Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

Our business houses just over 100 staff, along with over 200 devices ranging from mobile to tablets, computers, laptops, and Servers. 

We use a Check Point 5100 cluster running R80.40 to protect our business from external threats. 

Our network is also extended to the likes of Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and other 3rd parties utilizing secure VPN tunnels terminating on our Check Point 5100 cluster. 

Our business also offers the ability of hybrid working - which is only possible with our Check Point solution.

Prior to using Check Point, we had a Draytek small business firewall, the Draytek would often hard lock, which resulted in the loss of internet connectivity for the business. The only way around this was to reboot the Draytek device which in turn would lose logging data as to what was causing the issue. 

Moving onto Check Point completely solved this problem. The hardware is much more capable and the logging and alerting functionality means, should anything happen (like it did with the Draytek), we would have visibility on the logs which would give us a direction for troubleshooting and mitigation. 

Check Point offers a secure VPN client. We distribute to our agents via group policy. Our agents can then connect to our network when working from home - which was a game-changer due to the recent pandemic situation. 

Check Point also offers a mobile app capsule connect which, as a system administrator, has proven very useful when a high-priority issue occurs. I am able to connect to my internal network via a phone or tablet - which has proven useful in some scenarios. 

As a system administrator my favourite part of Check Point is the smart view tracker. This alone is a must-have tool for tracking all traffic traversing the Check Point appliance. It makes troubleshooting much easier. This software alone sets Check Point out in front of the competition.

Check Point is very feature-rich. There aren't any features missing or that I am awaiting in a future release. 

The only downside to Check Point, is, due to the vast expanse of configurable options, it does become easily overwhelming - especially if your coming from a small business solution like Draytek. 

Check Point comes with a very steep learning curve. However, they do offer a solid knowledge base. Some issues I have encountered in my five years have only been resolvable via manually editing configuration files and using the CLI. Users need to keep this in mind as not everything can be configured via the web interface or their smart dashboard software. 

I've used the solution for five years.

The solution was not always stable when running the older R77.30 version. Paired with a mid-spec box, we did find some issues with performance on more than one occasion, specifically the network would slow to a halt until a system reboot, there was nothing within the error logging and our external SOC couldnt find anything either. We'd often when updating the firewall policy it would fail to deploy usually taking around three or four policy pushes each taking about 20 minutes. We are now running much faster hardware with the later R80.30 release and those issues have completely disappeared.

Scaling is dependant on the size of your network. Check Point does offer a wide range of lower to high spec appliances depending on your scale set.

I've only had two instances using their support as we have a third party on contract for third-line issues that I cannot resolve. They were prompt yet not shy about pointing out potential issues with third parties and it not being their appliance. 

We used Draytek. It didn't offer the security features that Check Point does and we were a victim to a successful attack from external sources which Check Point would have caught. We also found the hardware of Draytek was too underpowered to handle the size of our network. 

A third party installed the appliances initially. It is a complex process, as Check Point is vast in features and very configurable. You find yourself using the web interface, their own management software smart dashboard, and a mixture of CLI and config files to get your end result. 

We implemented it through a vendor team. Their level of expertise ranged as we moved through three separate technicians during our installation which was problematic. I wouldn't use this particular vendor again. That said, this was nothing against Check Point. 

You cannot put a price on security. Check Point is a field leader. However, it comes at a high price. 

If you have no experience with Check Point and you are on a deadline, it's essential you find a company certified to help with the deployment and configuration. The feature set is rich however, it's not always user-friendly. 

Pricing, including licensing, is very expensive compared to alternate products such as Sophos, Barracuda, or FortiGate

We evaluated Fortigate, Sophos XG, and Barracuda. However, ultimately the decision boiled down to our parent company already using Check Point. 

We use the solution as a frontend firewall in our headquarters and in our branches. We use packet inspection, the antispam feature, and the VPN. We have configured threat prevention and content awareness to improve security on incoming email and on web surfing from interlan networks wits SSL inspection. Mobile access through the VPN mobile client is also used from all outside workers and is fully integrated with our AD. We also use the solution to route traffic on internal networks and manage security through client and server networks.

