Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

Valuable features include centralized management using the MDM solution of Check Point and the Log Management module. The latest version of VSX supports all blades of Check Point's security suite.

I get maximum flexibility as I can use a standard management server to manage all virtual gateways along with a dedicated log server for each virtual gateway. Sometimes I can use a single server to manage all virtual gateways.

Earlier versions only supported the Firewall and VPN feature. Now I can run Anti-Bot/Anti-Virus, URL and App Filtering, Threat Emulation, and other blades.

I can assign weights to each virtual gateway depending on how critical each virtual gateway is.

The VSLS feature provides linear scalability so I can keep adding hardware (maximum of eight) to meet my performance expectations.

It is somewhat difficult to upgrade the entire hardware without downtime.

We have been implementing this solution to many customers in India and the SAARC region for seven years now. This is one of the most popular virtual firewall products in the industry.

We have not encountered any problems with stability.

A sufficient amount of planning is required to deploy a solution that is scalable. However, as Check Point allows an Open Server to deploy its VSX solution, scalability is not a problem once the base hardware is chosen appropriately.

Support is one area where efforts should be required from Check Point. Customers having multiple, more than ten, gateways are encouraged to consider Diamond Support services.

We did not use any other solution previously.

Engineers having less than three years of hands-on experience on Check Point products may find this product somewhat challenging. However, the best part is, once the product is deployed, there is no difference between virtual gateway and physical gateway from the operational perspective.

Check Point pioneered this product, so don't look anywhere else if you are looking for a stable and scalable product with top-notch security blades.

We did not evaluate any alternative products.

Choose your implementation partner very carefully. Choose someone who has done multiple, large-scale implementations and can show proof of the same in terms of customer references through emails or phone calls.

The ability to host multiple virtual systems, categorize them based on their function and importance and the ease of use with which these can be deployed.

We do not need to keep provisioning hardware each time there is a requirement for a new firewall. Having a physical server capable of hosting many virtuals and also provide performance and redundancy is a big benefit and hence our preference for VSX.

Each new version does offer a new set of features plus also incorporates bug fixes identified during the life cycle of the previous product. Hence, this product keeps on maturing as newer versions are released.

More than 15 years.

Not from a product point of view. The critical aspect here is proper planning, performing several dry runs and identifying potential issues to the best possible extent. It's really about planning and testing prior to implementing.

No, because we keep on top of our installations. We maintain them by performing routine maintenance, and hot-fix applications. Stability wise the product is stable but we had issues when we had really old hardware that had a less than stable OS.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

Excellent – the vendor always supports us and is very proactive. We have excellent relations with the vendor.

Technical Support:

Definitely excellent. It’s a pleasure to talk with the tech support people and know they fully understand the issues – this gives us a sense of comfort.

No previous solution used.

It was simple. That is because the solution is architectured and designed from the ground up and the relevant teams were involved from the beginning.

We did an in-house implementation.

Cannot give exact figures but we have made a lot of saving by implementing this product in our organization.

We were clear on our options – no we did not choose any other options save for the most important ones.

Think of VSX as similar to VMware ESX solution. It will, in the long run, save a lot of money with the return it gives to the company. It is easy to maintain by a capable support team and can easily fit within the network where there is a requirement.

Easy to setup and use as its based off Redhat Intuitive ACL menu for writing rules Pre-populated common ports Customizable ports Suite of tools to report and troubleshoot network conditions

At the beginning the design can be overwhelming, where to start Getting used to the CLI syntax but do-able

This enterprise class firewall appliance is great and very intuitive menu. Great for inline firewall access control to work with Cisco or any vendor switch. It has a suite of applications to help you setup virtual firewalls and provide redundancy or bandwidth to whatever application or service you are providing.

Most of all, depends upon your environment.

It has improved the way our organization functions in terms of visualization, simplicity, manageability, and support.

Areas for improvement include other Security Features like AntiVirus, AntiSpam, DLP etc.

I have been using this solution for a decade.

No issues with deployment.

No issues with stability but it completely depends on how you/ at what stage you implement. Additionally, what features you enable.

No. You need to look upon sizing, one should never oversize nor undersize. Detail understanding is a requirement one needs to keep in mind.

Customer Service: Good customer service.Technical Support: Good technical support.

The initial setup was normal.

