Check Point Remote Access VPN Reviews

Check Point Remote Access VPN is a highly secure and seamless software that provides end-to-end security solutions.

We can connect anywhere in the world over possible ways to secure the infrastructure.

Check Point Remote Access VPN is the best available solution in the market for providing endpoint management solutions by ensuring adherence to strict compliance and multiple scanning of the data to ensure no data theft or leakage and security and compliance are maintained at the highest level possible.

Also, we have multi-authentication so there is no chance of leakage.

Check Point Remote Access VPN provides multi-factor authentication layers.

We can make Data transfer more strict with Data Integrity, Encapsulation, DES,3DES, and Hashing Algorithm so that the level of security will be higher.

Also, they provided a multi-level authentication support system for continuous scanning and compliance management throughout the IT system.

Multiple VPN connections can be established and share the data in a secure possible way.

It is easy to install the Endpoint Remote Access VPN client on different platforms. Within the company, we use it for Windows and macOS.

Built-in, centrally managed Compliance blade. We check the client OS for the presence of the latest security updates and that the corporate antivirus software is up and running, and do not allow the client to connect to the office site in the case where these rules are not satisfied. That prevents the infected computers from connecting to the company's location and spreading the threats.

The stable VPN connection and uptime are also very good.

We have a centrally managed Firewall blade, which allows filtering traffic on the rule base to protect the requirement.

Bug Fixes and enhancement requests should be remediated earlier, as we have multiple dependencies and Auditors are forced to have the latest patches in place.

Checkpoint Major version should have an extended time than the default time mentioned in the end-of-life policy document with additional prices.

Tools must be introduced and supportive in analyzing the data, flow, and threats.

We have to introduce the scripting part to work seamlessly.

I've used the solution for more than four years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The company offers the best support overall and we can trust their advice.

Positive

This is the first time we are using this type of solution.

The initial setup is straightforward, simple, and centralized. 

We handled the setup in-house.

The product is better than any other product in the marketplace. Technically sounded techies all over the place. It is cost-effective and most importantly stable and secure.

We trust the Check Point Software technology.

On-premises

We use Check Point Remote Access VPN to connect to the back-office applications.

Check Point Remote Access VPN could be more user-friendly.

I have been using Check Point Remote Access VPN for approximately two years.

Check Point Remote Access VPN is a stable solution.

We have approximately 2,000 users using this solution. We have plans to increase the usage of the solution.

My internal team does some technical support for our employees. I have not contacted the support from Check Point Remote Access VPN.

I have used Microsoft Defender Endpoint previously. I found it to be much more user-friendly than Check Point Remote Access VPN.

The installation of Check Point Remote Access VPN is straightforward. The time it takes for the client installation is two minutes. It is a standard installation.

I did the implementation myself. We have our IT department that is supporting and doing the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution.

I rate Check Point Remote Access VPN a seven out of ten.

On-premises

We use Check Point Remote Access VPN to provide access to employees and to the company resources, especially now that most people are working from home. That's the main use. We also use it for specific companies that give us remote support to some applications. They access our company servers and resources. We're using Remote Access VPN with a specific profile for them that only gives access to some.

We have two environments. Our firewalls and our perimeter firewalls are Check Point. The firewall connects to the internet and those firewalls are the ones that the people connect to for the Remote VPN. We have the Blade enabled and they access the company resources as if they were working at the office.

Remote Access VPN allows users to work from home very easily. They are very happy with the way they log in with RSA. That's why we use the Foo. It's very stable. We didn't have any issues.

Compared to Pulse Secure, Check Point saves us a couple of hours a week. It's easier to reverse when we have issues. At the moment, most of our company still uses Pulse Secure. But a year ago, we also started deploying some people on Check Point so that we have another option. If we don't want to renew with Pulse Secure the client says we can migrate everyone to Check Point as we already have some people working on the Check Point VPN. 20% of the company uses the Check Point VPN and the rest uses Pulse Secure, which is our main VPN, which is around 100 people.

The biggest advantage of Check Point Remote Access VPN is that we already use the Check Point firewall. We only needed to enable the feature and do the configuration in order to enable the VPN feature. We didn't need to buy or manage new hardware. This was a big advantage. 

The integration with two-factor authentication for Remote Access users is another valuable feature. In our case we use RSA.

Those two are the most valuable aspects that we have on the solution. It also gives us the possibility to securely connect to the company resources, without Check Point security measures.

