Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We use CloudGuard Network Security to protect our customer's Azure environments. 

The tool's deployment is rapid. Its dashboard is also useful. It's easy to deploy both on-premises and in Azure. In an office with VMware running, deployment is a simple process. Similarly, in Azure, deployment is easy and scalable. Adding more CPUs is a straightforward task – just shut it down, modify the security, and restart. This ease of use translates into cost and resource savings, and faster deployment times.

Clustering in Azure is a bit different, not using the Check Point cluster but relying on load balancing. It's not as instant as I'm used to; in Azure, it might take around half a minute to a minute, and during this time, services could be down. The delay is attributed to Azure using its load balancing mechanisms instead of the Check Point cluster.

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The tool's technical support is generally good. While there might be occasional delays, they usually manage to resolve issues. 

In Azure, when we refer to "size," it could be in terms of factors like the number of instances, bandwidth, or users. We use cloud-native platforms but prefer Check Point solutions. It is easier to manage since we know Check Point is on-prem. I have a high level of confidence in CloudGuard Network Security. I am familiar with Check Point and Azure. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We have a constant need to evolve and are migrating towards the cloud due to greater availability and better benefits at the level of hardware and computing.

With the understanding that we must have a faster, more efficient team with greater benefits when creating equipment or application services, we were looking for a solution with high user acceptance. We also wanted to meet the external and internal needs of the company and maintain solid corporate governance that includes offering the highest level of security standards. This product allowed us to create that level of security and develop natively in the cloud.  

The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines. We're managing to prevent threats from any front with automated security. We can easily design, install, and configure everything from the cloud in a coherent way. It's easy to establish security policies to manage local and cloud environments now.

I am turning to a multi-cloud solution. Being able to achieve analysis and prevention of advanced threats and security in the network regardless of the environment has been great. It doesn't matter whether they are hybrid clouds, local networks can be resolved entirely in the cloud, and everything is managed from a single panel. We've managed to achieve a centralized visualization of our infrastructure, giving us greater insights and an overview of everything that happens in the organization.

The CloudGuard Network Security solution has given us an overview yet has allowed us to segment the cloud in many ways. We can create networks where we can separate the data, information, and structure of history. We can segment databases into smaller groups by type or quality of the resource. 

We're able to validate in a logical and physical way across layers and can segment data to allow for greater reach in terms of management. In the future, we'd like characteristics to be further simplified. While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage. We'd like visibility on security and perimeter management qualities in order to reach other layers of the OSI model. Right now, we don't have the scope to reach some physical layers. 

I've been using the solution for less than a year.

We use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for the firewall. The firewall protects our various customers in the optic cloud.

Check Point CloudGuard is quick to deploy and easy for the customer to use. The user interface is user-friendly and easy to use.

The solution is not that flexible when deploying on-prem.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for six months.

We have had many performance issues with Check Point CloudGuard on the cloud. The issue is with the OS version at this point.

Because we are in the demo phase of using Check Point CloudGuard, we only have a small amount of users, all in our IT department.

Personally, I have not had to reach out to customer service and support, however, I understand that our clients have many clinical issues.

Positive

The initial deployment is easy. The length of time to deploy depends on the number of customers, or the number of websites the customer has. It can take anywhere from one day to a few days to deploy Check Point CloudGuard.

We use an in-house technical team to deploy the solution.

Check Point CloudGuard is proving to be a good solution for both the profit of the company and for deployment for the customer.

Check Point CloudGuard is a suitable solution for many customers that are using the cloud.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of 10.

What could be improved in this product is its architecture. Its user interface also needs improvement.

The user experience, particularly in the implementation, management, and operations of this product, also needs to be improved.

Operations management is difficult in Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security.

I've been using Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security for seven years.

I find this product stable. It's a good product.

Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security has good scalability.

I'm giving technical support for this product a five out of ten.

My advice to people looking into implementing Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security is that they should have technical expertise before deploying it.

I'm giving Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security an eight out of ten.

The security features of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security are very good.

The solution could improve to have a DLP feature.

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

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is stable.

The scalability is good.

The initial deployment is easy. However, the implementation can be complex.

My advice to others is to evaluate the products first and then proceed.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security an eight 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.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard for 3 years now. I use it in the financial sector, and use the gateways for perimeter security, east-west traffic inspections, and internet access. We have gateways for production, development, and outbound (internet access). The blades for IPS, FW, And URL filtering have been enabled with no problems. All the gateways are stable. We mostly use it for VPN site to site, and we can establish VPNs with Azure and other services. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has established communications with other devices and other cloud providers. CloudGuard has improved the passage of CIS and PCI regulations. The functions for autoscaling save costs for the company and the centralized management helps us with administration. CloudGuard complements the security model of the company. We only need one solution for all cloud providers as it offers good compatibility with lots of protection. the easy funtion of use the licence core in other gateways helmpe to save cost. And the easy VPN configuration helpme to stablish more than 100 VPN in an shortly time.

