Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

My main use case for Check Point NGFW is that my organization is using it as a firewall and using it in emails also.

I can walk you through a situation where Check Point NGFW made a difference for my organization by helping in getting or stopping the emails which are unwanted and can be harmful for my organization.

The best features Check Point NGFW offers in my experience are the real-time prevention and the virtualization and reporting capabilities.

These features impact my day-to-day operations by helping in improving the security postures in day-to-day activities.

Monitoring graphs for Check Point NGFW can be made better, and that is something I wish worked better.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for around half a year.

The main use case for Check Point NGFW involves securing organizational network parameters from a wide range of cyber threats, such as those associated with malware, unauthorized access, and data exfiltration.

Check Point NGFW has positively impacted my organization because, as a security provider, we have business from multiple nations worldwide, but certain nations where we do not have any business relevancy require traffic blocking.

Check Point NGFW helps us significantly by preventing sophisticated cyber attacks, controlling user access to application websites based on policy and user identity, segmenting the internal network, and providing centralized firewall management. These features have helped us manage and strengthen our security posture.

We have observed improved network visibility and control with detailed reporting and logging after implementing Check Point NGFW, along with a stronger compliance posture and reduction in incidents.

In my experience, Check Point NGFW offers excellent region-wise blocking capabilities, which proved particularly valuable during recent tension between India and Pakistan border crossing issues.

The IPS, anti-bot, threat emulation, and URL filtering features are working exceptionally well from a prevention perspective.

Check Point NGFW deployment in our organization showed that the initial setup and policy design can be complex, especially for teams unfamiliar with Check Point's architecture. Licensing can be confusing and expensive, so segregating it into a simple format would be helpful.

Software updates and hot fixes require compatibility checks to avoid disrupting the production environment.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for almost a year and a half.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Check Point NGFW has been straightforward, as everything is better and convenient to use.

I work in Secure System Private Limited as a security analyst for the last six years. I can share specific outcomes and metrics I have seen since using Check Point NGFW.

We are using the solution for the perimeter. It's used as a core firewall, with almost all transactions passing through the firewall. For instance, in a cellular phone company, all transactional authorizations pass through the firewall, while in a bank, authorizations for branches and ATMs go through the firewall. The main customers are in the BFSI, telcos, industry manufacturing, and other large enterprise sectors.

Check Point's solutions allow organizations to operate securely with a reliable core firewall in place, ensuring that transactions proceed smoothly.

The Check Point firewall is used as a core firewall offering high reliability with at least two synchronized data centers, creating a fault-tolerant configuration. It is considered a very stable platform with minimal bugs.

Technically, there is no need for improvement. That said, they need to be more aggressive and protect more of the channels on the commercial side. Additionally, the user interface could be more user-friendly.

We have been using Check Point solutions for over twenty-five years, since the very beginning.

The firewall is highly stable, being described as one of the most reliable, with a stable platform and few bugs.

Using the Maestro technology, the firewall has good scalability. It allows for flexibility and growth by stacking clippings without needing to change the chassis.

Customer service is generally good. With Diamond or Diamond Plus service for banks, the support level meets customer expectations. The internal team of Check experts also ensures issues are resolved efficiently.

Positive

We are familiar with and have supported other solutions like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco yet primarily do business with Check Point.

Initial setup can be complex, especially in large or redundant deployments. Expertise is required to manage configurations, especially with complex operations and a high volume of users and VPNs.

The implementation team has around 20 people, with a total group including maintenance and support numbering 60.

Monetizing the risk is complex, and despite having software for calculating ROI in security, traditional calculations like the FAIR methodology do not apply efficiently in Latin America.

Check Point and Palo Alto solutions are among the more expensive options, but once a platform is adopted, switching is difficult. Clients tend to stay with the same brand for extended periods.

We have evaluated solutions from Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco, however, the main offering is Check Point.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Check Point Next Generation Firewall both as a perimeter firewall and as an internal firewall. 

