Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Reviews

My main use case is protecting internet-facing web applications and APIs from threats such as SQL injections, XSS, and malicious requests. For example, I use it in front of customer-facing applications to inspect incoming traffic and block suspicious requests before they reach the application servers.

I also use it for visibility and control over application traffic, not just blocking attacks. The logging and security policies help my team investigate suspicious requests and fine-tune protection rules when new applications or APIs are introduced.

The features I rely on the most are web application protection policies, real-time threat detection, and traffic visibility through logging and monitoring. The ability to customize rules for specific applications and APIs is useful because it helps reduce false positives while keeping protection active.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my overall visibility and reduced the amount of suspicious traffic reaching our applications. It has also made security operations more manageable because I can monitor events, fine-tune policies, and respond to threats without making frequent changes to the application itself.

One area for improvement would be making the policy configuration and troubleshooting experience simpler, especially for complex applications and APIs. More guided guidance around rule tuning and clearer explanations for why a request was blocked would also help reduce investigation time.

The overall interface is useful, but some advanced settings could be easier to navigate and understand for new administrators. I would also appreciate more practical documentation and troubleshooting examples, especially for application-specific policies and API protection.

Another improvement would be more detailed real-time diagnostics when a security rule triggers so it is easier to understand the reason behind a block. Additionally, smoother integration with monitoring and SIEM tools would make incident investigation and day-to-day operations more efficient.

I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for a little over a year.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been stable for day-to-day production use in my experience. I have not seen major reliability issues, and it has handled normal traffic volumes consistently while providing the expected protection and monitoring.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has scaled well as I have added more applications and APIs for my needs. I have been able to extend protection without major changes to the overall setup, although very high-traffic applications still require some more planning around capacity and policies.

Customer support has been good for issues around configuration or troubleshooting. The support team has generally been responsive and helpful, although some complex cases can take additional time to resolve when deeper investigation is needed.

Before Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I used a more basic web application security solution. I switched mainly because I needed better visibility, more flexible application and API-specific policies, and stronger centralized threat detection and monitoring.

The initial deployment was fairly straightforward once the application, traffic flow, and security policies were defined. Ongoing management is manageable, although tuning rules for new applications and investigating certain blocked requests can require additional time from the security team.

I have seen ROI mainly through reduced manual security investigation and faster response to suspicious traffic, rather than direct headcount savings. The centralized visibility and automation blocking have saved my team time in day-to-day monitoring and incident handling, although I do not have a formal dollar figure.

The pricing and licensing were reasonable for my use case, but the overall cost depends on application traffic and the level of protection required. Setup costs were manageable, although I would recommend clearly understanding the licensing model and expected traffic volumes before budgeting.

I evaluated a few other enterprise WAF options, mainly AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure WAF. I compared them on threat detection, application and API policy customization, visibility, ease of management, and how they would fit into my existing cloud environment.

I would recommend clearly defining your application and API security requirements before implementation and spending some time tuning the policies for your specific traffic. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a good fit if you need strong protection with centralized visibility, but make sure the team is comfortable with the configuration and ongoing rule tuning.

My experience with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been positive overall. The combination of protection, visibility, and application-specific policy control has been useful for my environment. The main areas I would see improved are a simpler configuration, troubleshooting, and more detailed documentation. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I am using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). I am also using multiple FortiGate products. I am using the product for URL filtering, security, WAF, and VRF. Check Point WAF improves our ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs.

I appreciate that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is an enterprise-grade service and a very good product that we have used. It offers smart AI protection as well. Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I have seen measurable outcomes; it has mostly stopped attacks through bots and API integrations. I see Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) as a good product in blocking zero-day attacks and detecting anomalies. It helps us a lot because the AI engines evaluate behavior on a real-time basis, and it can detect threats without signatures based on historical data.

I believe AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities help in identifying, blocking, and responding to application threats more effectively. The AI helps in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) because it creates a targeted exclusion list based on its learning period. It can detect and stop or prevent threats based on context tuning and historical data.

For Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), the negative aspects include the very high price, complex licensing, and the need for specialized trained people to configure it, which is comparatively more complicated than other firewalls like Palo Alto and FortiGate. The two areas for improvement are the price and the complexity of configuration.

I started using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) approximately four to five years ago.

I would give a score of nine for the stability of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

I perceive scalability as limited due to challenges faced during DNS migration and HA mode.

I find Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) support helpful, but it is not proficient. It is often reliant on the site engineer's involvement, and it does not match the support offered by leaders like Fortinet, who deploy their own trained personnel ready to help anytime.