The most valuable features are the VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. They help me to align with any compliance or regulations within our financial sector. The VPN blade has helped me to establish tactical communications. The logs help with troubleshooting and they are great. The IPS blade helps me to meet regulations and protect against intrusion. The applications control makes it easy to configure and created profiles. It blocks all the non-authorized applications. 

CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases. In many cases, the client should be able to request or obtain a sufficient explanation or to obtain an appropriate answer. Check Point should improve the queue clients need to go through to obtain access to direct support chat. This should be for users with privileged access.  

CheckPoint features that should be included in the next release include the possibility to create a cluster on AWS and a Multi-region Cluster. They need to also include the possibility to use a managed web portal. 

I've been using the solution for about 3 years.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The initial setup is easy.

The team that helped us was very good.

The ROI we've had has been very good.

We are a small consulting company. We have around 100 employees. We don't use advanced firewalls because we don't really have important data that can be hacked. Nobody is going to care about our data because it's only the HR department's timesheet data on our on-premise systems. The firewall is protecting remote access, allowing the employees to access our office environment. So sometimes employees connect to our systems which have some test systems on it. They run some tests about the consulting we've given to clients. That's all. We just have basic things on our firewall. Just two things are important for us - the site to site VPN, which we have with some customers, and the government site. That is important. That's why I want to change the firewall to a new and up-to-date one so maybe it will be an improvement to prevent some hackers.

After I made up my mind to migrate it to another solution, I was kind of checking all the other firewalls, the FortiGate, Check Point, pfSense and OPNsense, and Check Point has pretty simple solutions, like the virtual appliance which you just download and it is imported into VMware and you just start using it. You just have to know Check Point's GUI so you can manage your IP addresses and access rules and stuff. But as I said, Check Point is really advanced and the GUI is kind of advanced, which the customer reports actually prove.

In terms of what could be improved, we have no support with the current Check Point environment. It ended maybe three or four years ago. Because it's an appliance you have to have support. That's a problem for us because I cannot update it at the moment. We have to have another support. We have to subscribe to another support so I can update it. I think it's a good amount of money and our boss does not want to pay that kind of money for firewall solutions. It's not a hardware solution, which by the way, if it would be up to me, I would migrate it to a hardware FortiGate system because all our customers at the moment are migrating their environments to FortiGate hardware solutions. They say it's a really good improvement from their previous firewall solution because it's easy to manage and they're very happy with it.

But as I said before, my boss does not want to pay a lot of money for a firewall solution since we don't have much data to protect and the data is not very important. It's not a big use for us. So we will just probably try pfSense or OPNsense. I can patch it to an up-to-date version, like the 2021 patch. We have the open source solution because my boss does not want to pay for it. It's my approach to migrate the firewall, actually. If it was up to me, I'd probably migrate it to a FortiGate system.

I'm not very experienced with Check Point. But what I would like to see is a step-by-step initial installation of the firewall. That would be really helpful. Like in Oracle appliances, when you start it asks you, what's your current IP address? An initial setup should be a step by step and intuitive process. You click on "begin," it asks you some simple questions. You fill in the blanks - your current IP address, what you want to do, if you want to set up a site to site VPN, for example, that kind of thing. That would be the smartest thing to have.

I can't give it any review about Check Point technical support because I am only working here for about three years and by the time I started at the company it already did not have support.

I have no idea about the initial setup, but it seems like it's not so complex. The initial set up is probably not that hard, but not that easy, either. If I were to delegate the firewall system to a junior guy, I think that he's not going to manage Check Point, but he'll probably manage FortiGate.

In the past, my clients were all using Check Point Systems. When I reviewed it at that time, back 10 years ago, Check Point was number one, as far as I remember, meaning FortiGate wasn't a major solution in Turkey. Nobody was talking about FortiGate then. Now FortiGate, is a major player in the firewall industry in Turkey. Most of our clients are migrating to FortiGate because they say it's cheaper than Check Point. So when I see the Check Point's GUI, it's really complicated. My recommendation would be for Check Point customers to first learn about Check Point's GUI, which is pretty advanced, for me at least.

But when I talk to my friends who are managing IT, they are migrating to FortiGate. They say, FortiGate is very easy to manage and I should really think about it now. When I was first introduced to Check Point it was really advanced. I didn't understand when I first looked into it. I just wanted a solution. pfSense has the same problem. By the way, according to your report, some customers said that pfSense needs improvement on the management and the GUI and aspects like that, so maybe I'll need another review of OPNsense versus Check Point and FortiGate etc...

We didn't have any problems at all. Just in one case, actually. We have a rule that pops up from nowhere which we didn't create. When we restart our Virtual System firewall, it creates a rule which messes up all our internet connection. So if I were to give a number from one to 10, I would probably say Check Point is a nine out of 10. Other than that, we haven't had any problems. Check Point is pretty reliable. I think it's our company's problem that we couldn't patch it after it froze. Maybe an up to date, patched version doesn't have this problem. 

Overall, it's really working for us. I don't have any problems other than it's just outdated.