For customers, we recommend using the open platform, which is the software installed on your own server. We usually find that you get a lot more performance out of the software that way. Also, a lot of energy companies use it as well.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall helps us with routing failover, setting up a web dashboard for better management of the platform, and ensuring the stability and availability of our firewalls with its backup features.

The price point is good. You get a lot more features for the cost. How it's bundled and packaged is very simple to order. All the features are bundled with the product, and it's just a matter of checking a box to turn it on or off. 

Performance is usually better on OpenServers, where we provide the server on the Check Point platform.

The operating system and platform could be more tightly integrated. Some features are better done on the OS side of the platform. Integrating all features into one dashboard should avoid switching between the new and old dashboards.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall is quite stable. For features like backup and data, I would rate it highly.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall offers excellent scalability. With OpenServer, it's just a matter of purchasing licenses that enable more CPUs to be used. We can increase the RAM on the box and allow for more network traffic and customers onto our platform.

The support is great. I usually get it online and it meets our needs effectively.

Positive

Setup is easy. I would give it an eight out of ten.

The pricing is fair and more competitive than many competitors. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I would rate it around a three in its category.

Cisco does not support SSL inspection, and its detection capabilities are limited. I would say Check Point is comparable with Palo Alto in terms of features and detection capabilities.

I would recommend Check Point Next Generation Firewall because of its detection capabilities, which ensure protection by identifying malicious files and suspicious activities. The price point is also lower compared to Palo Alto for the same features.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for cybersecurity, securing perimeter networks, giving the user access to VPN, URL filtering, antivirus, sandblast, network segmentation, and monitoring purposes.

Regarding the benefits of using the tool, I would say we spend less time investigating security incidents because we have fewer of them to deal with because Check Point works quite well. The tool offers greater visibility when it comes to network traffic.

The solution's most valuable feature is its adaptability and configurable nature. The software's security posture, I would say, has reduced vulnerabilities than other vendors, and we value that greatly in our company.

The product's support is an area of concern where improvements are required. Sometimes, there are bugs in the software, and the speed at which the product resolves those bugs could be improved. The system is quite complex, and you need to be an expert to get the most benefits, making it an area where the tool could be improved.

It would be nice if Check Point could update its own agents, for example, VPN clients or identity clients. I think the product has a very large number of features.

The product's price is an area of concern, making it an area where I would like to see some improvements.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for a bit less than fifteen years. I use Check Point R81.20.

In the past three months, my company has had stability issues, but the impact was quite low, which is great because we have a cluster environment. When one node fails, the other one picks up the job. When changing from version to version, sometimes bugs show up that need to be resolved.

The tool allows you to add as many nodes as you like or can afford. If it is virtualized, you can also give it more resources.

In my company, I think we have four nodes, which are the main nodes, and then we have eight smaller regional nodes. We have around 260 users and 280 endpoints.

I rate the technical support a five or six out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase was so long ago that I don't remember how it went. The product is not the most intuitive and easy to set up because of the large number of settings you can configure and the ways how you can configure those settings. Without an expert or consultant, I wouldn't recommend implementing the tool by yourself if you value your time and don't want a big downtime later.

The tool's ROI is almost impossible to calculate because it's a security product. If nothing happens, then you always feel like you are paying too much, but you don't know how the situation would change if you use cheaper firewalls and have to face a security breach.

The product's price is on the higher side but I also feel that it is more secure than the other solutions in the market.

In the past, my company had tested Fortinet and Sophos, but we did not migrate to them. Though the price of the firewalls from Fortinet and Sophos were better, from a security perspective, Check Point was better. In the recent years, there have been a lot of critical vulnerabilities detected in those firewalls and breaches because those vulnerabilities were detected and we didn't get them. So we value that greatly.

The tool requires maintenance. You need to update the product version. If we don't encounter any bugs in the installation process, I would say that the maintenance process is quite straightforward.