We have improved our performance and bandwidth through the networks. Security is also improved. We have better control over the logs and better integration with our SIEM. 

We can also manage all our firewall from a central management console so each policy is under control and can be developed better. Inline policies help to understand on the correct use of the policies and a more readable list. We can also manage policies in two or more people at once without problems or risk of making the wrong policy.

VPN and mobile VPN are extremely valuable to us. The policies are simple to deploy to the new branches. 

All policies can be deployed and managed in a very simple way. 

AD single sign-on with VPN mobile is very helpful and simple to manage and deploy. 

Log management is also a good place to make troubleshooting and through console manage events. 

Management of the object is also a valuable feature. At every point in the console you can manage object properties and look to each policy where it is used and simply change or find where the object is involved.

Some features, like the VPN, antispam, data loss prevention, etc., are managed in an external console. In the future, I'd like all features in the same console, in one place, where we can see and configure all features. I'd like a web console so that all firewalls can be managed from a web browser and we don't need to be installed on dedicated consoles and applications. 

I use the web console to mange the Gaia software in the firewall and it would be nice to have also policy management inside the web browser. 

I've used the solution for four months.

It is very stable. We have reboot only to install updates.

We chose the solution for scalability and now we are running with all branches with a Check Point firewall. The solution is meeting our expectations.

We do not need customer support.

Positive

We did use a different solution. We switched to improve security.

It was complex to set up due to the fact that we changed our mind on how the firewall works. Central management is hard to improve.

We implemented it through a vendor. There was not a high level of expertise, however, I took a course with Check Point and that was very clear and now I'm very expert on the Check Point world.

We have seen an ROI in that we need less time on managed policies and we have better control.

The cost is high but the benefits are too.

We also looked at Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Fortinet.

The solution is a good solution and at the top of the market.

The primary use case is as a perimeter firewall separating different security zones from each other. We separate several zones, such as Internet Of Things (ie. cameras and several sensors), Internet-facing DMZ, internal networks, and guest networks from each other. 

Also, we use the VPN feature to create Site to Site tunnels between branch offices and the headquarters. Threat Prevention features including IPS, Anti-Bot, Threat Emulation, and Threat Extraction and are used to secure our users from being victims of several threats. 

It is hard to say how a product like a firewall is improving our organization. The firewall does what it should. Primarily, the management makes this product great. There is no other product on the market that is nearly as perfect a tool for managing firewall rule bases and I know many of them. Check Point has much fewer vulnerabilities in their products and also is very quick to react to vulnerabilities.

The Threat Extraction software blade feature is the most valuable feature as it extracts any potential harmful content from several kinds of documents, which our users receive via e-mail or download from the Internet. We know, that our users tend to click on everything they get without thinking too much about the consequences. 

The second feature to mention is Threat Emulation, which is basically a sandbox, which runs executables received via email or downloaded from the Internet and creates a verdict if this executable is harmful or not in regards how it behaves on a specific operating system and application.

Unfortunately, the API is not fully complete and also it is not an API which I would refer to as a RESTful API as there are different endpoints for the same entity. For me, a restful API would use one endpoint to handle, for example, host objects and use different HTTP methods to distinguish between different operations. 

I would expect to use the PATCH method to update an object and the PUT method to create one. Currently, there are separate endpoints for these operations and all of them use the POST method. The most important issue with the API is, that there are some endpoints we are missing (for example for managing VPN users).

We have been using this product and its predecessors for about 20 years.

The stability is very good. Sometimes there are issues, however, most of the time, they have no big impact. SecureXL was sometimes a bit of a problem. That said, this has improved in the last few versions.

Check Point offers several possibilities to scale (load sharing, Maestro, and scalable platforms such as 44K or 64K appliances), however, in our case, we just replaced the appliance after a few years. If one needs real scalability, they should take a look at Maestro which is the scaling solution from Check Point.

