Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Reviews

We have over ten root domains that we need to protect through the firewall. All our hosts are in EC2 instances, and it is challenging to protect them by using any AWS load balancer or shields. Therefore, we have implemented Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a solution to protect all these domains from the open internet. It supports all environments, including on-premises, Azure, AWS, and we have also implemented it for CDN URLs as well.

It has improved the overall security posture of our organization. Earlier, our security score was around eight to nine, which increased after implementing Check Point CloudGuard WAF. We have achieved NIST compliance, and now ninety-five percent of the environment compliance level is equal to ninety-five percent.

The support of the root domain is one of the best features, as is the support for the CDN and advanced load balancer. These are key features that differentiate Check Point CloudGuard WAF from other vendors. Additionally, rate limiting is another significant feature of the WAF.

The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for the last six months.

I think Check Point CloudGuard WAF is stable.

It is a SaaS-based model, and we have not encountered any scalability issues. They have sufficient resources, and there are no challenges from a scalability perspective.

The customer support is good. They have skilled personnel to provide support.

We did not use a different solution prior to this.

The return on investment is reflected in the improvement of the overall security posture. While it does not have a direct monetary impact, it enhances security with an improved NIST compliance score and better overall security scores for our organization.

Pricing and setup costs are fine. It is less costly than Cloudflare, Fortinet, and other vendors. Additionally, it is less costly than the OEM.

We evaluated Cloudflare and Fortinet.

I would advise others to use and implement Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a solution in the firewall segment. Check Point has been in this segment for two decades and is more stable than other firewall vendors. I recommend using it and implementing all the features it offers. Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security. That's why I rate it ten out of ten.

Public Cloud

I am currently evaluating a hybrid solution for our infrastructure since some of our services are hosted on-premises while others are processed through the cloud. We have multiple websites, applications, and some non-web-based applications that we need to protect.

The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage. 

The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature. It also supports legacy applications and improves security access. Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions and provides necessary protection between our central office and peripheries through VPN access. 

The solution allows for proactive support and parts replacement.

The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation. The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.

I am happy with their support. They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution. The support rating is about seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Positive

We looked at FortiGate and some open-source solutions, however, they either did not fully meet our requirements or required a dedicated person for administration, making them cost-prohibitive.

We collaborated with our vendor, A1, which also offers parts replacement and support as part of the package.

The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support.

The price is fair for the features offered. For us, it is cost-effective compared to hiring a dedicated person for administration.

Prior to choosing the current solution, we considered FortiGate and other open-source solutions.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

Protecting our websites or our customers' websites is our top priority. We transitioned to Check Point WAF from on-premises WAF to safeguard our external perimeter. Essentially, I am focused on protecting our external infrastructure and web services.

It helps me sleep at night, providing peace of mind. It saves time, money, troubleshooting, and maintenance and reduces the need to hire people to manage the technology because it is so easy to use.

The WAF is the best feature. The application firewall's ability to block and recognize all attacks in real-time, such as DDoS, is invaluable. Identifying attacks and integrating with the rest of the ecosystem are features I am very fond of.

It's a pretty robust product.

CloudGuard protects against threats without relying on signatures. This is one of the best features. As an engineer, I don't have to review signatures one by one by one. 90% of the other players use signatures. So you have to review the attack, the signature, and how to mitigate it, etcetera. Removing the signatures from the equation removes a lot of time required for an engineer to review signatures, apply signatures, verify that these are applied to the infrastructure, etcetera. So removing that from the equation and protecting the infrastructure at all times is very cost-effective. 

Signature-based also causes a lot of false positives. So having no signature also helps remove a lot of the false positives. 

I cannot think of any needed features.

Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received. Reducing prices would be welcome. 

Integration with more technologies or Check Point products, or on-prem products, could improve robustness. Many organizations are moving to the cloud. Some cannot fully transition and require solutions similar to on-prem devices. 

I have used the solution for the past two years.