I recommend the tool to others. If you value your data and it is a mission-critical project, then Check Point is the right choice.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its efficiency.

You have an administration tool that is not on the appliance, and it should be in line with the appliance. You can put your modification online and compile it again before applying.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for seven years.

The solution's technical support is good.

Positive

We previously used Cisco. We switched to Check Point NGFW because Cisco was comparatively a bit outdated.

Check Point NGFW is a little expensive. We paid around 70,000 Euros for it, and the solution's maintenance fee is expensive. We also have to pay for technical support.

I am generally satisfied with the solution. The new Check Point products are more powerful than the previous appliances. The product is good but perhaps more adapted to big firms than small companies.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case for the Quantum Spark Security Appliance 1570 in our organization is unified threat management, firewall protection, intrusion prevention, anti-virus, and anti-malware defenses to secure our network against external threats. We use its remote access solution, to secure remote access through VPN capabilities and mobile device support, ensuring our employees can connect safely from anywhere. Additionally, the appliance features content filtering, application control, and bandwidth management to optimize network performance and enforce usage policies. 

It enhanced our organization's security posture compared to our previous solution. It offers superior protection with advanced threat management capabilities, including robust firewall defenses, intrusion prevention, and real-time anti-virus and anti-malware protection. 

This has markedly reduced our vulnerability to cyber threats. Additionally, the appliance's content filtering and application control features have enabled us to manage bandwidth more efficiently, prioritizing critical business applications and preventing unnecessary traffic. This optimization has not only improved network performance but also reduced operational costs by eliminating bandwidth wastage. 

The WatchTower feature is particularly valuable, providing real-time monitoring of incidents, which enhances our ability to promptly address and mitigate security threats, ultimately leading to reduced overheads and improved overall efficiency. 

The WatchTower app is accessible from mobile devices, providing administrators with the flexibility to monitor and manage security on the go. This mobility ensures that security management is not confined to the office, allowing for rapid response even when off-site.

They should improve integration with third-party security tools and software for a more unified security ecosystem. 

They should enhance compatibility with various network environments and cloud platforms can be valuable. Offer more comprehensive support options, including extended hours and more accessible resources.

They should provide more extensive training materials and documentation to help users maximize the appliance's capabilities. Integrate user awareness and training modules within the appliance to educate employees on security best practices.

We have been using it for more than two years. 

Stability is exceptionally positive. Since its implementation, the appliance has demonstrated remarkable reliability and uptime, consistently maintaining our network's security without disruptions

It provides a robust and scalable solution that meets both our current requirements and future growth plans.

Customer service is overall good, but we would like it to be more enchnaced. 

Positive

We previously used a different security solution but we switched it because of a phishing attack. Though we had a solution, it had not done its job perfectly. 

The setup is straightforward.

We implemented it through a vendor. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It helped us reduce operational costs associated with network security. By optimizing bandwidth management, preventing security breaches, and streamlining administration tasks, we've minimized wastage and improved resource utilization. 

Setup cost is not much, hence pricing and licensing need to be considered. If pricing gets lower that would be great. 

We previously used a different security solution but switched to the Quantum Spark Security Appliance 1570 due to several issues with the old system. Our previous solution lacked advanced threat management features like real-time anti-virus and anti-malware protection, and had ineffective bandwidth management leading to network performance bottlenecks. 

This is a best solution for us so far and we recommend this to anyone. 

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

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

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

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

I have been working with it for four months.

I found it to be reliable and stable.

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

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

Negative

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

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

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

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

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

My primary use case of Check Point's firewalls is to provide in-depth network filtering with advanced threat prevention, which can be set up simply using autonomous threat prevention where the firewall learns about the environment and then actions threat prevention based upon that. The threat prevention can also be custom-built for your environment. 

I also use the Check Point Always On VPN for remote endpoints, which allows users to authenticate and connect to the VPN pre-login without any input from the users.

