Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) Reviews

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the best security software for protecting IT systems inside out. There is no compromise with system security if the CloudGuard Network solution is intact. It provides threat prevention and protection from malware and enables system and server security up to 100%.

We have numerous API integration of our internal IT systems with outside servers and network systems, where security lapses are a huge concern. CloudGuard helped in providing complete security and protected entry of threat entrants in our system from outside servers.

CloudGuard Network Security has enabled the security system to operate safely without any trouble. It has resulted in saving on huge expenses for organizations as it's a cost-effective and cheap alternative compared to its market competitors. It brings a secure IT environment for a workforce, which leads to boosting productivity and an increased revenue stream for the organization. This leads to increased productivity and prosperity.

Also, it's the one-stop solution for preventing systems from security threats and all kinds of endpoints in the IT space.

There are no security lapses and 100% restriction of threat entrants in the system or server.

It's a cost-effective solution with no false positive cases.

The product helps in bringing productivity and enhanced customer experience for users.

We have a happy workforce and more workforce retention and increased IT environment sustainability.

There is 100% proactive detection of root causes and root sources.

It is dynamic and agile, and its features and utilities continuously improve and evolve.

It's the best-unified endpoint management solution for IT systems globally. The product is available for all kinds of business users.

We really believe in ongoing improvements for emerging business needs. The business and product development team should introduce a high-end feedback collection mechanism and analyze the customer requirements constructively.

The feedback mechanism is best to understand the user and market needs. All kinds and sizes of businesses should be approached to provide feedback so that unanimous decisions and unbiased reviews/feedback can be collected.

Also, more customized strategic pricing can be involved and introduced so that more and more businesses can be attracted for trial and usage of the software. 

We've used the solution for almost a year now.

The product offers amazing stability and we had no discomfort or hassle in the setup.

The solution is scalable and attractive.

The solution has strong customer support and agile service experience.

We use McAfee solutions earlier due to the company and parent organization's long-term association with McAfee.

After subsequent years of usage, we felt a dire need of usage of advanced security solutions. After receiving continuous good feedback from peer organizations, we landed at Check Point.

It's been a great experience so far.

The setup is effortless and not complicated at all.

We implemented the solution through vendor team management.

We've seen an ROI of 80% to 85%.

In my book, Check Point comes as quite a handy and cost-effective alternative for the security enablement of IT systems. It's cheap and easy for deployment and is the best solution so far. Its signing of SLA and maintaining long-term key association and collaboration with service partners is really effortless and easy. We've had a highly professional partner experience.

Licensing is usually annual.

Setup and deployment costs are offered with discounts that are attractive and  sustainable.

We analyzed and did trials for Cisco Secure Firewall and other security solutions like Trend Micro, etc.

I would strongly recommend everyone to go for a trial of this security solution ASAP. It is one of the best experiences ever.

We use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for internal and external traffic filtering.

The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is the ease of use. It was not difficult to learn. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security could improve by making it easier to configure.

In a feature release, the application should be more drag and drop. If I could search it and drag and drop it to the specific rule it would be helpful.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for approximately 10 years.

The stability of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very good.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is scalable, it is good for enterprises. The scaling is simple to do.

We have over 500 people in my company using this solution.

I have interacted with the support from Check Point CloudGuard Network Security and they were very good but could improve their response time.

I rate the support from Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

Positive

The vendor did the implementation and the maintenance of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security.

My advice to others is the solution is very stable, and reliable, and they should ensure that they invest in Check Point.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.

CloudGuard is a SaaS security solution that handles compliance and security for cloud.

There are two major functions, and the first is to operate as a central firewall monitoring and management system in the cloud. We have more than 100 firewalls in the cloud, and CloudGuard allows us to manage them.

The second function is its role as a compliance suite that helps you in keeping your cloud platforms compliant with PCI or ISO 27001.

For the most part, this is what I used it for. In the beginning, CloudGuard did not have many features. There were only these two.

