Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

The primary use case is segmentation in many different areas of the company network. We had a few critical use cases: there was a need for an internal firewall, and also an edge firewall. Apart from having simple segmentation, we had a requirement for additional features like the possibility to decrypt traffic, the possibility to inspect URLs or the intrusion prevention system feature. 

A very important thing for us was also to have a very good quality of vendor support. Definitely, this is something we can get here. 

With Check Point we have achieved our primary goal - segmentation. We were able to limit North-South and East-West traffic which had a very impressive impact on improving security posture. 

We also have the possibility to control Internet traffic, we can use the URL filtering feature together with traffic decryption to be able to allow only safe communication. A very important thing for us is also having the possibility to use identity awareness and be able to implement policy based on user IDs (user ad groups).

I like the Next-Generation Firewall. This is the primary feature and use case for this solution. It's a very important thing for us to have a solution that provides ease of use and an intuitive interface.

We are also using other security blades that are included in the package like URL filtering, identity awareness, IPS, antibot, and threat detection.

The most valuable thing for us is to have the possibility to use all the security blades and all security products and have a consistent policy among different security features. Reporting and integration with external solutions are great.

Check Point could improve the time for delivering requested features from customers. It could be delivered much faster. Also, communication and status reporting for such requests have a lot of room for improvement. After the request, we do not get any information on the status or progress until it is implemented.

Looking at the trend in the market which aims for vendor consolidation, the strategy to deliver one vendor SASE could be beneficial for Check Point and its customers. 

I've been familiar with the product since 2003. At my current company, CheckPoint appeared three years ago.

The stability is good.

The range of platforms is huge. It can fit every traffic requirement.

Overall I have had a positive experience with support. Sometimes it takes too long to resolve issues, however.

I have been using Cisco ASA. The switch was done based on the intuitive management interface and ease of use of Check Point.

The setup is straightforward, even if the policies are big and complex.

We have used help from a third-party company.

I'd advise users to prepare their requirements before choosing the product and model.

I also evaluated Palo Alto.

It is a really good solution. You should be happy with it if you choose it.

The customer's use case involves employing it to safeguard their internal applications from external threats. They utilize various gateway features, including user identity-based policy, anti-spam, antivirus, IPS, anti-BOT, and other security measures, effectively creating a robust defense against a wide range of potential risks.

The primary focus is on safeguarding the customer's internal applications, especially for traders. When it comes to security, the main advantage lies in risk mitigation, akin to insurance.

The most valuable feature is its unique inspection model, which was initially a basic firewall inspection. Over time, they've developed and refined this model to cater specifically to trade-related intelligence. It is now a crucial and central component of their security infrastructure.

From an administrative perspective regarding Check Point NGFW, there are two key suggestions to improve efficiency. Firstly, administrators should be able to create a unified policy which means that when administrators set up policies in Check Point, they should have the flexibility to configure different security profiles and other security parameters all within the same access policy, simplifying the process. Secondly, the upgrade process for Check Point Firewalls currently involves extended downtime as it often requires a fresh installation. This downtime can last up to around sixty minutes, causing disruptions to business operations. To enhance the user experience, Check Point should consider adopting an incremental upgrade approach, similar to competitors like Palo Alto or Fortinet, as it would help minimize downtime and streamline the upgrade process, making it more efficient and user-friendly.

I have been working with it for about ten years.

It provides good stability features. I would rate it six out of ten.

Scalability is achievable in the cloud environment. By following the appropriate processes, you can configure automated scanning and other necessary functions to ensure it.

From a technical support perspective, there is room for improvement in Check Point's services. They have increasingly outsourced a significant portion of their support, primarily to third parties. This outsourcing has raised concerns, as it often results in longer resolution times and troubleshooting processes. In my experience, working with Level 3 engineers is more satisfactory and efficient, whereas Level 1 and Level 2 support can sometimes fall short of expectations and extend the time required to address issues.

