Check Point CloudGuard WAF Reviews

I am currently evaluating a hybrid solution for our infrastructure since some of our services are hosted on-premises while others are processed through the cloud. We have multiple websites, applications, and some non-web-based applications that we need to protect.

The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage. 

The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature. It also supports legacy applications and improves security access. Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions and provides necessary protection between our central office and peripheries through VPN access. 

The solution allows for proactive support and parts replacement.

The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation. The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.

I am happy with their support. They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution. The support rating is about seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Positive

We looked at FortiGate and some open-source solutions, however, they either did not fully meet our requirements or required a dedicated person for administration, making them cost-prohibitive.

We collaborated with our vendor, A1, which also offers parts replacement and support as part of the package.

The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support.

The price is fair for the features offered. For us, it is cost-effective compared to hiring a dedicated person for administration.

Prior to choosing the current solution, we considered FortiGate and other open-source solutions.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Hybrid Cloud

Other

Protecting our websites or our customers' websites is our top priority. We transitioned to Check Point WAF from on-premises WAF to safeguard our external perimeter. Essentially, I am focused on protecting our external infrastructure and web services.

It helps me sleep at night, providing peace of mind. It saves time, money, troubleshooting, and maintenance and reduces the need to hire people to manage the technology because it is so easy to use.

The WAF is the best feature. The application firewall's ability to block and recognize all attacks in real-time, such as DDoS, is invaluable. Identifying attacks and integrating with the rest of the ecosystem are features I am very fond of.

It's a pretty robust product.

CloudGuard protects against threats without relying on signatures. This is one of the best features. As an engineer, I don't have to review signatures one by one by one. 90% of the other players use signatures. So you have to review the attack, the signature, and how to mitigate it, etcetera. Removing the signatures from the equation removes a lot of time required for an engineer to review signatures, apply signatures, verify that these are applied to the infrastructure, etcetera. So removing that from the equation and protecting the infrastructure at all times is very cost-effective. 

Signature-based also causes a lot of false positives. So having no signature also helps remove a lot of the false positives. 

I cannot think of any needed features.

Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received. Reducing prices would be welcome. 

Integration with more technologies or Check Point products, or on-prem products, could improve robustness. Many organizations are moving to the cloud. Some cannot fully transition and require solutions similar to on-prem devices. 

I have used the solution for the past two years.

Support is the same with on-premise devices, and it is very good. Since it is cloud-based, I do not need them as much. 

Positive

I have used CloudGuard, Imperva Cloud WAF, and Barracuda Cloud WAF. I have experience with all of the major players.

I have seen what we were used to before and how much time we spent. We used to manage on-prem devices for other partners that could run from other vendors. When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.

If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product.

I will not disclose which vendor is the best. In specific cases, some vendors perform well, while others are competitive at the high end. Check Point is one vendor that I really appreciate, and I will not mention the other, however the competition is very close.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. Nobody is perfect. 

Due to the nature of our business, we have heavily invested in backend API development, providing services exclusively through this interface. Similar to how banks and medical industries utilize data from centralized sources, our APIs cannot be exposed directly to the Internet. To safeguard these critical APIs, a robust security solution is essential. 

Check Point CloudGuard WAF fulfills this need by intercepting all incoming internet traffic, categorizing requests as legitimate or malicious, including attack details, and blocking suspicious activity at the initial stage. Only verified, non-malicious requests are permitted to interact with our APIs.

When we activate the WAF, our security signatures and all the latest threat intelligence are immediately updated. Our protection is automatically refreshed every few hours to address emerging threats. For example, if a zero-day attack originates in Europe, Check Point CloudGuard can detect it within minutes and distribute a new signature globally. This ensures that when the attack reaches Australia, it is already blocked by our up-to-date WAF.

Although the WAF still produces false positives because of the signatures, we can apply a rule to exclude them easily.

Automated threat intelligence is crucial because a ransomware attack can compromise a network in minutes. Imagine an attack occurring at 3 AM when staff is unavailable; the damage may already be done when someone investigates. Ransomware can infiltrate and complete its task within just a few sessions. Once inside, attackers can lay dormant for months, covertly sending data using internal IP addresses. These addresses are often whitelisted, making it difficult to detect whether the outbound traffic is authorized or malicious. Automated threat intelligence can rapidly detect and respond to attacks, unlike manual processes that take 15 to 20 minutes, often too late to prevent significant damage like a completed ransomware attack. Systems like OCSP, utilizing best practices from multiple vendors such as Azure, Microsoft, CheckPoint, Palo Alto, and CloudStrike, provide an open platform for sharing and updating threat signatures. This enables organizations to tailor their security measures based on specific application needs and behaviors, effectively mitigating risks without unnecessary restrictions.

