Check Point Security Management Reviews

We use it for the firewall and the filtration. The accounts are put on a server and even the SmartConsole is installed on a server environment.

In terms of most valuable features, I love the URL filtering as well as the identification capabilities which link with the Active Directory and work for me even with bandwidth regulation. These allow me to select to whom to do what, and when.

As for improvement, again, the bandwidth regulation is an issue - it is not up to my expectations. If they could improve that it would be good.

In future releases I'd like to see better integration with other applications and solutions.

Also, the cost of the license is too high, it's too expensive.

I have been using Check Point Security Management for the last five or six years.

I used to contact customer service, but nowadays, I'm authorized to handle that. We have our own internal team in the company to maintain this solution on our own. I know a few people at Check Point so we work together.

Yes, we were using Dell SonicWall.

In terms of initial setup, at the beginning when I was not an expert, it was difficult but now that I'm an expert it is no longer difficult at all.

I don't know how long the setup was the first time since it was done by a client. But nowadays, because I'm an expert, it doesn't take long. It takes about an hour or two and I've done everything.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd give Check Point Security Management a nine because it is not yet available in our country.

We primarily use the solution based on the results that are provided. We've tried others previously and they didn't give us the results we receive on this particular product.

The additional features offered by the solution are excellent. We didn't have a lot of these on a previous solution, and they've proven to be an advantage for us.

Based on my personal use of the system, the interface is quite good.

It depends on the user, but all of the checkpoints need improvement. The only place I need a bit of an update, for example, is in the endpoint management. There are some policies that are embedded that you have to examine if you have sensitive users. 

For some applications, the default acts as a manager. However, in a system with a history of being breached or where users are given access based on their job function, we seem to have issues particularly there.

The reporting should be improved in future releases. It needs to be very explicit. This is very important.

I've been using the solution for about a year.

Over the past nine or ten months that we've been using the solution we've found it to be very stable. We haven't had any issues at all. Since we have a monetary drive to enforce stability, when we see a flagged issue we will address it immediately.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. We haven't faced any negative aspects when trying to scale up.

The technical support of the solution has been very good. They are much better than what I previously had. I find that we get attention within 24 hours if we flag something. We are purchasing the support so it may be the reason we get such a quick and helpful response.

We did previously use a different solution. They didn't have support locally in my country and this was difficult for us. Everything was done via mail or phone and it was not helpful. With this solution, if the situation cannot be remotely addressed within 48 hours, they will come to my office in person and attend to me. It's much better.

The initial setup is very straightforward. Deployment takes about three working days. In our case, we had to import policies from SonicWall but not on the same platform, so we had some little challenges like that, however, overall it was quite straightforward.

We have an in-house team that handles maintenance.

We had an integrator that assisted us with the implementation of the product. We use them for support as well.

We're still in the testing phase in terms of using the solution. Soon, it will be one year since we have fully deployed it. So far, it's been very good. I would rate it eight out of ten.

One of the most valuable features is the console application.

It's a great solution for management. We can manage a lot at the same time with one security management system. Also, each gateway depends on the other, which is helpful.

The client of the management needs to be improved. 

The solution is a bit slow. The speed should be improved. 

If there is a possibility to use the URL instead of client management in a future release, that would be ideal.

In the last version from 80.20, there are some issues around SSNA Diction. I would like this to be improved.

The solution is scalable.

I haven't contacted technical support a lot. I have a colleague that's had issues with a certain version of the solution, and they have made contact. They've had issues, but for me, technical support has always been fine.

The initial setup is not too complex, but those setting it up should have knowledge of Unix as well as some knowledge in Linux command lines. 

We're a partner. We help clients implement the solution.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution as a firewall, and for some IPS features as well.

The firewall's blades are the solution's most valuable feature.

We had a lot of problems with the VPN blade on the solution.

We sometimes have trouble with the performance of the solution. Maybe some performance tuning options could be added in a future release. There should be more visibility about which blade in your firewall is causing the latency. That would be nice as well.

The stability of the file blade is good. However, there are a lot of blades, and some of the blades have bugs. For example, the VPN is not so stable. Aso, sometimes when we have high loads on our firewall because we have 20,000 users, the Firewall blade also has trouble.

The scalability of the solution is good. However, we have four or five firewalls and that's more than enough, so we don't need to increase the usage. We have about 20,000 users that go through the firewall at this time.

We don't go through technical support if we need assistance. We instead go to our consultants which assist us if we run into any issues. The consultants may sometimes open cases, but we have no direct contact with Check Point.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

In general, the initial setup was straightforward. Deployment for us took quite long because we migrated in small steps. That was our choice and had nothing to do with Check Point. We have five people managing the solution, and we have two consultants that sometimes help us with some troubleshooting and features.

We used a consultant to assist with the implementation.

Before choosing Check Point, we evaluated FortiGate from FortiNet, Sonicwall from Dell and Cisco FW products.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Perimeter protection. It has performed well. It's good.

It hasn't really improved the way our organization functions. It has just provided that extra functionality. That is something we now demand of all firewalls.

The ability to include logs for everything that you do for admin. Also, it has web filtering built in and VPN. Those are the main features we use.

I would like the ability to have an overview, cross-site: One portal that does all firewalls.

The stability is good, but that's because we've got a high-availability configuration.

It is scalable, but, as I said before, you are not able to connect across multiple sites for a similar firewall.

I would say tech support is about a six out of 10.

There was no previous solution. I inherited this one.

When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria are history, reputation, and looking at the industry ratings.

Although I wasn't involved in the initial setup, I believe it was quite complicated.

Do the homework because Check Point is rather expensive. There are better firewalls on the market now that are cheaper and provide better functionality and security.

I rate it a six out of 10 because the user interface is overly complicated.

This solution is used to validate the firewalls, and it performs this function very well.

It helps us control what people are accessing, inside the company.

URL filtering is a very important feature.

The usability of the solution could be improved.

I think stability is good. We haven't had any trouble.

The scalability looks fine.

My company has used technical support, but I have not.

In the past, we had a type of proxy for our URL filtering. The idea was to have everything packaged in the same solution. We removed the proxy and started to use just the firewall to control URL filtering and normal firewall rules in the same solution.

When selecting a vendor, we always check the industry reviews. Then, we analyze the features and, after that, the price-feature combination is the most important factor: which one has the best price and has the features we need.

Pay attention to the stability of the solution because it's very critical.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. They need to improve the usability. It's good but it can always be better.