Using CloudGuard, I was able to manage a multi-cloud platform based on AWS, Azure, and Google for a multinational company in Europe with only three engineers.

CloudGuard enables customizable governance using simple, readable language. The biggest advantage is that when there are things to be changed because of compliance problems, the engineers receive a plain-language text that instructs them on what to do. This also means that you don't have to have as many cloud specialists available.

The two most valuable features for us are the central firewall administrator and the real-time cloud compliance monitoring. The vendor has been building on these features, but they are the two that are most important for us.

With respect to how the compliance frameworks affect our security and compliance operations, it is important to consider that first of all, in the cloud, anybody can change a firewall. We wanted to have a central firewall administrator, with our more than 100 firewalls, so that we could make sure that our platform would stay secure. CloudGuard alerts if somebody replaces something and puts it back, which is the biggest feature that we wanted.

Then, as an added feature, they have a real-time audit platform where you constantly have audits of your clouds to see that engineers don't forget to put all of the compliance in place.

CloudGuard's accuracy when it comes to compliance checking is very good, and it is done in real-time. I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is not perfect because sometimes you have false positives, although I don't think that you can get rid of them entirely. Overall, for compliance and diverse compliance methodologies, I would rate it a nine.

On the topic of accuracy, I would rate remediation a nine out of ten as well. It is easy to do because it is written in plain language, and also because there is a manual on how to remediate.

The false positives can be annoying at times.

We have been using CloudGuardfor five years.

My experience with CloudGuard began about five and a half years ago when I was working with a company that was building a multi-cloud platform. I was one of the first customers for CloudGuard, before the Check Point acquisition, and I was using it to manage my multi-cloud platform.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It has always worked and I've never had a bad thing happen with it. In the beginning, when they introduced new features during beta testing, there were issues. However, it was always stable.

CloudGuard is a SaaS solution, so it scales with your cloud. When you get hundreds of firewalls, perhaps 200 or 300 of one, then the complexity becomes the same in CloudGuard as the thing that you want to solve in the cloud, so I don't think that they can extend to that.

I have a deployment that is European-wide, multi-cloud, with approximately 480 virtual machines. There were a lot of other components as well, so it was a really huge use case.

The technical support from CloudGuard is really good. In fact, for me at the time, it was really good because I had direct access to the American team, so I just had to call if there was an issue. I also had monthly meetings with them to discuss things to improve and see if their service was okay for us.

Positive

Initially, we used another solution but that was not for firewall security. Rather, it was for compliance.

The initial setup is really easy. Just submit the cloud key. It takes between an hour and two hours to deploy. When I installed it, the process did not take longer than an hour.

My implementation strategy fits into the way I design secure private clouds or multi-clouds, based on public cloud providers. It's almost a necessity. You can do it in other ways by using the local ACLs, etc, but then it becomes cumbersome. CloudGuard takes a lot of the work out of it and gives you a single point to manage all of your security firewalls.

I deployed CloudGuard myself. In my previous role, I was the head of cloud development and I directed two out of the three engineers in the team.

In the beginning, the price of CloudGuard was cheap, whereas now it is not.

I haven't gotten the latest pricing, but my advice is that you need to balance it out with your cloud business cases. It all depends on how many machines, servers, and the size of the cloud that you have. It's probably not useful if you have only a few machines and some network security groups to manage them. In this case, it's not something that you need.

I did evaluate another tool initially. I cannot recall the name but it had ".io" after it. Ultimately, we decided not to use it because it only had the compliance component and it was more expensive.

The native cloud security controls provided by the cloud vendors, when it comes to features like transparency and customization, are very weak. That's why you need CloudGuard. On their own, I would rate the native cloud security controls a four out of ten. They are complex, and the biggest issue is that it's difficult to secure if you want to centralize your security operation.

When maintaining and scaling security services and configurations across multiple public clouds using CloudGuard, versus using native cloud security controls, I find that it is much better. It's the same interface in CloudGuard, regardless of the cloud. Of course, your firewall administrator still needs to have knowledge of what he's doing. That doesn't change. The important point is that the interface is much better and it doesn't change between cloud environments.