I find installation challenging, complex, and not easy, as it requires skilled professionals to configure the rules and threats, including AI configurations. The biggest challenge when deploying it is its architectural constraints, including limited synchronization during configuration, and there are many challenges involved in integration.

I am mostly using firewall solutions. I am using a firewall with IT, OT, and enterprise-grade services. We deal with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) products. I am speaking about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), Web Application Firewall. We are just a user of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). A context-based tooling helps more here because while the AI capabilities are learning, they could reduce the false positive rate. I have not integrated Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) with any other products.

Despite the complex nature and high price, I think the product is worth buying because it is effective. The configuration is complex, so it is not as easy as with other products. However, I believe it is worth the investment because the security is excellent. For security, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a leader without a doubt. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a very good, highly secure enterprise-level product, but it does have limitations, including the price and the need for trained personnel. I also encounter many errors during HA mode configuration, which can be tricky. I have a hybrid model for deployment. I would rate this review an eight overall.

My main use case for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is web application API protection in cloud-native, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments, where it provides automated AI-driven threat prevention, comprehensive API security, zero-day and OWASP Top 10 protection, as well as bot protection and DDoS mitigation.

As a scenario, I can describe a broken object level authorization attack where an enterprise is running a containerized microservice application deployed via Terraform or Docker. The front end communicates with the back-end service through a REST API, and user authentication is handled by a central identity and access management provider such as OAuth2. The attack vector involved an attacker logging in with valid, low-privilege user credentials, which led them to probe the application's back-end endpoint. After requesting their own authorized record, they deployed a script to iterate through other IDs to scrape sensitive data from other tenants. Since the API calls are perfectly formatted and authenticated, a legacy signature-based WAF would typically allow this traffic through. However, the mitigation flow includes automatic schema enforcement, behavioral baseline, IAM context awareness, and surgical blocking. By applying these techniques, we can shift from static rule maintenance to dynamic, context-aware analysis, which is where Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) applies.

The best feature Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers is API security.

The features that stand out to me within Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) include the contextual AI threat engine, which I find to be a very useful tool, as well as automated API discovery. Additionally, I appreciate the unified multi-cloud management that allows for the management of policies, logs, and analytics across hybrid and multi-cloud environments through a single control plane.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has positively impacted my organization by reducing rule maintenance, leading to less or near-zero false positives, and enabling frictionless DevSecOps alignment. Regarding Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI capabilities, it possesses local logging control, PII reduction, log suppression, tenant isolation, and deterministic threat scoring. The granular rule-based access list and auditability are also crucial, as they allow for enforcing strict rule-based access control and maintaining immutable audit logs for all admin actions and support access requests.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities have helped my organization by providing more precise detection and response. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs by automatically mapping undocumented API endpoints, ingesting OpenAPI specifications, and enforcing strict schema validation to prevent parameter tampering and logic abuse. This is achieved through automated API discovery and protection. In terms of AI, it evaluates requests against learned behavioral baselines rather than static RegEx signatures, effectively stopping zero-day exploits while drastically minimizing false positives.

There should be more tutorials and documentation about the usage of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) online so more users and tenants can use these security services daily, as it is not as well-documented as other tools, such as the F5 WAF.

I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for three years.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is stable.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) scalability is impressive as it prevents the bottleneck common in traditional centralized WAF appliances and ensures the security throughput grows proportionally alongside application workloads. I do not see any bottlenecks, as it scales through a stateless micro-agent architecture that decouples traffic handling from control plane management.

I purchased Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) through the AWS Marketplace.

The deployment and ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) were easy.

I have not seen a return on investment, as I still have the same number of employees and the same amount of effort and time in hours.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is a bit expensive.

Nothing would make Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) closer to a 10 for me since a 10 would mean preventing against all attacks, which is why it cannot receive that rating; nothing can prevent every attack.

I would advise others looking into using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to take an evaluation license and try it first to understand how it works, and then try it again to form a final opinion about whether they are going to purchase it. This way, they can see if it fits within their current setup. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Any cloud-native application is where my clients might be using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to secure Layer 7 with low latency. It is one of the best in Layer 7 security.

The biggest advantages of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) are that it is lightweight and the integration into cloud-native applications is very easy. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) produces false positives that are minimal. It has a learning process that is unique, adopting an education model approach. Ease of deployment and efficiency, particularly for API security, are phenomenal. The console is key, with Infinity Portal offering access to all kinds of Check Point products and a unique dashboard and reporting system.