Technical support can be good or bad. It depends. Sometimes they are really great, and sometimes very annoying. Most of the time we have a good experience.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution.

It's really simple to set up. You simply install from an ISO with a few questions (ie. mgmt IP address and gateway) and restart with a graphical installation wizard with a few more questions (such as is this a management box or a gateway or a cluster member ASO).

We handled the setup in-house. We have enough knowledge to do that. Our expertise is CCSM level.

We evaluated several competitors such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Baracuda

Check Point Security Gateway GAIA R80.30 is used as our secure gateway firewall. We have configured two gateways as active-passive in cluster mode. 

We also use R80.30 as our security management server to configure the policies on the firewall. We use it primarily to control traffic and secure our network perimeter against unknown attacks. The rules and policies for the SSL VPN connections are configured on the mobile access blade. We use the policies to segregate and filter the traffic flow.

This is for a bank environment.

A traditional firewall provides a stable inspection of network traffic. It allows or blocks traffic based on state, port, and protocol, and filters traffic based on administrator-defined rules.

A next-generation firewall (NGFW) does this, and so much more. In addition to access control, NGFWs can block modern threats such as advanced malware and application-layer attacks. According to Gartner's definition, a next-generation firewall must include:

• Standard firewall capabilities like stateful inspection
• Integrated intrusion prevention
• Application awareness and control to see and block risky apps
• Threat intelligence sources
• Techniques to address evolving security threats

Check Point Endpoint anti-malware benefits include:

• Improves user productivity and frees up system resources
• The industry’s fastest malware and anti-virus scan and boot time
• The smallest memory and disk footprints
• A single-console centralized management
• Prevention of malware from accessing endpoints with a single scan
• Malware identified using signatures, behavior blockers, heuristic analysis
  
• Protection automatically updated with optional Program Advisor Service
• A knowledge base of more than one million trusted or suspicious programs
• Integrated into Check Point Software Blade Architecture
• Flexible licensing options—annual or perpetual
• Centrally managed and deployed
• Activate anti-malware and application control on any Check Point security gateway

Almost all organizations are using cloud computing, and the vast majority are using a hybrid cloud deployment. Private and public cloud deployments have different security requirements, and it is necessary for an organization to be able to enforce consistent security policies across cloud-based environments hosted by multiple vendors. 

The firewall should be easily deployable and scalable in any major cloud environment and enable an organization’s security team to manage all of its security settings from a single console.

I've used the solution for five years.

Check Point is a very stable solution.

It is good in terms of scalability.

From the start, we have been using Check Point.

We would adivse users to install Check Point NGFW. The setup cost is simple and it is not too much. The license fits most budgets.

We also evaluated Cisco and Fortinet.

We use Check Point NGFW mainly for a perimeter firewall for ingress and egress traffic control, firewalling, but we also use a lot of other functions within the NGFW capability.

Check Point NGFW provides a bunch of different products or Blades, as they call it in Check Point. The firewall engine is what we use the most but we also use the IPS IDS and Anti-Bot features. The solution provides many features.

The management of memory in the hardware needs to improve. They have had a lot of issues with memory leakage.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for approximately 10 years.

The solution is mostly stable. However, we have these memory issues from time to time, that cripple the performance occasionally, but other than that, they are very stable.

The solution is scalable and it is easy to do.

Overall the technical support is very good. If we have an operational issue, they can sometimes be a bit slow in responding. Other than this, I have nothing to complain about.

I was not around when the implementation was completed but using my experience in these global scenarios, there's always complexity, there probably was some complexity involved.

Check Point NGFW requires security and OS patching, and life cycle management. Every three to five years you need to replace the hardware. We have a dedicated team that does the maintenance of the solution.

It's hard to say exactly how many people are involved in implementing and maintaining the solution because some of the work is outsourced, but I would say it's a team of approximately between 10 and 20 people.