I would rate the accuracy of the security visibility slightly lower than nine out of ten because it's still complex to do, even with CloudGuard. The biggest feature of CloudGuard is that it rolls back the changes when somebody has changed it in the cloud without authorization, yet the complexity of managing a lot of firewalls is still there. I would rate the accuracy of security visibility a seven and a half or eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution's comprehensiveness for cloud compliance and governance an eight out of ten. The false positives are a little bit annoying at times.

CloudGuard helps to minimize the attack surface and manage dynamic access, although I didn't use the dynamic access in my setup. For my use case, it was primarily minimizing the internal attack surface because I didn't use it for external connections. I had a different role there. When you only have three engineers, you need to trust them. The reason that we used CloudGuard was to be able to do it with a few engineers.

CloudGuard provides a unified security solution across AWS, Azure, and Google, but not for anything else. To that end, I don't think that any other cloud provider would be a market contender at this point, and Google will probably even disappear after a while.

My advice for anybody who is considering CloudGuard is to try it. If you're looking to manage a large security defense platform, in-depth, with a lot of firewalls, try it and you'll be surprised.

One of the things that I learned from using CloudGuard was that it offered support for compliance. I was originally just looking for a way to manage all of these firewalls, and that came as a pleasant surprise. It helped us a lot with our ISO 27000 and PCI certification.

Overall, in terms of functionality, CloudGuard is fairly well made.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Currently, we were counting on a hybrid cloud and we needed to integrate the latest generation of security. We came to lean towards one of the security leaders in the market. These powerful capabilities position it and allow us to increase cloud security elastically while keeping up with the dynamic requirements of our business. 

We use the cloud to integrate it into our hybrid cloud. It dynamically provides us with advanced security and consistent policy enforcement that automatically grows and scales with our cloud environment. With CloudGuard IaaS, we can easily protect workloads and applications.

Being able to move computing resources and data to public clouds means that security responsibilities are now shared between us and our cloud provider. While the cloud provider provides infrastructure protection, we as customers want to be able to control our own data and protect cloud assets while complying with internal regulations. On the other hand, we required complete traffic visibility and reporting, as well as proactive protection from even the most advanced threats within virtual network environments. CHKP offered us advanced threat protection to prevent the lateral spread of threats within defined data centers.

There are many important characteristics that for me are the best of the solution and come to support an emerging market:

• It improves the productivity of the company.
• It performs very complex or high value manual operations intellectual in a controlled and neglected way.
• There's a simplicity when performing tasks.
• It improves the availability of engineers to carry out projects.
• To all this we can add the ability to connect via API, and integrate solutions from developers trained for management from any location.

The solution from my experience is very good. What I would like for future updates would be faster updates to apply, and perhaps a greater presence in the local language for the regions of Latin America. These are markets that have been growing, however, the teams need a lot of time and training and in that period a specialized technician in the local language is required to support the constant requests. After that, I accept that Check Point surprises me as it has always done with its excellent work in innovation.

I've used the solution for around two years.

Our company works in the area of developing and delivering online gambling platforms. The Check Point Next-Generation Firewalls are the core security solution that we use for the protection of our DataCenter environment located in Asia (Taiwan).

The environment has about 50 physical servers as virtualization hosts, and we have two HA Clusters that consist of 2x5400 hardware appliances, managed by an OpenServer Security Management Server on a Virtual Machine (KVM), all running on R80.10 with the latest JumboHotfix.

The Check Point Virtual Systems are activated on the NGFWs to logically divide the firewall into two parts. One is for serving internal, intra-VLAN traffic, and the other is for serving the external traffic coming from the Internet.

The overall security of the environment has been greatly improved by implementing the Check Point Virtual Systems solution. Before deploying it, we relied on the Cisco ACLs and Zone-Based firewalls configured on the switches and routers, which in fact is a simple stateful firewall, and currently appears to be not an efficient solution for protection from advanced threats.