Scaling is easy; once deployed, it takes care of everything without causing any concern for improving hardware or configurations. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reduces total cost of ownership, being cheaper compared to any other software.

As a reseller, the most difficult part is the lack of awareness. Check Point does not provide any kind of awareness programs to the customers, requiring partners to educate customers.

There are indeed some features missing, particularly connected with integration or with artificial intelligence. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) faces certain issues with dual ISP tagging on entry-level devices since SD-WAN features were added.

I have been selling Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for almost three to four years.

Regarding stability, I am not finding any issues; it is very stable.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is very easy to scale. Once deployed, you forget it; it takes care of everything.

My impression of technical support for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is adequate. The technical support team is really good.

If I were to rate support from zero to ten points, I would give them a ten, as they are the best.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is good; there are no questions asked.

In terms of pricing, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is not expensive; it is worth the investment. If there is no downtime or bottlenecks while accessing your application from the internet, that itself is the return on investment.

I can tell you specific issues or advantages with products such as FortiGate or Check Point perimeter firewall.

From a technical perspective, I do not think Check Point is leading in the web application firewall space. Cloudflare, F5, and Barracuda WAFs are noteworthy. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can be configured with no prior training.

When I compare Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) with traditional WAFs, I find its learning curve to be simple.

Check Point has an excellent intelligence engine for zero-day attacks, unmatched by Palo Alto. I would rate this review a ten overall.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

The main purpose is to have network security through machine learning, which can offer threat detection and intelligence for my endpoints, and I am looking for application security.

I am looking for an AI-based solution that can strengthen my cloud-native security, automate security, and better prevent threats.

I am looking for an AI-based solution and unified cloud-native security from the SaaS platform to improve my security posture.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a SaaS platform that gives unified cloud-native security across my applications, workloads, and network, allowing me to automate security, prevent threats, ensure compliance, and manage my security posture well across all my cloud environments.

It conducts security scoring and risk scoring, which helps prioritize my security needs, and the advanced threat detection is also very fine, providing actionable information for my current security threats by collecting and analyzing data through threat actors and IOCs, offering tactical, technical, and operational features.

The false positive rate is a concern, but I could recommend improvements where false positives have to be minimized better.

This all depends on how the rules are customized and configured, and it can also improve with planning during the initial configuration, including threat intelligence and APIs, so it could enhance how it defends against attacks and prompts injections.

It can find the threat actors behind it, and I find that strategically and technically it is effective, although the AI-related features could improve, especially as global AI capabilities evolve, which are advancing more than what Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides compared to competitors.

There are no glitches; I believe improvement could be made primarily in API Gateway and API security, especially by enabling enhanced AI-related features for better fine-tuning.

I have experience of two years with the product.

It is stable.

It is definitely a highly scalable solution without any doubt.

The customer support is very good.

Earlier, we had Microsoft Defender, which we replaced with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and we are now ensuring that policy enforcement and threat protection are better.

The deployment and initial setup are really straightforward; they provide enough documentation, videos, and deployment documents that are really helpful to complete it faster.

The return on investment is very good as it has increased my security posture and the operational efficiency of my engineers.

It is a little bit expensive, but the pricing model is acceptable, though a reduction would make it more competitive with leaders such as Palo Alto.

I purchased from a different source.

The configurations are pretty easy, and it is plug-and-play, which gives me regular updates.

I would assess the solution as positive in this regard.

All the integrations are pretty easy through API connectivity, which I can recommend more, and it also helps with modern AI-based vulnerabilities to conduct token tests and improve detection.

I would rate this review a 9 out of 10.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application and API protection. I can provide a scenario where I used Check Point CloudGuard WAF to defend against an SQL injection attack on a web app. It detects query patterns via machine learning and then blocks requests instantly without needing any rule writing.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers various capabilities including AI-based threat prevention, API security, DDoS protection at multi-layer, L3 and L7 protection, bot protection, behavioral analysis, and fingerprinting.

AI-based threat prevention stands out for me because instead of relying on static signatures that have been added in the cloud, it uses behavioral baselines. For example, if I'm using an application with behavioral application capabilities, it provides me high security using AI-based threat prevention. Behavioral learning mode has been divided into various phases. The first phase is the learning mode where it automatically learns. Whenever I onboard any app, it observes the traffic for a short duration or builds a statistical model for that application, and no manual training is required. In phase two, enforcement mode, any new request is evaluated against known attack patterns via machine learning.