Cloud-based WAF solutions, such as Check Point's, offer significant advantages compared to traditional on-premises WAFs like Cisco or Palo Alto. On-premises WAFs require substantial upfront costs for hardware, expensive licenses, and frequent, costly upgrades as technology evolves. Cloud-based alternatives eliminate these expenses by providing the latest features and capabilities without hardware or software management. This flexibility and cost-efficiency make cloud WAFs appealing to many organizations. However, cloud solutions can be more expensive for high-throughput applications like Instagram or Facebook due to data transfer costs. At the same time,  on-premises options might be more economical in these cases. Ultimately, the best choice depends on specific network size, criticality, and application requirements.

Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure. In the first secure phase, pre-built signatures are used, eliminating the need for a live tracker as the necessary data is readily available. This approach efficiently blocks threats without progressing to the slower, resource-intensive second phase. Unlike competitors who process every request, this method conserves CPU power and prevents application slowdowns.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's code could be improved. While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code. Ideally, we would prefer consistent configuration across all products to simplify deployment, but in this case, the ISE is incompatible with the two or three different models we've identified. Therefore, we must rely solely on the GUI for configuration.

I have used Check Point CloudGuard WAF for four months.

It was stable in the four months we ran Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. We only reached 80 percent of our CPU capacity.

The technical support is good. We didn't use them much, demonstrating the product's quality.

Positive

At that stage, our primary goal was to select a suitable WAF to replace our existing F5 WAF. While the F5 WAF performed well, we sought to eliminate it due to excessive licensing costs. Given the high expense of our entire WAF solution, we explored alternatives, including Azure WAF, Check Point WAF, and Palo Alto WAF. Although we initially considered Cisco WAF, it was quickly discarded as outdated. After a two-week evaluation, we narrowed our options to Azure, Check Point, and Palo Alto WAFs.

The deployment is straightforward and similar to any standard firewall installation. While the process took four days due to design finalization, deploying directly from code can be completed in less than thirty minutes.

Two people were involved in the deployment, one working on the design and the other on the ISE.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF. I would rate the cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF as eight out of ten, with ten being the most costly.

We evaluated Cisco WAF, but it is outdated and no longer competitive. Since we utilize Azure Cloud, we opted for Azure WAF due to our preference for cloud-based solutions. Azure WAF has performed well and is seamlessly integrated behind the scenes. We also evaluated Palo Alto, but configuration challenges through ISE led us to discontinue its use seven months ago. Check Point CloudGuard WAF was abandoned for similar reasons. Azure WAF's integration with ISE, including built-in Bicep modules for CLI configuration and deployment, is a significant advantage. Currently, we manage approximately 35 IP addresses and require two distinct stages for WAF settings and module deployment. Consistent signature stem definition across different environments is essential. ISE was crucial in our decision-making process, ultimately replacing Check Point due to the latter's lack of ISE integration, a critical requirement. While Check Point offered several strengths, the absence of ISE was a deal-breaker. Overall, Azure WAF has met our expectations.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

We have six environments in multiple locations and eight products that use 20 APIs.

We have a team of four working with the WAF.

I would recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF if it fully meets the organization's needs, the cost is reasonable, and they desire AI and ML integration in the future. However, since we do not require AI or ML and prioritize ISE for our management approach, this solution did not align with our requirements.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I have a team that manages CloudGuard for me. We have different research centers using various cloud accounts and are trying to consolidate everything into a single landing zone to protect those areas. From a use-case perspective, I have different laboratories or research centers utilizing it for various purposes. We are mostly focused on AI, and some of those requirements cater to the AI segment as well.

From a protection perspective, Check Point is a well-renowned name. We are also using other products from Check Point, such as Harmony, Infinity, and XDR. We have a consolidated view of the overall security posture, which I find quite interesting.

CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. This is crucial for us to maintain application security and stop the threats coming into our environment, keeping our production part secure.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. It is the best. That is why I am paying for it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helps us with overall application and cloud API security. The consolidated view of the security posture that Check Point provides is very useful from an upper management perspective.

CloudGuard WAF has helped reduce our false positive rate by 30%.

From a security perspective, it is quite good. I am not very familiar with the detailed features of it because I have a team that manages it. 

I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further. I am content with what I have in terms of features and support, but if I start expanding the usage, I might need more help from them. I already have the best consultants from Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for around seven or eight months now.

I have not observed any stability issues yet. It has been pretty reliable.

The scalability is excellent and is one of its best features.

Customer service is one of the best in the market right now.

Positive

We did not use a similar solution previously. 

We have a hybrid deployment model with AWS as the cloud provider. 

Its deployment was smooth. We did not have any issues. 

We used Check Point for the implementation.

It has been only six or seven months now. I am hoping that by the time I complete one year, I will see the return on investment.

It has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall to a certain extent, but I do not have the numbers.

The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others.

I considered other solutions. I decided on Check Point because of its comprehensive suite of applications and the integration with my tools, providing a consolidated view of my security posture.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten. I believe there is always room for improvement, but there are use cases I have not yet explored. 

I use the solution for almost all of our web servers.

Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again. 

The rate limit feature is the most useful feature of the product.

We don't need to rely on signatures. We are protected when the signature doesn't exist. 

It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies. It blocks items that would affect the company.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate. It took a bit of time, however, not long. We're near zero false positives. 