Neutral

When comparing Check Point to Fortinet and Palo Alto solutions, there are several advantages and disadvantages to consider. One key advantage of Check Point is its robust logging capabilities. Administrators can access detailed traffic flow information, providing valuable insights into network activity. Another strength is the trust associated with Check Point. They pioneered the concept of "stateful firewall," which has established a strong foundation for trust in their security solutions and is built on their extensive experience and history in the field.

The initial setup is a medium-level complexity task.

When deploying on AWS cloud, I typically opt for CloudFormation templates to facilitate the setup of Check Point. This approach offers the advantages of infrastructure as code. When it comes to on-premises deployments, the process is manual and involves tasks such as physical cable connections, configuring interfaces, setting up routes, and defining network policies. For a typical mid-sized project, a single person is usually sufficient for the cloud deployment, taking no more than two hours if the implementation plan is well-defined and the design is in place.

The cost can vary depending on the specific model and feature set requirements, as well as the unique value it offers to the organization. The price may be perceived as relatively high when compared to the features and capabilities they provide.

My advice for anyone considering it would be to begin by thoroughly understanding their specific needs and requirements. It's crucial to assess budget constraints and security priorities. If an organization has a sufficient budget and prioritizes a robust security posture, I would recommend considering Fortinet. They often provide a more comprehensive security exposure when compared to Check Point. For organizations with legacy systems or a strong preference for Check Point's Endpoint solutions, my advice is to segregate the management and gateway components. Avoid running both on the same platform to prevent complexity and potential issues. Separating these functions can lead to a smoother and more efficient operation. Overall, I would rate it six out of ten.

The primary distinction between an NG Firewall and a traditional firewall lies in their configuration flexibility and scalability. Regarding options and features, the spoofing functionality in Check Point has been instrumental in enhancing security in our critical environment. It plays a crucial role in securing our internet connectivity.

Its functionality is highly satisfactory. In the newer Check Point version, there are additional features in VPN and IP security that enhance tunnel security. This flexibility extends to the Check Point MDM platform, allowing for streamlined management across different domains. In my current client's complex infrastructure, there's often a need to replicate rules from one firewall to another within the same room. With Check Point, it's a straightforward process of creating the rules in one policy and then easily copying and pasting them into other policies.

The log management process in MDS consumes a significant amount of storage, so it would be highly beneficial if there's an opportunity to optimize these logs and save storage space. While it does enhance network security, it tends to consume substantial resources, including CPU, memory, and storage. It could be an exceptionally useful and efficient solution if there were outgoing or AI-driven algorithms to streamline log management and periodically delay the logs.

I have been working with it for almost four years.

Regarding stability, I would rate it seven out of ten. While there have been occasional issues like false positives and blocking misreads in my NGFW, overall, it's a good product.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it seven out of ten.

The level of support provided depends on the specific contract. With a premium contract, it gets you treated as a top-priority customer, and they respond promptly, making every effort to find solutions. If you have a standard support contract, your experience might be more like that of an ordinary customer. In general, I've found them to be helpful, and I would rate their support six out of ten.

Neutral

I was working with Palo Alto for a couple of years, and I found their data protection functionality to be particularly interesting. I believe this feature is quite innovative and that other vendors should consider taking inspiration from it.

When it comes to the setup process, I've noticed that publishing and informing policies in different steps can be a bit complex. The typical sequence of publishing policies, configuring them, and then deploying them to the firewall can feel suboptimal at times. There are situations where an immediate policy installation is needed and it would be beneficial if there were options to install policies directly before the publishing step. Overall, the setup process is not overly complex, but it's not as straightforward.

When it comes to the quality-price ratio, I've found that Check Point offers a competitive balance in the market. I would rate it four out of ten.

I would rate it six out of ten.

We've used the solution for perimeter and DMZ security as we host a website that is accessible online.

On the perimeter, we have Check Point acting as the entry point to our web server farm with load balancers. The access policy is configured with the least privilege, only allowing connections that are part of business requirements.

Intrusion prevention is enabled in prevent mode to detect and block well-known vulnerabilities and attacks. The device connects to Check Point's cloud for updates on signatures to new threats. 

We are peering with Partners via Site-to-Site VPNs for Services.