Real-time response is really helpful when onboarding any application with Check Point CloudGuard WAF. When we onboard any application, it creates a statistical model of that application, and according to that, it observes known attack patterns, then blocks them instantly, providing another layer of security.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has really reduced the headache of IT engineers and has helped me in security through machine learning.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved in several ways. We have faced slowness issues in our network after onboarding it on any application. The cost can be higher than traditional WAF solutions, and its heavy reliance on AI also means we have less manual control. Maximum work is done via AI, so that can be reduced.

The cost can be decreased, and regarding manual controls, I just wanted to say that relying directly on AI is not good for our environment because AI is copying our data.

According to other traditional OEMs, we experience a few issues with pricing. The pricing is high compared to other vendors, and I have already mentioned the high reliance on AI, which can be a concern.

Customer support can be improved because we have to reach out to the distributors for support. That could be directly controlled by the OEM.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for more than a year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is really stable.

Its scalability is strongly stable. It allows cloud-native elastic scaling and is delivered via SaaS and a deployment agent.

The performance of Check Point CloudGuard WAF has improved compared to other traditional OEMs, and it is easy to use due to AI and machine learning. Management is also straightforward, but it can be improved for new users by providing specific training.

I was not using any solution previously. Check Point CloudGuard WAF is my first solution.

It has saved me time.

Pricing is a little bit high compared to other OEMs, and the setup cost was handled by a partner.

I have not evaluated any other options.

I want to strongly advise this product to other users. Not because of pricing—while the pricing is a little high, the level of security provided is much more critical. I would rate this product an 8.

On-premises

Other

The customers I have worked with were primarily using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) as an application security solution, mostly leveraging Check Point CloudGuard for various purposes such as protecting their application servers from the top 10 OWASP attacks and for Zero-Day protection.

My clients were not working separately with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF); they were receiving a unified platform that included firewall, email security, and endpoint security, so the integration effectively eliminated silos in their environment.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) was valuable primarily because the data center was in Dubai, making it convenient for customers in the region, and the user interface was really helpful and easy to understand.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) helps my clients reduce total cost of ownership, and the return on investment was really high for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and it was the only product with GenAI security features compared to other WAF products.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides benefits such as reduction in alert fatigue with fewer false positives, Zero-Day protection, and the introduction of GenAI LLM features that customers really appreciate.

A gap for improvement for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is the learning curve, as better training modules could help end customers, and pricing and reporting functionality could also be improved.

I have been working with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for almost two years.

I can rate stability at approximately 8.5.

I can say scalability is a 9.

Technical support is rated at 10.

I am currently working with Palo Alto as the product I replaced Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) with. I totally moved to Palo Alto from Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

The initial setup for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is simple; it is not that complex as long as a customer has a basic understanding of how WAF works.

Deployment was really easy for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF); it does not have any complex deployment requirements.

Barracuda is the main competitor of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), along with Fortinet, but Barracuda excels in application security and is doing great in this space.

No product can provide 100% protection, but Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) uses multi-method protection with AI machine learning to detect abnormalities, alongside features like ThreatCloud for real-time analysis of potential zero-day threats. I will highly recommend Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to other users. I have given this review an overall rating of 8.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's primary use is protecting web applications and APIs from application layer attacks in the cloud. I also use it to protect public-facing apps.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers the best features through its dual ML engine with attack-based and context-based capabilities. The dual engine directly reduces the operational load and improves detection quality for my team on a day-to-day basis.

Additionally, it allows for less policy tuning. Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by reducing my manual effort. It reduces up to 2x my operational effects, leading to lower false positives.

While Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a strong solution, it could be improved in a few areas such as simplifying and customizing the user interface and reporting database. Improving API security depth is also necessary.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for the last one year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is stable in my experience.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is highly scalable and designed for cloud-native environments.

The customer support is really good. I would rate the customer support an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Before Check Point CloudGuard WAF, we did not use any WAF solution.

I have seen a return on investment as it is a time-saver product.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF delivers clear efficiency gains over traditional WAFs in three main areas: operations, accuracy, and cost optimization. I do utilize Check Point CloudGuard WAF alongside other Check Point products. We use Check Point firewalls, security gateway, and load balancer, and they work together with Check Point CloudGuard WAF in our environment. My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to first validate the use case and plan the deployment architecture. I would rate this product a nine on a scale of one to ten.

Public Cloud

Google

My main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is protecting the public-facing web applications in my company because I need to show different webs to different clients, and I need to protect these web apps.