Another good thing we like is that we already have all the logs from the firewall on the SmartPortal as the remote VPN also integrates into the firewall. We can see all the logs on the same tool because we also have a fully secure solution for Remote Access VPN. For full security, we need to manage the different hardware from the firewalls and the logs that are not in the same place. This is another valuable aspect of this solution. 

Having access to those logs affects our security operations because if a user calls the support but does not have access to the VPN, we can see on the same tool on the SmartPortal. If he's being blocked on the firewall policy, you can see it with the VPN profile.

If the user is using Foo, we need to go to the Check Point firewall to see the Check Point firewall log on the perimeter firewall, to see if the user is crossing the firewall to get the Foo. Then we need to go to the supplier to see that the logs are there. So we need to go to two places.

We are very happy with the Windows client. You log in with the VPN for the full client, you do the log in there. But for Linux machines, they don't have a full client to install. It is important because we have some users that use Linux and they don't have a specific application from Check Point to use. That is something that could be improved. 

I have been using Check Point Remote Access VPN for around one year. 

We don't have any stability issues.

It is very scalable in a way that we can share the configuration for Remote VPN amongst our perimeter firewall so we can implement the Remote VPN with the same profiles and the same configuration easily on all of them. It's very scalable.

We are still studying the possibility of migrating everyone to Check Point VPN, but a decision has to be made because we still have a lot of people using Pulse Secure.

We haven't used technical support specifically for Remote Access VPN. We use it for other products, but not for this one. In general, their support is good, especially if you work with the Israel team. Because of the time zones, we try to call when they are available. The support is usually in. The other ones are also good but in most cases, the Israel team is better.

Our team finds that Pulse Security is a bit difficult to configure. It's not very straightforward. We are used to it now. Management is easier on Check Point. Our managers wanted us to have to study some alternatives to Pulse Secure so that if the price was too high, or if we wanted to move to another solution, we would already have an idea about other solutions. We chose Check Point as we already had the firewall. It has worked well until now. We already have some people using the Check Point VPN and we are ready to move everyone. 

Pulse Secure was more difficult because of all the things that you need to for the setup. You need to do four or five things to set up a profile and some of them don't make any sense. It's difficult for a person that's never used Pulse to understand the philosophy of the configuration and to create different profiles. It's not very straightforward.

The initial setup was straightforward, especially because we already have the firewall implemented. So we only needed to enable the features and do some configurations, which were not hard to do. They were really fit. 

It took two days. We did our own thing. The implementation strategy was to first have only two or three users from the IT team to test it. Then we allowed it to extend to some teams.

Two team members did the deployment. 

We require three full-time network security engineers for maintenance. We manage all the solutions on the security side of our company. Specifically Remote Access VPN requires three hours of maintenance a week.

The return on investment is that we have a stable VPN solution to provide our employees, which is very important. Especially now with the virus, we have more than 50% of people working from home and using the VPN solutions. Our return on investment is the ability to allow people to work remotely in a secure way and a stable VPN.

As far as I'm aware, Check Point is on the same line of pricing with Pulse at the moment. It's not any different. It is in line with the competition. There are no additional costs that I'm aware of. 

It's not hard to deploy the solution. Remote Access VPN is easier to deploy than some other solutions like Pulse Secure.

If you already have a Check Point firewall, this remote solution is a win-win because you don't need to buy, manage, or do a hardware refresh when you enter the end of life. You will have centralized logs on the same tools. If you have a Check Point firewall, this solution is the best for you.

I would rate Check Point Remote Access VPN a nine out of ten. 

It works very well. I would say it's almost the perfect solution. As far as I'm aware, it's one of the oldest solutions from Check Point. So it's very, very stable. They have a lot of years of working with it.

On-premises

In our current dynamic, we are using this solution to provide access to data and some business applications over the internet.

Our users find the interface very comfortable to use.

There is always room for innovation and the addition of new features.

We have been using this VPN for more than ten years.

With respect to stability, Check Point has been running smoothly and we haven't had any issues.

We have about 500 people using this solution in our company during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to that, we had an average of 100 daily users.

We are satisfied with the support.

We are always searching to see if there is anything new in the market.

Currently, Check Point is meeting all of our requirements. That said, there is always a chance of innovation and something new.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

A lot of our clients are complimentary companies, like the electrical company. They need Check Point Remote Access VPN, or even another similar solution. I tell them that I already have the VPN solution in our company.