When comparing the price of Check Point NGFW to other solutions it's difficult to compare because even though everything is included in the Fortinet price, there are large differences between the models. You need to go to a quite expensive Fortinet firewall to receive the same throughput and functionality as in a Check Point firewall. In the end, they are quite similar in price, Fortinet might be a bit cheaper.

I have used other solutions, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I'm not sure that there are many differences between Check Point NGFW, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. I haven't used any Fortinet solutions myself, I'm not sure exactly how they work, but I would say that, from a management perspective, both of them are quite similar. Operational-wise, Check Point NGFW is a bit more stable and has a more mature operating system, at least the model that we are using. 

The only difference in functions is how they have branded the firewalls because, in Fortinet, you receive all the functionality for the same price as the firewall itself. Everything is included. However, with Check Point, you buy the hardware separately, and then you buy the different plates that you need and the different licenses for the functions that you need. It's a bit more complex license-wise with Check Point.

When you implement anything in an environment you need to have a good design to begin with, you do not want to have to rebuild it after you have implemented it. It is important to
be thorough in preparations and planning.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Check Point NGFW an eight out of ten.

Check Point is currently our perimeter firewall at various locations. We use their failover clustering with high availability option, which performs flawlessly. Upgrades are easy to perform and have always worked reliably for us. Technical support is always available to assist with these operations, which makes the process less stressful to the admins. 

We are also using their ISP Redundancy feature, which works as advertised - perfectly! It's easy to implement, especially with the awesome documentation from our engineer. We also use their Remote Access VPN offering and have really seen its value this past year, due to COVID-19. The VPN has been 100% rock solid, especially during the most critical times in our history.

As mentioned in the primary use case question, ISP Redundancy and VPN are the two primary use cases. When the pandemic hit, a sudden shift to a remote workforce was a major requirement for us, and we needed a reliable and stable firewall. Implementing ISP Redundancy helped ensure that, as well as having a tried and tested VPN solution. Upgrades have occurred during this time and manually planned failovers as well; every upgrade and test went smoothly and without issue. The last thing we could afford is an outage.

They offer very scalable solutions to extend compute resources if needed so initial sizing isn't too much of an issue as you can easily add more resources if needed. Reliability is a major factor in any hardware or software solution, and Check Point uses leading-edge hardware, and their software upgrade process is flexible for various deployment requirements. 

Policy configuration has been consistent over the years, so there is not much of a learning curve as upgrades are released. 

Their threat analysis reporting from their management console is very comprehensive and easy to use. Their web-based dashboard is well designed and offers many out-of-the-box reporting, and provides admins extensive customizations.

The pricing is on the high end, specifically with the software licensing, although they are flexible on some levels, and offer hardware buyback options when upgrading. 

The software licensing model is too complicated with all the various tiers of SKUs (i.e. per software blade). They need to simplify this for easier purchasing and renewing. 

Customer support is not always as responsive with solutions as you might need. They do provide on-the-spot assistance when upgrading, which is great. However, there are times when an issue is reported and it may take a week or two before a solution is provided.

We have been using Check Point firewalls for 20+ years. We originally used the Nokia hardware platform, which was not technically NGFW at the time, however, the OS and its configuration have maintained some similarities over the years. It keeps getting better every release.

Lately, stability is 100% reliable. Earlier generation firewalls were a bit unreliable, however, as Check Point acquired third-party hardware. For example, their Nokia acquired security appliances had a firmware that worked, until they started to modify the firmware (IPSO 6.0 was solid, but problems started with our upgrade to R75), then it became less stable; frequent crashes, settings not saving, high availability issues, frequent reboots required.  Eventually, we upgraded to their NGFW offerings.  Their newer hardware, and firmware R77.x was released, and we have been stable ever since.  Upgrades to R80.x have been flawless, HA works as expected, and we have had zero performance issues.

They are very scalable. If you need more computing resources, adding more hardware is easily done.

Customer support is not always as responsive to finding solutions as you might need. They do provide on-the-spot assistance when upgrading, which is great. However, there are times when an issue is reported and it may take a week or two before a solution is provided.