In addition to protecting public-facing web apps and APIs, I also use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for different purposes, such as providing protection to non-production environments, ensuring that vulnerabilities are caught early during deployment and testing, which helps identify misconfiguration or insecure code before it reaches production.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving both security and operational efficiency, with a noticeable reduction in web-based threats, especially automated attacks and vulnerability exploits, thanks to its real-time prevention and reputation filter that has streamlined my workflow through automatic policy updates and integration smoothly with my CI/CD pipelines, allowing my DevOps teams to deploy security without delays.

AI-based threat detection and contextual machine learning to block known and zero-day attacks, according to Check Point, have led to a notable decrease in successful web-based attacks.

The best features that Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers in my experience include advanced threat detection with blocking OWASP Top 10 threats such as SQL injection, XSS, and CSRF with high accuracy, along with granular access controls such as geo-blocking and IP reputation filter.

The reputation filter has helped me significantly. For example, I was once notified of a spike in traffic targeting one of my login portals, which at first glance looked like normal user activity, but the reputation filter flagged the source IPs as part of a known botnet associated with credential stuffing attacks, leading to those IPs being blocked before they could even reach the authentication layer.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is a strong solution, but there are a few areas where it could be improved, particularly the user interface for managing custom rules and exceptions, which could be more intuitive and streamlined to reduce the learning curve for new users, especially when deploying for the first time.

I think the documentation could be better. People need more intuitive documentation and easier steps for the first deployment.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for around three years.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is stable in my experience with no downtime or reliability issues.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is very scalable and has handled growth or increased traffic well.

The customer support for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is great. I have had great response time, and it has been very helpful for me.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is straightforward, with the service being available as a fully managed service, and the pricing depending on traffic volume, number of protected applications, and cloud provider. I do not have a problem with this area.

I have seen a return on investment, having more time in the department, which is the relevant metric of time saved.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is straightforward, with the service being available as a fully managed service, and the pricing depending on traffic volume, number of protected applications, and cloud provider. I do not have a problem with this area.

Before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF, I compared it with Azure WAF, but I had to select Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I compare Check Point CloudGuard WAF with Azure WAF, noting that I need to centralize the security products, preferring different tools in Check Point Infinity Portal since they are from the same company.

If you are considering using Check Point CloudGuard WAF, my top advice is to take full advantage of its automatic learning and threat intelligence features right from the start. Begin with the detect learning mode to observe traffic patterns and fine-tune policies before switching to full prevention, which helps reduce false positives and ensure a smoother deployment.

I do not utilize Check Point CloudGuard WAF alongside any other Check Point products.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helps me block specific web-based attacks such as SQL injections or cross-site scripting with threat prevention.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has helped me reduce my false positive rate to approximately fourteen percent, thanks to its adaptive threat prevention and machine learning capabilities.

The breach reduction capabilities of Check Point CloudGuard WAF are impressive, especially in how it proactively blocks zero-day threats and bot-driven attacks before they reach critical systems. For example, it stopped a credential stuffing attempt on my login portal using the reputation filter and input validation. I would rate this review a nine.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

The main use case of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is for application protection.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides protection from OWASP threats, and secures web applications from common vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, and remote file inclusions.

The best feature of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is advanced threat prevention integrated with Check Point threat cloud intelligence, which provides real-time protection against web application attacks including zero-day threats, automatically receiving updates from the threat cloud and analyzing millions of indicators of compromise daily.

Cloud intelligence means that Check Point CloudGuard continuously collects threat data from global resources such as firewalls and sandboxes, analyzing billions of IPs, URLs, and behaviors using machine learning, distributing updates, security signatures, and threat profiles to CloudGuard WAF in real-time, automatically applying updated protection without manual interventions.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for the last two years, and this is a very useful product.

I monitor the volume of the type of traffic our web applications receive and understand the types and threats targeting our environment.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF effectively detects or blocks malicious SQL queries in real-time, protecting our web application from exploitation. To block SQL injection in Check Point CloudGuard WAF, I access the CloudGuard WAF console, log into the Check Point CloudGuard WAF management console using administrative credentials, then navigate to the security policies or application security section of the console, where the firewall rules of the protection are configured. In the web security policy setting, I verify that the SQL injection protection is enabled, which is typically a predefined feature within the WAF rule set activated to detect and block SQL injection attacks. Check Point CloudGuard WAF comes with predefined SQL injection attack signatures based on known patterns and payloads commonly used in SQL injection attacks, and I ensure the SQL injection signature set is enabled so that CloudGuard can detect and block common SQL injection techniques.

I find no issues in software testing details with our predefined feature-rich template, providing automated security incident handling with real-time visibility and control across multi-cloud environments.

Hybrid Cloud

Other