Support is the same with on-premise devices, and it is very good. Since it is cloud-based, I do not need them as much. 

Positive

I have used CloudGuard, Imperva Cloud WAF, and Barracuda Cloud WAF. I have experience with all of the major players.

I have seen what we were used to before and how much time we spent. We used to manage on-prem devices for other partners that could run from other vendors. When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.

If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product.

I will not disclose which vendor is the best. In specific cases, some vendors perform well, while others are competitive at the high end. Check Point is one vendor that I really appreciate, and I will not mention the other, however the competition is very close.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. Nobody is perfect. 

I have a team that manages CloudGuard for me. We have different research centers using various cloud accounts and are trying to consolidate everything into a single landing zone to protect those areas. From a use-case perspective, I have different laboratories or research centers utilizing it for various purposes. We are mostly focused on AI, and some of those requirements cater to the AI segment as well.

From a protection perspective, Check Point is a well-renowned name. We are also using other products from Check Point, such as Harmony, Infinity, and XDR. We have a consolidated view of the overall security posture, which I find quite interesting.

CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. This is crucial for us to maintain application security and stop the threats coming into our environment, keeping our production part secure.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. It is the best. That is why I am paying for it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helps us with overall application and cloud API security. The consolidated view of the security posture that Check Point provides is very useful from an upper management perspective.

CloudGuard WAF has helped reduce our false positive rate by 30%.

From a security perspective, it is quite good. I am not very familiar with the detailed features of it because I have a team that manages it. 

I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further. I am content with what I have in terms of features and support, but if I start expanding the usage, I might need more help from them. I already have the best consultants from Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for around seven or eight months now.

I have not observed any stability issues yet. It has been pretty reliable.

The scalability is excellent and is one of its best features.

Customer service is one of the best in the market right now.

Positive

We did not use a similar solution previously. 

We have a hybrid deployment model with AWS as the cloud provider. 

Its deployment was smooth. We did not have any issues. 

We used Check Point for the implementation.

It has been only six or seven months now. I am hoping that by the time I complete one year, I will see the return on investment.

It has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall to a certain extent, but I do not have the numbers.

The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others.

I considered other solutions. I decided on Check Point because of its comprehensive suite of applications and the integration with my tools, providing a consolidated view of my security posture.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten. I believe there is always room for improvement, but there are use cases I have not yet explored. 

I use the solution for almost all of our web servers.

Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again. 

The rate limit feature is the most useful feature of the product.

We don't need to rely on signatures. We are protected when the signature doesn't exist. 

It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies. It blocks items that would affect the company.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate. It took a bit of time, however, not long. We're near zero false positives. 

The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good. More user-friendly features could be added. Perhaps something between CloudGuard management and the virtual appliance on-site could be faster. 

It could be interesting to have an app for smartphones to manage all the cloud environments.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is always good. 

The scalability is always good.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. I am satisfied. It is always good. 

On-premises

We primarily use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application security. It protects applications from various threats and vulnerabilities like SQL injections, cross-site scripting issues, and cross-site request forgery. We ensure proper security policies and logs are maintained.

CloudGuard WAF helps by providing advanced protection for web applications and APIs, defending against the OWASP top ten scenarios, and offering comprehensive AI-driven behavior analysis. This assistance in data protection is vital for financial domains such as banks.

One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard. It's easy for beginners in security to understand and set policies. The solution's easy access and AI-driven behavior analysis for real-time threat detection are also highly valuable.

Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability. Although they provide 24/7 support, there are sometimes delays in delivering solutions. Advanced bot protection has recently been improved, which has helped a lot.

I have been using the solution for over four to five years, working as a project manager and handling implementation projects. We are primarily focused on Check Point CloudGuard implementations.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten. The solution is quite stable.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The solution is highly scalable.

Customer service is satisfactory yet requires some improvement. I would rate support as an eight out of ten, as there is room for enhancement.

Positive

I have experience with other WAF vendors such as Imperva and Imperva WAF, which are leading products in India and have a significant presence in the US and UK.