It has improved my organization due to the in-depth security it provides. Check Point has a lot of security-focused features that provide a great level of network security. It has improved the security posture of the organization due to the granularity that can be set in the policies, such as using access roles to set user-based access, and time-based rules to only apply a specific firewall rule at a specific time. It has also improved my organization because of the in-depth troubleshooting steps that are made available to the end user, meaning we can troubleshoot issues easily, and troubleshooting steps can get very advanced.

I have found the VPN and the application control/URL filtering the most valuable features. The main reason for this is that the VPN blade allows easy VPN setup between two VPN gateways, allowing for not only site-to-site VPNs but also for remote users to connect to the Check Point gateways. This feature is easy to set up. Also, users can troubleshoot the VPNs very in-depth.

The application control and URL filtering features are valuable since they allow very granular control of what is coming in and out of a network. Instead of just allowing certain Layer 4 ports in/out of the network, specific applications can be allowed, which not only can tighten a security posture. It makes administering the product easier as, when a new app is rolled out, it can simply be added to the policy.

One feature that could be improved is the internet object in the application control/URL filtering blade. In most deployments, this works as it says it will. However, the object is based on topology, not internet IP ranges. This means that in certain scenarios (and likely a non-standard deployment), the internet object can not refer to the internet. This can be bypassed by creating a networking group containing class A, B & C networks and using this in the policy, right-clicking the group and ticking 'negate.' 

Another improvement would be to improve the simplicity of deploying SAML as an authentication option when connecting using a remote access VPN. Check Point's deployment guide is very in-depth. However, the process could be simpler.

I've used the solution for three years.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is good.

Support is very good from Check Point.

Positive

The initial setup can be straightforward or complex depending on the complexity of the environment. Usually, it is fairly straightforward.

We implemented the solution in-house.

I am currently working with Check Point Firewall because most of your customers have it deployed in their networks. Recently, we were involved in a significant firewall micro-implementation for one of our customers. We created configuration templates, specifically for routing and setting up bond interfaces within CheckPoint. These interfaces are similar to Cisco's port channels, where multiple physical interfaces are bound into one. 

I primarily work on the network side, so my expertise lies in configuring and working with firewalls. I have experience in firewall policies and know how to configure them within Check Point, including blocking URLs and specific website categories. However, I acknowledge that there's room for improvement, particularly in areas related to application-level control within the firewall. While I can't pinpoint a specific area for improvement, I am trying to enhance my skills and knowledge in various aspects of firewall management.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for the last 12 months.

During a project where I was working with a customer deploying Maestro in their network, we encountered an issue related to multicast traffic. Check Point's expert team suggested that we install a package called Jumbo Hotfix inside the Check Point, which resolved the problem. Overall, despite this issue, Check Point NGFW is a stable product with minimal encountered bugs.

Check Point is a stable product, but when compared to other vendors like Palo Alto and Fortinet, I'd recommend going with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is a more stable and robust firewall solution than Check Point.

The deployment of Check Point was straightforward. In the Azure cloud environment, it took approximately thirteen minutes to complete the deployment, while on-premises, the initial setup was relatively easy and not complicated. I have deployed Check Point both on-premises and in the Azure cloud. The deployment in Azure took place around four months ago for a customer's proof of concept (POC). The primary reason for this deployment was to address the customer's VPN subnet limitations with Azure VPN. I suggested that moving to a cloud-based CheckPoint solution would provide better VPN connections without IP subnet limitations. In the Azure deployment, I created a hub and VPN and deployed two CheckPoint instances, not just one. To manage these instances, I used a load balancer within the Azure network.

Regarding firewalls, my role primarily involves designing and deploying them, then handing over the management to the operations team. While I find the deployment process relatively easy, the issues the operations team faces later on can impact my perspective. I'd rate Check Point a 7 out of 10. The ease of deployment is a plus, but we've encountered some problems with Check Point, particularly related to documentation. Compared to vendors like Cisco and Juniper, the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation could be improved.