Check Point DDoS Protector can be improved in that initial fine-tuning of policies can be complex and may require expertise. Additionally, reporting and analytics could be more detailed and customizable, and pricing could be more flexible for smaller organizations.
Some features are more advanced, however, using them is hard for us. The documentation is not as precise and does not have enough examples to understand how it works. Advanced knowledge is required to be able to solve problems, otherwise, you need to hire support. The Check Point support language is only in English. It creates problems for companies in Latin America that may not speak English as a first language.
The solution should greatly improve its interface. It could be a little more intuitive, easy to use, and improve some cracks in the interface to make it a little faster when loading. That said, it really is a solution that has allowed us to improve in guaranteeing efficiency against denial-of-service attacks. It's really very good in general. On the other hand, the topic of remote assistance or support is one of those that we need to also be available in Spanish. Today, many of the technicians who attend to us from the manufacturer are only able to communicate in English.
One of the characteristics that should be improved is the generation or migration of the black or white restriction lists. It does not allow doing it in a massive way, and it must be done one by one. The GUI administration is good, yet there are certain details to improve to make it more intuitive. They should improve the quality of support to be more agile and quick when solving cases and improve the knowledge base. The documentation is not well organized. It is very messy and this has caused us delays.
The areas where the Check Point manufacturer in general needs to improve, including: 1-The support can provide improvements in the efficiency of the solution of cases, improvements in response times, and more hours of attention to be able to provide users with a more robust security service. 2- The public documentation is a detail that must be improved in order to have greater implementations with the best practices in this case of the Check Point manufacturer. Some found publicly are a bit advanced or the same result is not achieved in the implementation icon.
Check Point DDoS Protector does not provide the ability to upload data for the blacklist/whitelist in bulk, which is one of the big points that need to be improved to facilitate configurations. Another point of improvement is that they should provide more details of the traffic in real-time. To be able to have more detail would be ideal. Also, it takes a long time to generate an update of the software version of R80.10. They should be generating updates a little more often to improve the tool since day by day everything is changing in security.
It does not provide the capability to upload data for blacklisting/whitelisting in bulk. Rather, in cases where many IP addresses need to be blacklisted or whitelisted, either a single IP address has to be added or it needs to be done using a script. It does not provide default server grouping such as default policy that can be enabled on a Web Server or Application Server IP address. The dashboard is complicated. It does not provide real-time traffic details; instead, it only provides logs for blocked traffic. During troubleshooting, a complete log file is required for forensics. A PCAP file is not provided for individual IP, which is something that should be improved.
For a long time, there was no software version of R80.10 available for the Check Point DDoS Protector software appliances, and we had to stay on the quite outdated R77.30 version. I hope in the future, Check Point would release the relevant software version sooner. In addition, it feels like there is no matching hardware platform in case we will need to switch from the "20" appliance. The next one available is "60", which is too powerful and much more expensive. We would prefer the systems to be modular, so the performance may be upgraded with some relatively cheap modules when there is a need.
Check Point should develop a DDoS solution because they don't have one and we need to use another solution, in our case, Imperva. This is a problem because we need to have two firewalls. We would like to only have one solution because it would improve the management, we would have fewer incidents, and we wouldn't need to talk to more than one person for support.
Check Point DDoS Protector offers robust defense against DDoS attacks, ensuring seamless service availability by integrating advanced threat detection and mitigation strategies for diverse network infrastructures.
Businesses utilize Check Point DDoS Protector for comprehensive security by leveraging its firewall and antivirus capabilities, hardware-based SSL engine, and machine learning for traffic analysis. It seamlessly integrates with existing systems to provide real-time attack...
Check Point DDoS Protector can be improved in that initial fine-tuning of policies can be complex and may require expertise. Additionally, reporting and analytics could be more detailed and customizable, and pricing could be more flexible for smaller organizations.
The pricing could be cheaper.
Some features are more advanced, however, using them is hard for us. The documentation is not as precise and does not have enough examples to understand how it works. Advanced knowledge is required to be able to solve problems, otherwise, you need to hire support. The Check Point support language is only in English. It creates problems for companies in Latin America that may not speak English as a first language.
The solution should greatly improve its interface. It could be a little more intuitive, easy to use, and improve some cracks in the interface to make it a little faster when loading. That said, it really is a solution that has allowed us to improve in guaranteeing efficiency against denial-of-service attacks. It's really very good in general. On the other hand, the topic of remote assistance or support is one of those that we need to also be available in Spanish. Today, many of the technicians who attend to us from the manufacturer are only able to communicate in English.
One of the characteristics that should be improved is the generation or migration of the black or white restriction lists. It does not allow doing it in a massive way, and it must be done one by one. The GUI administration is good, yet there are certain details to improve to make it more intuitive. They should improve the quality of support to be more agile and quick when solving cases and improve the knowledge base. The documentation is not well organized. It is very messy and this has caused us delays.
The areas where the Check Point manufacturer in general needs to improve, including: 1-The support can provide improvements in the efficiency of the solution of cases, improvements in response times, and more hours of attention to be able to provide users with a more robust security service. 2- The public documentation is a detail that must be improved in order to have greater implementations with the best practices in this case of the Check Point manufacturer. Some found publicly are a bit advanced or the same result is not achieved in the implementation icon.
Check Point DDoS Protector does not provide the ability to upload data for the blacklist/whitelist in bulk, which is one of the big points that need to be improved to facilitate configurations. Another point of improvement is that they should provide more details of the traffic in real-time. To be able to have more detail would be ideal. Also, it takes a long time to generate an update of the software version of R80.10. They should be generating updates a little more often to improve the tool since day by day everything is changing in security.
It does not provide the capability to upload data for blacklisting/whitelisting in bulk. Rather, in cases where many IP addresses need to be blacklisted or whitelisted, either a single IP address has to be added or it needs to be done using a script. It does not provide default server grouping such as default policy that can be enabled on a Web Server or Application Server IP address. The dashboard is complicated. It does not provide real-time traffic details; instead, it only provides logs for blocked traffic. During troubleshooting, a complete log file is required for forensics. A PCAP file is not provided for individual IP, which is something that should be improved.
For a long time, there was no software version of R80.10 available for the Check Point DDoS Protector software appliances, and we had to stay on the quite outdated R77.30 version. I hope in the future, Check Point would release the relevant software version sooner. In addition, it feels like there is no matching hardware platform in case we will need to switch from the "20" appliance. The next one available is "60", which is too powerful and much more expensive. We would prefer the systems to be modular, so the performance may be upgraded with some relatively cheap modules when there is a need.
Check Point should develop a DDoS solution because they don't have one and we need to use another solution, in our case, Imperva. This is a problem because we need to have two firewalls. We would like to only have one solution because it would improve the management, we would have fewer incidents, and we wouldn't need to talk to more than one person for support.