The initial setup is generally straightforward, yet it can vary depending on the client's platform and whether deployment occurs on-site or remotely.

We have a team of around 25 engineers; 50% handle project implementation, while the other 50% provide post-deployment support.

Return on investment is seen when data is properly organized, and the ability to show reports to top management ensures that their expectations are met.

Pricing is average—not too expensive, yet not cheap either. CloudGuard offers bundled packages, which may reduce costs compared to paying for individual features as opposed to other providers.

I have evaluated solutions like Empower and EmpowerVac, which are leading WAF products in India and other countries.

I would definitely recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF to other users due to its availability, scalability, and support. These aspects contribute significantly to receiving new contracts and maintaining client referrals.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Public Cloud

Our primary use cases include enhancing security for web applications and APIs, optimizing resource utilization to reduce costs, and maximizing efficiency in log management for better insights and savings, and was an great success case. The API protector could filter the real necessity of methods, making stronger connections. One last great point, that you could user more services in a in-line way and by an Server Agent, its an impressive service.

CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by simplifying security management and enhancing our ability to monitor and analyze logs effectively and also, giving visibility, and this last one makes the real difference;

The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF are the Anti-BOT context, that one is amazing! Also the API Protector Methods Filter, that could expose only real needed ones, The rich logging capabilities to giving a great visibility and Anti DDOS Working, its also impressive, because, improving your application in a non-stop way.

I do not have appoints here, its pretty easy to use, and my opnion, It's the Best WAF for a CISO;

I have been working with CloudGuard WAF and the Anti-BOT, Anti-DDOS, Great Policy Method (Granular)!

CloudGuard WAF impressed us with its stability; it is a powerful tool providing great visibility.

CloudGuard WAF's scalability is excellent, especially as a SaaS, offering significant improvements over on-premises environments and providing consolidated scalability.

The technical deploy and support were amazing!

We previously used Cloudflare. Now, we are full deployed Checkpoint WAF to enhance our log insights, and visibility! Amazing experience!

The initial deployment was straightforward. We transitioned from an on-premises solution to a SaaS model, which was simpler and more useful. Our implementation strategy involved redirecting the site to the new solution and creating policies to ensure smooth operation.

We deployed the service with the Technical Supoort as a Professional Services from Grupo Facimus - NetSite, a Brazilian company and was an amazing experience! Great cost, one of our Best Partnerships! Thank you Grupo Facimus

We haven't seen ROI metrics yet, but we expect long-term benefits, especially in budget management and risk reduction.

Great and a fair cost provided between the Checkpoint and the Partner Grupo Facimus NetSite;

Before choosing CloudGuard, we evaluated options like Cloudflare, Azure and AWS. The main differences lie in policy customization, market size, and preset features. Each has its pros and cons, but CloudGuard stood out for its robust policy options and wide market presence.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF Score as 10!

By implementing Check Point CloudGuard WAF we aimed to address challenges related to enhancing security for web applications while leveraging powerful logging capabilities.

We check false positives in CloudGuard WAF using logs and the interface, and we have had very few issues, which helps our business.

Using preset policies, the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies without requiring full data.

The solution has cut our web application firewall costs because it is adaptable to our environment.

My advice to new users would be to focus on the benefits of software as a service and ensure clarity in understanding pricing, particularly for DDoS protection.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We mainly use Azure DevOps for CI/CD pipelines for our applications, as well as project management and tracking bugs.

It has definitely streamlined our development cycle. The integration with other Microsoft products, especially Visual Studio, is seamless. The automation capabilities have saved us a lot of time and reduced manual errors. We are also using the Boards feature to manage sprints and track progress, which has improved team collaboration significantly.

The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage. Also, while the documentation is comprehensive, it can be difficult to navigate at times.

The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage.

Azure DevOps is a comprehensive platform that streamlines our development workflow and enhances team collaboration, though the pricing structure could be simplified.

Public Cloud

Other