Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We are a solution integrator and the Check Point CloudGuard Network is a product that I have experience with. We implement firewalls and other products for our customers.

The most valuable feature is threat prevention.

The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler.

The console could use some improvement.

I have been working with the Check Point CloudGuard Network for approximately three years.

This product is quite scalable.

I also have experience with Cisco Firepower and Fortinet.

This initial setup is complex.

Licensing is available on a monthly or yearly basis.

In summary, this is a good product and I have not found any problems when using it. I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is a firewall.

The most valuable Check Point CloudGuard feature is the firewall. I also value the user authentication, IPS, and application control features.

The clustering and HE from the scaling availability could be improved.

The documentation could be much better as well.

I have been using this solution for about a year. 

I would rate stability as average, too. It's not the best, but it's also not the worst. 

I would rate the scalability potential of this solution as average.

Check Point CloudGuard technical support is good.

I have not previously used any solutions. 

Deployment was easy. It took about half a day to do all configure everything how we needed it. 

The first time we deployed it was through a Check Point pre-sales specialist. After that, we deployed on our own. 

If we end up needing to scale, we would have to buy a new license. 

CloudGuard is cloud-native security that secures your public, private, or hybrid environment under a unified platform, which can also be automated. It comes with multiple installation availabilities such as Software-as-a-Service(SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service(PaaS), Infrastructure-as-a-Service(IaaS), and more.

This solution can be installed on leading Cloud Service Providers such as Amazon Web Services, Google Platform, and Microsoft Azure, as well as on other not-so-known CSPs such as OCI.

This is helpful for clients who always thought upgrading hardware in the DC or testing new versions to be difficult. Normally, they have trouble due to some issue at hand or maybe due to sizing, but now they have an easy way to test the solutions and they can be accessed securely from all around the globe. It provides features such as Auto Scaling to deal with unforeseen situations with minimal costs.

It is quite easy to construct and destruct and doesn't need anyone to actually step into a DC, which is good because sometimes this needs endless approvals.

The solution comes with Active Load balancing and policies that can be installed before the traffic hits the firewall module.

Auto Scaling is one of the features that make me want to choose CloudGuard over actual HW.

Cloud leaders such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft also provide an uptime of 99.99%, which might not be possible in a privately owned DC. Multiple instances where a hardware issue was found and it took weeks to replace the hardware and bring services up can now be fixed within few minutes by utilizing the available resources over CSP.

You get charged only for what resources you choose and how much traffic actually passes through the firewall, which in turn saves a lot of money.

Easier optimization techniques can definitely help with better performance of the OS, as using the vanilla software doesn't actually showcase the real capability of the software.

While there is a lot of documentation available on Support Center to understand how the solution works, it can become quite confusing. Some free training videos by Check Point would really help the engineers who don't have full access due to restrictions/unseen reasons.

A step-by-step guide for leading CSPs would really help.

Auto Scaling should be given as an option during a first-time installation, as it would be really beneficial and some users might not be aware of it.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network for more than three years, starting when it was still called vSEC.

I have worked with other products and find that this is the better solution when compared to other vendors in the market.

My advice is to use the trial and understand whether this is what you are really looking for.

The solution is very easy to use.

The product is quite flexible.

The installation process doesn't take very long.

We've found the stability to be quite good overall.

You can scale the solution if you need to.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

The user interface is okay, depending on who is using it.

We haven't had any issues with integrations. It seems to handle them quite well.

We're looking forward to the next Check Point with the solution and CloudGuard and everything on the same single cloud. Right now, that's not yet the case.

We're expecting more new features in the next release, however, I'm not sure precisely what is being added.

Check Point support, beyond CloudGuard, does need some improvement.

I've been using the solution for 18 to 24 months at this point. It's been a year or two.

The product is very stable so far. We haven't had any issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable.

The product can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not an issue.

We have 5,000 users on the solution in one particular case. They're on one account. It's kind-of a lot.

The CloudGuard technical support has been good so far. We have no complaints. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

From a firewall perspective, yes, we use some other solution, however, CloudGuard is basically filling a gap in the cloud area. Before them, of course, we didn't use any other thing. We were using something else that wasn't really related and when we moved to Check Point was when we first adopted CloudGuard.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment is fast. We managed it in about 24 hours or so.