1. It's offering perimeter security to publicly accessible sites. There's better security at the edge and DMZ with the use of access policies. 

2. The activation of Intrusion Prevention Blades offers better security at the perimeter and between DMZ Zones. IPs also have prebuilt security profiles making deployments of IPS fast and efficient, and exceptions to the rule base are easy.

3. The use of a remote access VPN is used to connect to partner sites.

4. Check Point offers virtualized systems, making it easy to scale. Instead of buying new equipment, we have set up virtual systems for the DC and user networks.

1. Intrusion prevention. Preventing and detecting well know vulnerabilities to our publicly accessible systems is easy. Inbuilt predefined security profiles can be deployed out of the box.

2. Virtualized security. Virtualized products are used to provide more scalability and ease of administration to the network.

3. Identity awareness. Granular policies on the firewall are based on identities.

4. Site-to-site VPN. We can make connections with partners securely.

5. Reporting. Prebuilt reports that are already in a well-presented manner could be presented to management.

6. Access Policy and NAT rules base.

1. Complexity in upgrades. Currently, upgrades are quite cumbersome. I would prefer the click of a button and process upgrades.

2. Pricing. The pricing is quite high as compared to other industry firewalls (such as Cisco or Fortinet).

3. Documentation. They have to improve on providing more documentation and examples for certain features online. In other sections, it feels shallow and we could use more information and examples.

4. Complexity in system tweaks. There are some knobs that need to be tweaked at the configuration files on the CLI which can be considered complex.

5. Check Point Virtual Security. The features take a bit more time to be released as compared to physical gateways.

I've used the solution from 2017 until now.

A word of caution, especially on new software: you might hit a couple of bugs. Therefore, the general recommendation is to wait for a few takes before upgrading to a major version.

With older versions it's stable.

The solution offers high-performance devices ranging from small to big data centers.

Virtual Security offers up to 13 connected gateways helping with managed security.

First-line support is hit or miss, and at times getting an engineer to assist on the call can take hours.

Opening tickets on the Check Point platform is ok with the first response depending on the workload of the engineers.

This is one place Check Point needs to improve.

Positive

Previously we were using Cisco ASA 5585. However, the performance was not reliable, and scaling would have been an issue.

We opted to go with Check Point, which could handle high performance and scaling was easier. Check Point also offered IPS features which were easier. Check Point also had better reporting and management tools.

The initial setup was a bit complex since we were deploying virtual systems.

The interface configurations, access policy, VPNs, and NAT setup were easy. The complexity was in understanding how Check Point handles virtualized security instead of physical security gateways.

The initial implementation was with the help of a vendor with good knowledge of the product.

It's used to protect the organization from security threats and provide connectivity to our applications which is the main platform for business. That's the ROI we've noted.

The pricing and licensing for Check Point are high.

Due to experience with Check Point, we did not evaluate other options (like Fortigate or Palo Alto).

Generally, Check Point is a good product with a lot of security features that I would recommend to any organization.

I used Check Point NGFW to secure the data centers of medium to large enterprise companies. In many cases, it serves as a perimeter firewall, though its use can vary based on specific needs. Primarily, it functions as a defensive firewall.

The GUI is not very user-friendly, and configuring it can be challenging. The management console often has issues, sometimes requiring high CPU usage on your FTP or Windows system to open or manage sessions. It can be resource-intensive. Additionally, when viewing or monitoring logs, they sometimes do not appear immediately and may be outdated or missing.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two years.

It is a stable device.

They support a range of enterprises, from small to large. Their solutions can accommodate environments with as few as 50 users to those with thousands or more. So, handling a large number of users is not an issue.

Support is very good.

Positive

The initial setup is not straightforward and can be more complex than that of other devices like Palo Alto or Fortinet firewalls. The setup for the CMA and management center requires careful implementation. Additionally, integrating components such as MDM and other security devices, including sandboxes, can be challenging to achieve a cohesive and secure environment.

The time required for deployment depends on the amount of configuration needed. Typically, it might take a full day, but with sufficient time, a basic configuration can often be completed in about eight to ten hours.