Positive

We have always used Check Point.

Setup was very straightforward and easy. We did have the assistance of our Check Point engineer, which is just awesome.

We implemented through Check Point directly.

I do not measure ROI financially, although personally speaking, we have definitely gotten back every dollar we've spent by having reliable and secure infrastructure.

The setup cost is not a challenge at all. Check Point engineers work directly with you throughout the whole process. The pricing is high, for the hardware and software, although discounts are negotiable. The software blade licensing is broken down into many flavors, depending on your needs. It is very a la carte and provides various product offerings, including endpoint management, VPN, disk encryption, etc.

We did review a few competitors during a possible migration plan. The proof of concept did not yield better results, so we stayed with Check Point. We reviewed Cisco, Palo Alto, and SonicWall.

If you don't need/use their a la carte software blades (FDE, Ransomware, etc.) you can always add on later. They are very accommodating with trial licensing to test in a proof of concept way. If you already have other third-party products that perform those functions, you can bundle Check Point's and save a bit of money consolidating them.

We needed to replace our external firewall solution as we were having issues with the HTTPS inspection on our previous solution and the level of support being provided was terrible, leaving us with an issue that could not be fixed for over six months. 

We had already deployed a new internal firewall solution but needed something that would protect that from external factors. We also needed a new solution to replace our client VPN solution. The Check Point solution gave us that as one whole solution instead of having to manage multiple services.

Our policy is to deny all outbound traffic unless we allow it, which can generate a lot of work to build a rule base that allows everything we need to get out. 

This solution has made managing connections out to the web much better due to the categorisation and app control that is available. Being able to say certain apps and services are allowed out, instead of finding all the relevant IPs, has massively reduced the workload. The ability to manage the Client VPN and relevant rules for that in the same location has also improved the way we work. Having links into AD for group membership recognition and having rules based around this has been very useful in improving the way remote users can access the network.

Logging has been excellent. Being able to see all logs from all the various firewalls at different sites in one window has made fault finding much easier. We can see how the traffic is moving through the sites and on which firewall. 

It has also been easy to see machines that may have had infections as we can report easily on devices trying to talk out to sites and services that are known to be dangerous. We have these set up as an HA pair on our main site and we have a lot of audio and video services that go out over the web. 

The failover from one device to the other has been seamless and we find that we do not lose ongoing SIP calls or Teams chats. 

The functionality of the S2S VPN service has been temperamental for us at times and is not always simple to manage or check the state of. 

We find the GUI to be wrong and the CLI doesn't always show all of the connections. 

From a general usability point of view, if you have not used Check Point before, the learning curve is steep. Perhaps managing and configuring the devices could be streamlined for people with less experience so that they can pick it up quicker. There needs to be extra wizards for the out-of-the-box builds.

I've used the solution for six months.

On the firewall side and content filtering side of the solution, it has been faultless. There has been no real downtime to note and the access to the web via relevant rules has always worked as expected.

We have a fairly small setup in the grand scheme of things, however, from what we have seen, the ability to add in new firewalls or increase the hardware spec seems very good and it would be easy to transition from older to newer hardware when the time comes.

Due to the support model we signed up for, we don't deal directly with Check Point support. We deal with the vendor first and they will deal with any 1st/2nd and even most 3rd priority issues. They would then go to Check Point if they need more assistance on our behalf. The level of support and responsiveness of their support has been excellent. We're always getting at least a response within a few hours, even on a P3/P4 issue.

Positive

We did have another solution, but due to an issue with the HTTPS inspection that the manufacturer was not able to properly rectify or fix for 6 months, we lost faith in their ability to provide adequate support going forward for any issues we might come across. 

The setup was complex due to the nature of the Check Point firewalls and us having to make some config setup in one portal and others on the CLI. We also had to arrange the rule base via the management console. There could be 3 different places you need to make various changes. We also used private microwave links as redundancy for VPN connections and that had caused significant issues in getting set up as the link selection did not cooperate at first.

