sure you get the correct license. For instance, I did an audit for one of our clients recently and I saw that they always were buying the most expensive license and not using the features that were included in it. That's one thing to look at: If you're not going to use some features, don't buy the license related to those and go for a cheaper license. 

Also, negotiate. There's always room for discounts.

You get licensing bundles, so depending on which features you want to activate, your license is going to be more expensive. Some things, like Threat Extraction and Threat Emulation, require subscriptions. They don't come with a standard firewall. 

I'm not a licensing expert, but as far as I know there's the standard firewall, the Next Generation Firewall, and then the Next Generation Threat Prevention license. The price goes up in those bundles.

Another vendor I work with and have the most knowledge about, when compared to Check Point, is Palo Alto. They force you to work a bit more with applications instead of ports, although that's not something Check Point cannot do. 

The central management is different for Palo Alto. You can install it, but it doesn't work the way it works with Check Point. I like both. I like that with the Palo Alto you just go to a web browser and can configure the firewall all the way, but it's also easy to have the SmartConsole from Check Point where you can manage multiple devices. Palo Alto doesn't really have that. They have a central manager where you can get logs and where you can distribute some policies, but it doesn't work the way Check Point's central management does.

Both have their pros and cons. It depends on how you like to work. I like working with both of them. It's a bit different, but in terms of security and features, I don't think they're that different. It's just another way of working.

Make sure you have a good partner doing Check Point work for you because, as a direct client, it's very hard to get the necessary skills in-house, unless you're a very big company. Contact Check Point and ask them which partner they recommend and go that route. Don't try to do it yourself. The firewall is too complex to set up and maintain yourself, without the assistance of people who do it every day.

Learn and get experience with it. Don't be overwhelmed. When you start with it all the features and all the tips and tricks that you need to know to maintain it, it can be overwhelming. Like I said, the learning curve is very steep, and when you start with it, it's going to look like, "Whoa, this is impossible." But stick with it and when you get some experience it's going to be okay. It's a difficult product, but once you get the hang of it, it's one that's really nice to work with. We still run into issues from time to time, but Check Point products are very manageable and fun to work with. Check Point is my favorite vendor. I like working with it a lot.

I would rate Check Point's mainstream solutions at eight or nine out of 10, and the same for the chassis. I would rate the SMBs around a six. I don't really like those too much. Overall, Check Point is an eight, because most people are going for the mainstream solutions and those are very good.

We work with these firewalls for overall security, including content filtering.

High-capacity and high-capability devices help us to integrate with the cloud infrastructure as well as internet applications.

The most valuable feature is the URL filtering. 

It also gives us a single console for everything. Rather than having one device for URL filtering and a different device as a firewall, this gives us everything in one place.

It would help if they were easier to deploy, without needing more technical people. It would be nice if we could just give basic information, how to connect, and that would be all, while the rest of the setup could be done remotely.

I have been using Check Point NGFWs for six years.

They're pretty stable. I don't see any issues there.

Scalability means upgrading to newer, better hardware.

From an end-user perspective, everyone in our organization is using it, as it's a perimeter device. If they have to access the internet, they use this firewall to allow that access. We have about 4,000 end-users and about 200,000 concurrent connections.

Check Point's technical support is a seven out of 10. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the right people on TAC issues. And to buy time, they just use generic questions, which is really time-consuming and doesn't relate to the problem at all.

For the infrastructure in question, we have always used Check Point firewalls.

I have worked with Cisco ASA. Cisco is more CLI oriented, whereas Check Point is more GUI oriented. With the GUI, it's easier to manage and administrate it. If the configuration becomes bigger and bigger, it is really easy to see things in the GUI versus a CLI.

The advantage of the CLI is that you can create scripts and execute them. But the disadvantage is that they become so lengthy that it becomes very difficult to manage.

The initial setup is straightforward because it's a GUI interface. Even when it was upgraded, things didn't change in terms of the look and feel. It was still the same. There was no need to learn new things. It's easy for any administrator to learn new features.

On average, deployment takes one to two hours, including mounting and everything, from the physical work to moving the traffic there.

The issue is that we still need people to be onsite to do this because some tasks have to be done on the day. That means a technical person is required to do that work. We can't give it to any other person to do this because, until those particular steps are completed, things can't go any further.

We have six people, network admins, for deployment and maintenance because we have about 30 of firewalls.

We do it ourselves.

When we first started using them, we were just using them for basic functionality. Then we started using more features and introducing other components. For example, we had a different proxy server which we depended on. Once we got the Check Point, we could use the same device for multiple roles, which reduced the cost a lot. I would estimate our costs have been reduced by 30 percent.

If you use the features then it's cost-effective. Otherwise, it's expensive.