I have worked with both on-premises and VM versions. The CMA is typically deployed as a VM on a server, while the firewall is a physical device. 

I have already deployed many times by myself, so there is no need for many people.

It is a cheaper device than what other vendors offe.

For security features, I typically use the templates or standards provided by the vendor. Based on my experience over the past three years, I haven’t encountered any significant complaints from customers about attacks or major issues while using the firewall to protect their data centers.

Google has a premium partnership with Check Point, involving extensive verification processes for major customers. This strong partnership indicates a significant level of collaboration between the two companies.

I haven’t handled any maintenance, but the support center has been very helpful. They provided excellent support and demonstrated strong knowledge whenever I reached out for assistance. They are proficient in various languages and have a good grasp of Linux, which is essential for effective support.

They provide good step-by-step implementation guides, similar to what is available for Fortinet's FortiGate. However, I find the implementation process for other vendors to be easier. Pricing varies among the three vendors, so there are differences in cost. Palo Alto offers the best options for sizing, though I haven’t worked operationally.

I recommend it, but you should know Linux and its commands to work effectively with this device.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We use Check Point NGFW as our data center and branch location firewalls.

The solution is robust and can handle heavy workloads and user traffic well. The product is good. 

The tool's support is lacking. We find almost all its features useful, except for some challenges with VPN.

I have been working with the product for ten years. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 5000 users. 

The initial setup can be complex, especially for BGP configurations. I'd rate it a five out of ten for ease of setup. It's neither too hard nor too easy - it depends on your requirements. We deployed it on-premises. The initial deployment of our enterprise-grade device took about three months. We need about two people for maintenance, mainly for operational changes when needed.

We mostly did the deployment ourselves, with some professional services support from Check Point. Three to four people were involved in the deployment, including one from Check Point to validate our work.

The Harmony bundle is interesting, with many new features, but we're not evaluating it much as we're moving to FortiGate. We're not planning to increase the usage of Check Point NGFW. We're looking into SD-WAN and moving towards FortiGate.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for threat protection in the banking and finance sectors.

Check Point NGFW is popular because of the protection it offers. 

The pricing and UI need to be improved. 

The enterprise is quite expensive. There are small boxes that are competitive enough.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for a year.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine-point five out of ten.

The solution can scale up to enterprises.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine-point five out of ten.

The initial setup is easy, but maintenance is very difficult. Deployment and fine-tuning take a day.

There were no glitches or issues. We were able to achieve a positive ROI for our business. It saved them a significant amount of money that would otherwise have been spent on dealing with ransomware activities.

The product is expensive and costs around one-point-five million.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Thorough planning is essential when implementing a Check Point NGFW. You need a checklist outlining what policies to establish. While the installation is straightforward and does not require much effort beyond obtaining a license, creating and configuring policies can be time-consuming. Therefore, allocating sufficient time and resources to policy creation is crucial to ensure effective security management.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use Check Point NGFW for network segmentation and traffic control. It effectively segments our network into zones, allowing us to manage and secure traffic flows between different segments.

The platform's technical support services need enhancement. 

The product is highly scalable and crucial for our large-scale deployment needs. Its scalability is a ten out of ten.

The technical support is generally responsive, although there have been occasional delays in accessing specialized assistance tailored to our needs.

Positive

The deployment was handled by dedicated experts within our organization, ensuring a smooth setup. While I didn't oversee the technical aspects directly, our team found the process straightforward, minimizing operational disruptions.

The product is on the higher end of the cost spectrum, but the investment is justified by its high-quality performance and reliability, which are paramount for our security infrastructure.

Check Point NGFW has consistently provided stable operation which is critical for our organization's security needs.

Managing firewall rules and policies is intuitive and efficient. The interface allows us to quickly adapt to new security requirements and maintain compliance with organizational policies.

I highly recommend it for organizations seeking robust network security.

Overall, I rate it an eight. 

Primarily, it's used for customers who want to add their network security.

The IPS protection is the most useful feature that I found from Check Point. It has a feature called WatchTower, which helps you manage the device using a mobile. That's the most used feature. 