Vendor, but internal team should be aware of the technology.

Recently we have upgraded to new model, now looking into 3yrs cost, this is the first year. So cant say much.

Yes, we evaluated Cisco.

Only advice I can give is that whatever product you select, it's important to keep in mind your Requirements, Budget, and POC.

We utilize CloudGuard Network Security for internet surfing and handle inter-sector traffic between VPCs. Specifically, we have over 200 accounts in AWS, each with its own VPC. The solution interconnects all the regions. 

The tool's most valuable feature is its scalability. You will only have to pay less for scaling up. Its notable benefit is deployment complexity. Regional deployment is simpler compared to on-premise setup. 

When upgrading the firewall, the old VPC containing the firewalls needs to be destroyed. After that, a new firewall is redeployed in the setup. Additionally, there's a need to separate the routing, and the routing from the old VPC has to be recreated in the new one.

I have been using the product for two years. 

We had issues with stability. We have an open ticket at the support regarding this. 

CloudGuard Network Security is scalable. 

The tool's support is good. 

Positive

CloudGuard Network Security is not too cheap. 

I don't see any difference in user experience between on-prem and the cloud setup. We have an MDS environment where we can manage the whole country. The tool enables us to manage policies on the same platform for branches and regions in the country. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

Hybrid Cloud

We use it to protect Internet access from our AWS environment.

Before we implemented CloudGuard, we had no filtering on what was accessed on the internet from our AWS environment. 

Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet.

It allows us to filter what the servers on AWS can access on the Internet and allows us to filter in terms of IPS, antivirus, and so on, for the contents that are accessed on the Internet.

The complexity to deploy should be decreased. 

I have been using this solution for about five years. 

It is a stable solution. It has been pretty stable for us. We haven't faced any problems since it rolled out. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 200 end users using this solution in our company. 

The customer service and support from the vendor take a lot of time. 

The first line of support is not very good. They usually start with junior engineers when you open a case, which can be time-consuming.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is easy and ten is difficult to setup. 

For the deployment, we work with the vendor. So, the deployment took two weeks.

We need to provision the firewall, deploy the manager, and understand where the firewall needs to connect, which AWS area, and so on.

We just needed more than two people for the deployment. We worked with the security network security architect and called them engineers.

With ten being very expensive, I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten. 

It is expensive.

It's worth it in the sense that it can protect your network, and it's very scalable.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I like the firewall and the virtual machine. I also like that it's compatible with Amazon Web Services and Azure.

Check Point Virtual Systems is a complete solution, but pricing can be better.

I have been using Check Point Virtual Systems for about five years.

It's very stable. 

Check Point Virtual Systems is very scalable. 

We depend on the community a lot. It's good. The response time from technical support is also good.

The initial setup was complex. It took about four months to implement this solution. Four people deploy and maintain this product.

The price could be better.

We evaluated two or three competing products like Huawei. Check Point and Fortinet is quality, but the prices vary. Huawei is very easy to use, and it's common. The main difference between all is the cost.

I would recommend Check Point as it's an effective tool, and implementation is very easy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point Virtual Systems a nine.

Hybrid Cloud

The tool's most valuable features are inspecting internet traffic and IPS. We can manage the firewall using shared policies from a single management server. 

The challenge mainly revolves around the slower functionality of virtual IP switching in Azure Virtual Network compared to on-premise solutions. On-premise, switching between clusters is faster, taking only a few seconds, while in Azure, it can extend up to five minutes. The downtime is a concern for us. 

CloudGuard Network Security's stability is good. 

Overall, my experience with Check Point support has been positive. There were instances where basic questions were asked, even though I had already provided the information in the ticket. One ticket took two years to resolve. 

Positive

The tool's deployment is more complicated than an on-prem setup. Setting up and managing CloudGuard Network Security in Azure presents some challenges. There are complexities in handling downtime in on-premise and cloud firewalls. Additionally, difficulties arise in deploying a new cluster for an upgrade, as the in-place upgrade might not function as expected.

The process of exchanging virtual machines in Check Point is currently complex. You cannot simply deploy a new machine and use it; instead, you need to navigate through several steps. This involves associating the new machine with a network group, entering various details, and sometimes providing the entire path to locate the object in the cloud.

The tool is working well so far for normal use cases. I rate it an eight out of ten.