We implemented via a vendor and I have to say their level of expertise was brilliant. Every question we threw at them, they were able to provide an answer to. 

It was not the cheapest solution to go for, but the amount of admin time that has been saved by the use of Check Point firewalls has definitely given us a great return, giving us more time to work on other aspects of our network. Also, being able to consolidate 2 solutions (Firewall and Client VPN) into one solution has saved more money and admin time. 

We found that Check Point was very flexible with its pricing. We were looking at a spec of hardware in other solutions. We found that Check Point did not have a direct competitor, but to help with the bid, they managed to reduce the costs of their higher-spec hardware to make it competitive with the other solutions we were looking at. It's not our fault they did not produce the hardware of a similar spec. It's up to them to try and provide a solution that would make it a competitive solution. 

We looked at several other solutions in including Palo Alto at the top of the market and Sophos XG further down.

I would say as good as the solution is, if you are looking to get the most out of it, you should look to get a company or consultant who knows the Check Point solution inside out to assist with the setup. We found a partner who specialized in Check Point and we would not have been able to get it to the stage we have without them.

We use our Check Point NGFW firewall mainly for perimeter security. Those firewalls are placed at many sites distributed over Europe. We love the firewall management and think it's still the golden standard for creating a rule base and we go more and more in the direction of identity bases user access to secure our environment.

The other firewall blades, such as Anti-Bot, Application and URL-Filtering, and IPS, are used on all sites. It's easy to deploy, as the firewall is able, with the latest version, to learn from the traffic and adapt the IPS policy.

Check Point NGFW has improved our organization with more security and easier deployments. There is a smaller amount of workload in the supporting area. We find a lot of documentation for the products and benefit from a big community. The Check Point support is much better than what we have seen from other vendors. The firewall policy is easy to deploy and we can do a more granular separation of specific user groups. We feel much more secure with this product - especially the API support - and possible automation has saved us a lot of time in our team and organization.

The most valuable features are the identity-based access and high-quality intrusion prevention functionalities. 

One of the most valuable aspects is the central management, which includes a large wide range of API calls. With the central management, we can define a reasonable security policy for many sites and not only for network segments but for user and AD groups. This gives us a bit more "Zero Trust" in our network.

It's enabled us to move away from basic LAN to LAN segmentation to a more powerful user separation approach.

One area which is still lacking is the site-to-site VPN solution. This is still an area that could be improved, although the features have gotten much broader and I really have seen an improvement over the last 10 years of working with the product. The separation from encryption domains between the tunnels came recently as a new feature to the product. This really helps a lot. Yet, we are still seeing a lack of compatibility with other devices, even though this is the case with many vendors. Especially with IKEv2, we are struggling with many vendors to set up perfectly running tunnels.

I'm working with Check Point for 10 years.

If you go by best practice recommendations from Check Point the stability is very good.

Scalability is really good. Check Point has the Maestro solution, where you can really scale easily without wasting resources.

They are really anxious to solve issues as fast as possible. They also try to get in actual contact with you via phone or chat to fully understand the issue.

Positive

In some areas we were using Cisco, however, we changed to Check Point to centralize things.

The setup is pretty straightforward, at least for the basic setup. Even with more complicated configurations, you have good support and experts at Check Point in the background that can help.

We did it ourselves.

Check Point is definitely not the cheapest solution, but the better security makes it worth the price. The licensing model is pretty easy, especially when it comes to the extension for many environments.

We looked at Cisco, Barracuda, and Fortinet.

I'd advise teams to give it a try!

Currently, I'm working as a Lead Security Architect in the healthcare industry. We have two data centers, multiple branch offices, multiple cloud subscriptions, and over 200 employees. Our operation is mission-critical and requires it to be up and running 24/7. We need to protect multiple applications that are developed in-house, sensitive data including PHI, Financial, intellectual property, et cetera.

Check Point NGFW and its security modules have been our security solution for the past six years to protect all of our assets, including our cloud subscriptions.