Other than that, it's quite simple. All the other features are what you find in all other firewalls. So the best feature that I find from Check Point is WatchTower.

The setup is a little complex compared to its competitors. That's what makes it stand out. Other than that, it could always be done by another product, but they have a lot of IoT products. This is definitely something like a Check Point Quantum device.

I have been using it for two years. The version I use is R8x series. I'm not exactly sure, but it's the latest version.

It is a stable product. 

It is a very scalable solution. 

The customer service and support have been good.

Positive

I used Sophos XG. We (my company) still use Sophos, Check Point, and FortiGate. We use all three firewalls in our environment.

Check Point has a really good feature where they give us a subscription for IoT device protection, which other vendors don't have. Sophos, I don't think they have it. 

Fortinet charges for it separately, so that's an additional cost, but with Check Point, the feature is built in. It's not an additional license.

Moreover, Check Point has started promoting a lot. It's well known here in our region.

The initial setup is complex. It's pretty easy to maintain.

We deployed it for customers. So maybe if we do a big deployment, it could be difficult.

The pricing is reasonable compared to the features that you get.

I highly recommend it to users who have a lot of IoT devices.

It all comes down to one simple thing:

"If you have IoT devices, I highly recommend Check Point NGFW. If you don't, it's a bit complex compared to Fortinet and Sophos."

But once you get the hang of it, you can quite easily configure the device.

Moreover, Check Point has a certification program if you want, and you can learn with that. They also have a separate certification program that you can take, a paid certification program.

I am satisfied with the documentation by Check Point. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We are using the product in a small office to secure our network to configure the firewall settings to control incoming and outgoing traffic. 

This includes setting up rules for allowing or blocking specific types of traffic.

We use intrusion prevention features to detect and prevent potential threats and attacks on your network.

It enables logging and monitoring features to keep track of network activity and identify potential security incidents.

With the solution, we can implement strong user authentication mechanisms to control access to your network resources.

The use of Check Point NGFW makes our business feel safer.

NGFWs typically include advanced threat prevention mechanisms, such as intrusion prevention systems (IPS), antivirus, anti-malware, and threat intelligence. These features help protect your network from a wide range of cyber threats.

NGFWs can integrate with user identity management systems, enabling more granular control over network access based on user identities. This is particularly important for enforcing security policies on a per-user basis.

The interface is user-friendly, and also they give you small training courses on the Coursera website to explain how to use the products.

The dashboard provides a quick overview of the security status, including key metrics, alerts, and recent events. This helps administrators get a snapshot of the network's security posture.

The ability to monitor network traffic and security events in real time is crucial. Check Point's interface often provides real-time visibility into network activity, making it easier to identify potential issues or threats.

Their products are pretty complete, and the explanations are very well done.

Check Point offers training and certification programs for administrators and security professionals. These programs help individuals develop the skills needed to effectively manage and secure networks using Check Point products.

Timely updates to security databases, firmware, and software are crucial for addressing new threats. Check Point's commitment to providing ongoing support ensures that organizations have access to assistance when needed.

We have been using this solution for the last two years already.

The solution we use is pretty complete. For the moment, the stability is good enough for us.

CkeckPoint has solutions for different sizes of companies. Therefore, the solution is scalable. The client has to choose the right solution for their needs. If you call the contact center, they can advise you on your options.

We have not used technical support, up until now we haven't needed them.

Positive

We used a normal antivirus on the endpoints previously. However, after we took a cybersecurity course, we understood that a bigger security solution was needed.

The initial setup is easy. You just click through, next, next, next, and take some steps to make an account and do some basic setups. Everything basically works out of the box.

We implemented the solution through a vendor team; they had well-trained technicians.

To feel safer in the online environment is the most important thing these days. Everything is online now. A solution like that makes it easier and safer for you to work and do things online.

After researching what's available in the market, choose a product. Read reviews and watch demos to assess the user interface and learn what options the product offers.

We searched the market for months before we chose Check Point. There are many security solutions on the market, both for on-premises and on the cloud. We chose Check Point for the ease of use.

The solution is perfect for us. That said, for each client, the needs are different.