We had 12 people that assisted in the deployment process.

We have to pay a licensing fee, however, we haven't really done any comparison shopping, and therefore I can't speak to if it is affordable or expensive.

Mostly, we are satisfied with the cost. We have some discount agreements and that's enough.

The solution always updates automatically, and therefore we are always using the latest.

We do plan to continue to use the product as we've mostly been quite satisfied with it.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

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

We primarily use the solution as a firewall. It is for the perimeter protection of our products. We use it as a UTM kind of environment.

The solution has good features.

It has good antivirus protection.

The solution has been quite stable.

The installation was straightforward and pretty easy to execute.

The solution lacks the capability to scale effectively.

We had been using the solution for five years. However, we are currently migrating off of it.

We found the solution to be stable when we were using it. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy and it doesn't have glitches.

The solution isn't scalable. In fact, it cannot be upgraded at all. This is the main reason why we are switching over to a different firewall under a different brand.

We have many users at the perimeter currently. 

The technical support on offer was very good. We were largely satisfied with the level of service provided. We found them to be helpful and responsive when we had issues.

We are currently moving from Check Point to Fortinet. We haven't yet started to use Fortinet, however. It's a work in progress.

The solution is pretty easy to set up. It's not complex. It's rather straightforward. It shouldn't give a company any trouble.

You need two to three people to manage the deployment process. You don't need a big team.

We handled the implementation ourselves using in-house personnel. We didn't need the outside assistance of integrators or consultants.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We aren't a vendor, consultant, or integrator.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution to other organizations. It would likely be 50/50. It really depends on the company's requirements. For us, for example, we needed to scale, and that ended up not being possible and so we have to move away from it.

Overall, I would rate the solution six out of ten. Although it has some good aspects, for us, the lack of scalability was impossible to overcome.

My experience with the solution has mainly been implementing it with an auto-scaling on behalf of my clients. My job was to migrate an on-prem firewall to AWS cloud. I'm a senior security architect. 

I think one of the valuable features is the auto-scaling, which is based on traffic and  automatically spins one more firewall and adds it to the management server. The zero touch is also a valuable feature. After re-tagging the next internal load balancer within Check Point, it automatically writes up a mac rule and an access rule. As long as you're adding a server into the internal load balancer, you won't need to touch anything. In a Check Point firewall, the mac rules and access rules are automatically written up. Zero touch means there is no need to insert rules again when you're adding servers internally. 

There is definitely some improvement required. We currently use a deployment template provided by AWS each time. If I want to clean up the IaaS I have to use the IaaS template which should not be necessary. Secondly, because it's zero touch, I cannot write up any rules in the firewall. I understand these features might have been built particularly for zero-touch but from the perspective of a network and firewall engineer, some independence to configure something on the firewall would be appreciated. 

An additional feature that could improve the solution would be to enable both automatic and manual control that would allow the engineer complete control over the firewall.

The solution is generally stable although it crashed one time while I was implementing. 

The solution is absolutely scalable. 

The technical support is excellent.

My advice to anyone wanting to implement this solution would be to religiously follow the guidelines. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We install the solution for our customers and Check Point is our preferred solution in any firewall deployment. The two-layer architecture with the administration and security makes a difference and in every instance, we know who the user is.

The touch features are very different than other brands. From the feedback I get from my customers, Check Point is the best.

Check Point gives us a strong solution that we can depend on when deploying it for clients.

The most valuable features are within the unique architecture that creates flexibility in the deployment.

The knowledge base that is available is limited and it is on a closed network where only a customer or certified engineer will know about it. A beginner who wants to learn about the product actually has to enroll in training or get certified and have a valid license or certification to access information. That is something I find strange as most users would like to know about it. The new users would like to be able to see those areas and what type of concerns or any configuration issues they may have before deciding to work with the product. To me, that is a simple open-mindedness. In terms of the availability of the system and functionality of the product, there's no concern. But the problem is that efficient VSX (Virtual System Extension) deployment is complicated. Most of our customers are afraid to deploy any configuration changes because they are afraid something will happen.