The Check Point Virtual Systems solution has significantly increased the security level from the standpoint of the logical separation of traffic patterns, both internal and external in our particular case.

This product makes the NGFWs work as if we had two separate sets of physical firewalls, without additional spendings on the hardware.

The main benefit of the Check Point Virtual Systems solution is its ability to split up the hardware appliances that we have into several logical, virtual devices with separate traffic handling policies, as well as the switching and routing. This allowed us to save significant money on the hardware purchase, and keep our NGFWs efficiently loaded. 

As an administrator, I find the management really convenient and cozy. The usual SmartConsole is used and you don't need any additional software to be installed.

As an administrator, I can say that among all of the Check Point products I have been working with so far, the Virtual Systems solution is one of the most difficult. You need to understand a lot of the underlying concepts to configure it, like the virtual switches and routers it uses underneath. That leads to additional time needed for the initial configuration if you don't have previous experience.

In addition, there is a list of limitations connected specifically with the virtual systems, like the inability to work with the VTI interfaces in a VPN blade, or an unsupported DLP software blade.

We have been using the Check Point Virtual Systems for about three years, starting in late 2017.

The solution is stable and we haven't had any support cases opened that are connected with it.

The solution is scalable. I believe you could just add the new hardware into the cluster without affecting the functionality, and thus increasing the performance on the spot.

We have had several support cases opened, but none of them were connected with the Virtual Systems. Some of the issues were resolved by installing the latest recommended JumoHotfix, whereas some required additional configuration on the OS kernel level.

The longest issue took about one month to be resolved, which we consider too long.

We didn't have any logical separation of security solutions before implementing this product.

The solution was really complex and difficult to implement since it requires a lot of additional knowledge and understanding of the underlying routing and switching technologies and protocols.

Our in-team has a Check Point Certified engineer as part of it.

Since we have already had the Check Point NGFWs purchased, we just proceeded with the configuration of the Virtual Systems.

Primarily, we use this solution to detect security configurations in AWS environments.

The reporting is quite good. It is the most powerful aspect of this solution.

It's user-friendly.

In general, we abandoned this solution this year.

Each component of this solution, in my opinion, could be improved.

Integration with ticketing systems, as well as the most important noise and completeness over findings, are definitely in need of improvement. They didn't take into account some additional context.

The UI is very slow.

There is room for improvement. Consider the entire context of the findings and try to avoid making a comparison between the rule and the entity's state. In general, for the product to be successful, they need to improve security, and configuration detection.

I have been working with Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management for two years.

It generates a large number of false positives.

We haven't attempted to scale the product because there are no additional plug-ins or add-ons.

We have contacted technical support but were not satisfied. Technical support needs improvement.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

From a pricing perspective, they are pretty expensive. You can find better offerings on the market.

I would not recommend this solution to other users.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management a seven out of ten.

As a company, we are a value-added reseller. We have to use it first before we can propose it to our clients. We have to give it a clean bill of health before we can actually propose this to the client. We have to conduct a proof of concept, which runs for around 30 days. The client has to give the okay before we can actually deploy it for them.

Clients have been using it and they haven't had any negative feedback. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The product is scalable.

We find the stability to be quite good.

Check Point is one of the few solutions that pay attention to cloud security. Many others mostly focus on providing on-premises solutions.

To be honest, we don't have many clients who have taken CloudGuard, as the feedback has not been that great. There are a few clients who have taken the CloudGuard due to the fact that there is a lot of competition in terms of endpoint protection from Trend Micro and other leading vendors. 

There are few clients who have CloudGuard and the response is quite positive. However, it comes down to dealing with the challenge of when the client needs both protection for workstations and their physical and virtual servers. With Check Point, we don't have that ability. They have just CloudGuard, which protects the workstations and servers. With other vendors, there's a separation between the endpoint protection for workstations and for the servers and then something else for the virtual environment. The challenge comes in when you're trying to propose this to the client. They'll ask you how they can be sure that this will protect their virtual or physical data centers collectively, and also protect the workstations.

Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point.

Generally, visibility is the issue. Clients really just need more visibility to know they are protected. 

We find the stability to be good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is there if a company needs to expand it. 

Technical support is okay. It's average. The local support is good, however, now when you go to global support, there's a bit of a challenge. It takes time compared to other vendors. Their global support is not that active. I have some clients who have been complaining that they raise a technical issue and it takes maybe one or two days before they get any feedback. 

That said, here, in terms of technical support, the local Kenyan support is very good. They're quite supportive.

I also work with Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. 

The other vendors, they're not doing that well in terms of cloud security, as they tend to concentrate on on-prem security. The physical security, that's at the endpoint level. However, Check Point is doing quite well in terms of cloud security. 

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's quite simple and straightforward.

The solution is expensive. If I rate Check Point, Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto, Sophos comes in at a cost that is pretty low. Then Fortinet, and then Palo Alto. Check Point is at the edge. It's a bit expensive or it's quite expensive. When you are trying to propose Check Point, it's more of an OpEX and even a CapEx project. It cannot go through a normal request for a quotation. It has to be a CapEx project. At the beginning of every financial year, a customer or end-user has to consider this to be able to purchase a Check Point firewall.

For most Check Point CloudGuards, it's not actually deployed on the private cloud of the end-user. They usually deploy it on the public cloud.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The clients who are using it have nothing bad to say about its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution. They are doing quite unique workarounds with cloud security while many others are more focused on on-premises.

We use CloudGuard for compliance and auditing. About 20 people in our company use it, including our cloud administrators use it and security personnel. And now even our managers, our scrum masters are using it.

CloudGuard makes the management of our security controls in AWS more transparent. 

The dashboard is intuitive. You know if you're compliant or not, and then it gives you a remediation plan.

CloudGuard could be more customizable. It has built-in standards for things like GDPR compliance. But depending on your business lane, you might want to build your own controls based on your own standards. 

I've been using CloudGuard Posture Management for at least six months.

CloudGuard is pretty stable. It's rock-solid.

In terms of scalability, CloudGuard requires a little bit of work. Sometimes it does take longer for the checks to come through, but it depends on how busy you are in the cloud. 

Check Point tech support in North America is pretty good.

We really liked this other solution offered by a smaller company, and then a larger company bought it. I forgot the company's name, but the roadmap just went to pieces when it was bought out. All the tech people left the company then the chief technical officer resigned. It was terrible.

Setting up CloudGuard is pretty straightforward. The initial setup only took a few minutes. It's essentially turnkey. However, the total deployment took about half a day. For maintenance, we have two cloud administrators. That's two in case one goes on vacation, resigns, or gets sick. So you need backup.

The license for CloudGuard Posture Management is about $80 a year, and it's based on your cloud footprint, not the number of users. So you could have a million users, and it doesn't matter. 

I rate CloudGuard Posture Management seven out of 10. I would rate it higher, but I think the price point is pretty high for what it does. However, I know it's a burgeoning market. So I think the price point and some of the other features that I already mentioned, like customization, are pretty lacking. Still, if you want some cover for an internal or external audit, this is a tool for you. 

The product provides complete visibility of our cloud security posture. It supports servers and Cloud-Native Services. It provides a centralized solution for Cloud Security with risk and compliance management. 

We required it to manage various compliance requirements including live ISO, SOC, PCI and it supports everything. Our Organization is in a hybrid structure and in it, we are using various AWS and Azure accounts. Earlier, we managed everything individually, however, after the implementation of it, we now manage everything from a single solution. The single solution helps with the system, network, and security administration.

The solution provides the complete visibility of Cloud Security, as well as a number of baseline policies and rules. This helps us to manage cloud posture with less effort. After implementation, it reduced administrative effort in terms of managed security over the cloud. Now, we are not dependent on individual tools for each account as well as cloud service providers. 