Check Point Next Generation Firewalls are key components in protecting our assets and information. Their security modules are very easy to use and understand. Also, it's one of the most user-friendly interfaces I’ve had the opportunity to use and I’ve had the chance to work with more than four firewall solutions.

Their reporting and logs modules are amazing. It provides a level of detail and visibility that we haven't had before. It’s useful to understand what is happening on our network and has been very successful in blocking attacks and providing options for executive summaries. 

Being able to manage all the security gateways for our multiple sites in a single management console and share policies has been very beneficial.

The Remote Access VPN has been crucial to us, especially during this pandemic. We had to be on lockdown for a couple of months and being able to deploy a remote workforce with Check Point VPN was a crucial part of our business continuity strategy.

The logs and reporting are very easy to use and manage. Also, the IPS and IDS are critical components to keeping our network secure. They are very easy to configure and there are multiple templates that can be used out of the box that provides maximum protection to our network.

The support offers the best services I have experienced. It's better than any other IT vendor.

Check Point Firewalls haven't failed me during the past six years that I have been using them. 

If I had to mention anything that I would like to see some improvement on, it’s on the internet load balancing options. Internet load balancing provides either active/passive or active/active load balancing, however, I would like to see more options that provide SD-WAN capabilities while also allowing for more than two links. I know this can be performed with other network devices, however, adding the option as part of the NGFW would be awesome.

I have been using Check Point for 6 years now.

I've never had a single issue on any of my security gateways.

I haven't had the opportunity to scale, however, I have seen many demos of maestro architecture, and it looks awesome.

As I mentioned before, Check Point support is one of the best services from any IT vendor I have experienced. They answer very quickly and also provide solutions most of the time within the first call.

I have used multiple solutions in the past. We migrated from Cisco ASA to Check Point six years ago and have never looked back. Our old ASA required additional hardware components for additional security services.

The product is very easy to set up.

The implementation was performed by a vendor team in combination with our in-house security team.

My peace of mind is the ROI.

Check Point is not the cheapest firewall solution, but you get what you pay for. It's super reliable and their service is great.

I had the opportunity to review Palo Alto and Fortinet.

I'd advise other users to give it a try.

We use Check Point firewalls to prevent attacks against the data center servers by adding more layers of security, such as IPS, Data Leak Prevention. We have also used Check Point to implement security policies in layer 7 and applications as well as to configure the VPN for internal users of the organization.

Check Point's firewall security solution is a complete solution that allows you to prevent attacks against your data center servers and avoid the transmission of viruses to end-users via ransomware, phishing, or forgery of URLs.

Check Point has a centralized console that makes it possible to manage all the deployed equipment. It also has a built-in VPN service that lets users connect through VPN to our organization, which facilitates teleworking while cutting off unauthorized access to the organization's internal network.

The predefined reports are limited and should provide more information. Check Point should provide a greater number of defined reports and produce reports for each division of the organization. Also, historical statistics cannot be obtained from the central console, the data or logs must be exported to another machine and processed from there to obtain this historical information. The number of available physical ports could be increased and Check Point could add support for higher speeds.

We have been using Check Point firewalls for more than 10 years.

Check Point is a company that has been producing firewalls for many years. It is a leader in today's market, and its products are very stable. They are always updating and improving their products to stay at the top of the market. 

Check Point NGFW allows easy and fast scalability.

Our experience with Check Point technical support was very positive. They always resolved questions or incidents quickly and professionally.

We have always had Check Point solutions.

The initial configuration was simple. The previous team was also using Check Point, we only had to export and update the rules. Only a couple of things had to be corrected and changed.

It was implemented through a CheckPoint partner who demonstrated great experience in migration.

When implementing, I would suggest you define in a real way what you want to allow —applications, content, destinations, etc. — and drop the rest of the traffic. It is important to review the groups, objects, and networks created to efficiently define the security policies that you finally want to implement.

Before making the last purchase, we evaluated other solutions, such as Palo Alto or Fortinet.

I would rate Check Point NGFW 10 out of 10.