The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good. More user-friendly features could be added. Perhaps something between CloudGuard management and the virtual appliance on-site could be faster. 

It could be interesting to have an app for smartphones to manage all the cloud environments.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is always good. 

The scalability is always good.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. I am satisfied. It is always good. 

On-premises

We primarily use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application security. It protects applications from various threats and vulnerabilities like SQL injections, cross-site scripting issues, and cross-site request forgery. We ensure proper security policies and logs are maintained.

CloudGuard WAF helps by providing advanced protection for web applications and APIs, defending against the OWASP top ten scenarios, and offering comprehensive AI-driven behavior analysis. This assistance in data protection is vital for financial domains such as banks.

One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard. It's easy for beginners in security to understand and set policies. The solution's easy access and AI-driven behavior analysis for real-time threat detection are also highly valuable.

Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability. Although they provide 24/7 support, there are sometimes delays in delivering solutions. Advanced bot protection has recently been improved, which has helped a lot.

I have been using the solution for over four to five years, working as a project manager and handling implementation projects. We are primarily focused on Check Point CloudGuard implementations.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten. The solution is quite stable.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The solution is highly scalable.

Customer service is satisfactory yet requires some improvement. I would rate support as an eight out of ten, as there is room for enhancement.

Positive

I have experience with other WAF vendors such as Imperva and Imperva WAF, which are leading products in India and have a significant presence in the US and UK.

The initial setup is generally straightforward, yet it can vary depending on the client's platform and whether deployment occurs on-site or remotely.

We have a team of around 25 engineers; 50% handle project implementation, while the other 50% provide post-deployment support.

Return on investment is seen when data is properly organized, and the ability to show reports to top management ensures that their expectations are met.

Pricing is average—not too expensive, yet not cheap either. CloudGuard offers bundled packages, which may reduce costs compared to paying for individual features as opposed to other providers.

I have evaluated solutions like Empower and EmpowerVac, which are leading WAF products in India and other countries.

I would definitely recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF to other users due to its availability, scalability, and support. These aspects contribute significantly to receiving new contracts and maintaining client referrals.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Public Cloud

Currently, I am working in a DNB environment. Since we have on-premises to Azure traffic, we utilize the Azure subnet. From the Azure subnet, we have different tags and servers hosted over the Azure side. When our internal traffic moves from the DNB to the Azure site, we use the CloudGuard firewall. Multiple tags are created in that firewall, each containing multiple servers. Users connect through the Azure site, utilizing an ExpressRoute link from on-premises to Azure. The CloudGuard firewall at our premises helps secure traffic to the Azure site.

The CloudGuard firewall's multiple features like web access filter, HTTPS inspection, and authentication are very useful in our environment. It provides secure and flexible connectivity between the user and the Azure subnet.

The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities. In CloudGuard, we create tags with servers, which makes connections secure and flexible. Features like web access filters, HTTPS inspection, and authentication are very important for our environment.

The user interface, SmartConsole, sometimes malfunctions and requires a restart. This part of the interface needs improvement.

I rate the stability as seven or eight out of ten. We sometimes experience lagging, crashing, and downtime.

The scalability of CloudGuard is very good. I would rate it as nine.

Whenever we observe any issues at the firewall level or require assistance, we contact tech support. We open cases, especially during upgrades, and they provide standby support. I would rate their support as eight out of ten.

Positive

When I joined the project, most of the deployment had started, so I was not aware of previous solutions used by the company. Personally, I have worked with Check Point on-premises firewalls but not on the Azure site before joining this company.

Some deployments were already in progress when I joined, and I participated in about half of the deployment process. It was easy with third-party vendor assistance, if required.

The deployment was handled in-house with occasional vendor support related to specific components such as blades.

Pricing is a bit high, but it is justified considering the features and support provided by Check Point.

I recommend CloudGuard for its extensive security features. It not only provides security but also detects threats and inspects traffic thoroughly. It is especially useful for securing connections between users and Azure subnets.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

I am a systems administrator currently using Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers comprehensive monitoring and alerting for my entire VMware virtual environment. It allows me to get a clear picture of resource utilization, performance bottlenecks, and potential issues before they impact my business. The predictive analytics are excellent, providing a way to anticipate hardware needs, optimize resource allocation, and prevent downtime. Its automation capabilities are strong, enabling task automation such as workload balancing and resource allocation, saving me valuable time and resources.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF could benefit from an enhanced user interface as it can be a bit complex and overwhelming for new users. Its integration with non-VMware products could be improved to offer a more holistic view of my IT infrastructure. Lastly, the pricing could be made more competitive.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for seven to eight years.

Before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF, I considered several other products, including Microsoft System Center Operations Manager, SolarWinds Server & Application Monitor, and Dynatrace. Ultimately, I chose Check Point CloudGuard WAF due to its strong integration with my VMware virtual environment.

I would advise someone considering Check Point CloudGuard WAF to invest in proper training. The platform's advanced features can be challenging to grasp initially. So, take the time to learn how to use the product effectively. It is well worth the investment.