After implementation, the team can generate reports from a single console for all compliance needs.

Auto Remediation is a very effective feature and it improves the need for manual intervention from the security and cloud administrator.

The baseline policy and the integration with the public cloud are very easy.

The number of compliance rulesets along with the baseline policy, support of cloud-native services, and license management are easy. Support of the CI/CD pipeline security (Code Security), Kubernetes, et cetera, is useful. 

There are very helpful and various types of reports. Reporting features are very good and anyone from the compliance team can view/generate a report according to compliance support.

Auto remediation is a very effective feature that helps ensure less manual intervention.

Support of AWS Lamda and Azure Functions helps for any potential breaches.

Almost all features are good, however, they still require improvements to the code security portion on which integration with the major source code repository is required.

Integration with CI/CD is an important aspect as it is needed to secure the environment. Having it will help a lot.

Integration with Docker is also a key feature that needs some improvements.

Integration with other third parties and with SIEM is an important aspect that should be addressed.

Currently, it provides integration with Tenable, but it would be good if it had support other VAPT software as well.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard Posture management for the last 8+ months.

The solution is very stable and we have not found any gaps. It provides seamless integration with the public cloud.

It's a highly scalable solution and integration with the public cloud is very good. The way you can centralize the dashboard of entire cloud infra is a very impressive.

Support has been good. We implement it with the help of OEM support and whenever we've required help we've received a good response.

Earlier, we tested other tools as well, however, the features which were available via Check Point are very good and the future roadmap is also very good in regards to cloud security.

The setup is straightforward and seamless.

We implemented it with help of Check Point support. The rest was managed by our internal team as it's easy to handle.

Security is very important and gives us ROI from security itself. We also get an ROI as we have less administrative effort. We can see an ROI with the compliance and risk management on offer too.

The setup cost is very affordable and very easy. Integration with the public cloud is very easy. The licensing calculation is also very good and no manual effort is required.

We evaluated other tools like Rapid7, Qualys, and AWS native security tools, as well as Azure native security tools.

It's a very strong solution for cloud security posture management and very effective for large and mid-size environments. Any organization moving towards the cloud would benefit from this.  

We use a hybrid environment, so we have an on-premise data center and branch offices as well as resources in the cloud. On-premise is secured with different Check Point Gateways while for our security in the cloud we use Check Point Cloud Guard.

Depending on the traffic, we use different Cloud Guard firewalls. External traffic is handled by using a scale-set that can adapt on the fly to increase/decrease the number of firewall instances.

Internal traffic is handled by a normal Cloud Guard HA cluster with a certain amount of cores.

We used the Cloud Guard technology quite early on and used Check Point's Blueprint for our Cloud Datacenter design. By being able to use real firewalls instead of the cloud's own IP tables/inferior IPS we're able to maintain security across the whole environment (on-premise and cloud).

With the possibility to administer the cloud firewalls within the same management as on-premise firewalls, we can use the same objects/networks instead of having two sets of object databases or scripting something to have both of them synched.

Having the whole environment be under the same management is definitely is a plus.

Using a scale set to increase/decrease the amount of firewalls in the cloud helps with saving costs in the long run, as they will only increase if traffic increases and therefore saving us on licensing costs. For a normal Cloud Guard you pay for each core, so using the SS you don't have to fully size and pay for the maximum amount of traffic.

It's possible to sync the Check Point Management with the cloud portal, therefore allowing automated rules to be set in place whenever creating a new VM.

In the first phase, Cloud Guard Firewalls didn't allow minor and major upgrades. Fortunately, now you can install normal hotfixes and minor upgrades (JHF) on the Cloud firewalls. For major upgrades, it's still necessary to destroy the VMs and re-create them again. Doing that would mean new public IPs as well. We created a script for that. I still hope that major upgrades will be possible in the near future too, otherwise, you still have to script a lot for basic maintenance, instead of using tools like CDT.

The product is very scalable due to using the scale-set.