In terms of improving the service, I think they could add more features, like the security to block off the doors, or create another hatch, something like this. They could make the features safer, add malware to make my mail and the Kryon system safer and to protect data at an earlier stage.

I have been using Check Point for about one year.

I have not heard any complaints from the clients regarding its stability. I think it's stable for them.

Not all of our clients who use Check Point VPN are in Thailand. Some government agencies, like the Electric City Company, are in Thailand. They use it formally. Their IT and telecom departments, those who require a secure network, are using it.

I have not contacted customer support yet because I take care of any issues from here. That's why I don't have their programming disk because I take care of it myself, including the configuration and the DSL in Check Point.

We still use other products.

The initial setup is not complex. Plus, we've got the Kryon system. So these systems make it easier for the user. We have known this product for a while, that's why it's not a problem to configure the system.

I don't have any advice yet.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd give Check Point Remote Access VPN a seven.

Public Cloud

The differentiator for this solution is the management interface that we find very good and provides a single view for all endpoints. The solution offers SmartLog that allows quick searches. The compliance modules are also very interesting.

I cannot see the full effect of the antibot solution because it relies on having access to the DNS queries, which might not go through the Check Point firewall when you're using it for perimeter networks. In this case Check Point will not identify the actual source of the DNS queries associated with antibot activity. This may be related to the customer architecture, however, and not due to product limitation. I don't know if it can be improved on the Check Point side or not.

The solution should allow for the automatic identification of destinations. 

We have a URL qualification on the on-premises deployment model; this should also be the case on the cloud. The automatic classification should be done by the cloud team instead of having to specify or subscribe to a RSS for the information, we should be able to have an object that represents such cloud services. It's possible that Check Point already allows for this, but if they don't they should.

We've been using the solution for about 20 years.

The solution is very stable.

The stability depends on the setup. If the solution resides on a specific appliance, it is not scalable. It has a fixed capacity. However, if you move it onto different environments, cloud environments, it will become scalable. Right now, we have about 4,000 users in the current network and about 500 remote access users.

Technical support is reasonable. It depends on the level of support you are willing to pay for, however. You can choose to have a company working for you with intermediate support with Check Point, or you can choose to have direct advanced support.

The initial setup has a moderate amount of complexity. It's acceptable. However, the graphical display of the user chart of network usage, and the ability to zero in on the current graphics could be improved.

We currently only use the on-premises deployment model, although we may extend into the cloud in the future. We're aware of the cloud's capabilities, but we're not using it because we don't have a large infrastructure expression there.

In terms of advice, I'd suggest that others implementing the solution make sure training happens on their teams. Most products can have lots of features, but if you do not have proper knowledge, you will not be able to make use of those features.

I'm very satisfied with this solution; I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to have a secure connection and to offer security integration with our remote office as well as some other companies.

The ability to create your trigger data domains is the solution's most valuable feature.

The solution should include the ability to integrate the equipment's functionality with others. For example, we would like Checkpoint to be able to integrate easily to the public key infrastructure. According to Checkpoint, there is no use case for this right now. 

The interface itself needs improvement. When you need to create something, you have to go through a lot of steps. It needs to be simplified. 

I've been using the solution for two years.

The solution has been very scalable for us up until now. Currently, we have two data centers and we are running two Checkpoints for the facility to spread the workload.

The process is mainly straightforward. 

We started only with the firewall components and this part was straightforward. Once we started to implement the VPN, we had to work with the reseller. Now, we are handling it ourselves.

We handled the implementation ourselves with the assistance of resellers.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

Checkpoint is very strong and very reliable. I would advise that those considering implementing the product go to a Checkpoint training session before implementing the solution. It's good to be familiar with the product beforehand.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Firewall and SSL VPN

One of the features that is very valuable to our agency is SSL VPN software blade which gives users the ability to work from home.

The SSL VPN needs a Java applet to be installed and it is also dependent on the latest version of java. If our users use their work laptops at home they don’t have the permission to install anything that would be great if this applet can run without administrator permission.

4-5 years

We haven't encountered any issues with deployment.

We haven't encountered any issues with stability.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability.

Customer Service: ExcellentTechnical Support: Excellent

It is definitely not a complex procedure.

In-house, with a CheckPoint engineer’s assistance, Excellent.