It's not the same situation as with other products. I guess the reason behind it is the kind of architecture which they are using. There are more possibilities to crash than other products. That is the feedback I normally get from end-users, but even so, for us, I would say it's one of the best product.

Check Point is very stable. I would say that initially there were a couple of issues we had during deployments. But now we have climbed the learning curve of the product and all installations are very stable. We have most clients running on version 7.3 and didn't upgrade most further from there because we know that 7.3 is stable and it is what we are running most of the customers now.

Scalability is fine. In fact, we are demonstrating the hyper scale with most of the customer now. There is no doubt about the scalability and it is not a problem.

Up until now, we have not had to register with technical support from Check Point. If we needed help we got support with the presale technical support team from our region. He was able to help us internally. The team helps us to get products stable. Up until now, we did not contact them. It is not very transparent. They approach resolutions through a partner and the partner solves the case. They seem to mostly depend on partners for the resolution of issues.

We deploy a variety of products for our clients depending on their needs. Check Point is one of the most reliable.

I would say that the installation is straightforward when you have learned about the architecture. Before that, the installations may be a little confusing.

We are partners with Check Point so we handle the installations and deployment. In the beginning, we did have some engineers from Check Point assist us in the initial installations, but after that it was fine and we were able to manage it by ourselves.

Check Point pricing is high. It is a sector where there is heavy competition so it does not help when trying to sell the product. But one thing is that the sales chain is fantastic. The price is usually the most difficult thing when we discuss Check Point with customers, their feedback is that it is not a competitively inexpensive product. Clients want to know why that is and if we could scale the price. Check Point can have more presence in the market, but if they want it to compete, they have to come down in price a little more. I would say 20 to 30% lower. The product is fine.

The web application firewall is commonly used in most firewalls now. If they can add that as a feature, it would be a very strong scenario. When we use Check Point on a perimeter or a DMZ zone, the first thing that clients ask is if there is wireless protection. Check Point has IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) but it does not have wireless protection. So if production is using the cloud if they can integrate mobile app protection, mobile shielding, there's more value for Check Point, but if they include that, Check Point could be the very best firewall option.

On a scale from one to ten, when one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Check Point as an eight. It needs to do better in pricing and with broader features for mobile.

One thing that I learned from multiple installations of Check Point is that you have to train the customer before implementing. Unless the customer is already a highly skilled security engineer so that they know what they can get out of the product, they will not be as satisfied. Otherwise, just before the deployment, we have them go for training so they understand the product and what it can do.

They will be happier and they won't choose to go with another product in the future. Even with my engineers who understand many other products, I trained them properly before I send them out for deployments. Check Point is not a product that if you don't know you can just install without knowing anything about it. You have to know the architecture first. You have to know each and every option than work on the product. Then it will be far better and say no to certain features which are not important to use. On the other hand, knowing it is available is fantastic and becomes an option in the right situations.

We primarily use the solution as firewall security for our clients.

The IPS, application and URL filtering, as well as Identity Awareness, are all very valuable features.

Reporting needs improvement. It's difficult to utilize properly. Currently, I'm in a situation whereby a client of ours is looking for reporting on their organizational unit. Check Point has failed to do that. We've been trying to do it for the past month and we haven't been able to. We've also gotten techs from Check Point to call us to help and we just can't get the solution to do what we need it to do.

Sometimes, if you aren't familiar with the solution, it can be a bit complex, but it does become easier to use with time. However, every time they launch a new version, it becomes more complex and you need to take time to get familiar with all the changes. For every version that they upgrade, you need to upskill yourself. 

The stability of the solution is fantastic.

The scalability potential of the solution is great. We use the solution quite extensively. We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If I were rating technical support out of ten, I would give it a seven. They're inconsistent. Sometimes you do get guys from Check Point to help you out and then sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's hard getting a hold of them.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the organization.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

I am familiar with Fortinet, although I didn't do a direct comparison. I did compare other solutions as well.

For those who want to implement the solution, they should make sure they have a very strong networking background.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.