Check Point NGFW Reviews

In my previous company, one of the clients was a big chocolate company. They had this payment card infrastructure (PCI), where they needed to have auditors from PCI check the firewalls to see if everything was okay. So, they had web-based authentication. 

I'm working with the 5800, 5600, and 5200 models. I work with the UTMs as well. These are physical appliances as well as open servers.

It helped clients get through big audits for PCI, which has been very cost-effective for them. In one hour, they make 30,000 to 40,000 pounds worth of sales. A PCI audit has actually threatened them, "If you don't do it by this date, you will have to stop taking payments." Even if the audit is delayed about an one hour or so, they'll have thousands of pounds worth of losses. The previous company may have spent a lot of money on Check Point, but they save a lot as well. So, they were quite happy with that. 

The most valuable feature is definitely the logs. The way you can search the logs and have the granularity from the filter. It's just very nice. 

I love the interface of R.80.30. The R.80 interface is very nicely thought out with everything in one place, which makes Check Point easier to use. When I started in 2014, I was just confused with how many interfaces I had to go on to find things. While there are quite a few interfaces still in the older smart dashboard versions, most things are consolidated now.

The naming in the inline layers and ordered layers needs improvement. It makes things very complicated. I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. For audit policies, it is okay since it's very simple to see. However, this area is for very large organizations, which have too many policies, and they need to share all these policies. For small to medium-sized businesses, they don't need it. Even if somebody has 500 rules, if they try to use it, it can be very confusing.

In R77.30, the only thing which I hated was having to go into each day's log file and search for that day. However, in R.80, we have a unified platform, so you can just filter out with the date, then it will give you the log for that date and time. 

I would like Check Point to have certification similar to what Cisco offers. Check Point's certification doesn't cover a lot of things. For example, Check Point Certified Security Expert (CCSE) should be actually included with the Check Point Security Administration (CCSA), as a lot of people just go for the CCSA and get stuck when it comes to a lot of things on Check Point. 

Biggest lesson learnt: Never assume. We had issues when we enabled DHCP server on one of the firewalls. We tried to exclude some IP addresses so the rest would be allocated, but that didn't work. We had to start from the beginning to include the rest of the IP addresses.

Six to seven years.

It is very stable. 

The headache with these firewalls is when they failover. The client will ask us why. We have a separate service desk and Tier 2 guys who monitor these firewalls. But, in these cases, they can't tell why, because you have to deep dive. The reason was unclear on R77.30, so I had to find it in the logs. However, in R.80, it's quite clear. We will just use a cphaprob stat to tell us the failover reason for the last time. 

Sometimes, it is very difficult to find something in Check Point Firewalls when you are stuck. Therefore, you need to know exactly what you are doing.

They do scale well as long as a company is not scaling rapidly. This is the reason we have a CPSizeMe tool. With normal growth, they will easily go for five to 10 years. Normal growth means setting up a few offices, not doing big mergers.

We have about four to five Check Point users out of 20 network engineers.

In my new job, we have 80 clients in user center.

I would rate the support as a three out of 10. It seems like they are all Tier 2 guys. If there is a problem, you search everything and read all the articles, then you contact their support center who forward you to the same articles. It is very difficult to work with their support guys, unless you work with the guys in Israel.

From my last job, I had a web UI issue on one of my firewalls. It's been a year now, and it's not been resolved. Although it's been to the Israel as well, It's still been delayed. We couldn't live with the issue, so we decided we would buy a new open server, as the previous open server was quite old, then we did a fresh install of R.30 on it.

if you buy the appliances or licenses through partners, they will try to resolve your issue or talk in a way that makes sense.

My previous company used to have Junipers that used to send all the credentials via HTTP. Because all Juniper SRXs didn't do that, since they were quite old (version 570), they had to buy new firewalls. I tried to do it, but I couldn't do it on the Junipers, especially since they were out of support and nobody would help me from Juniper.

I told my previous company, "Check Point would be the best solution for them. In the long run, while you might have a lot of issues with auditors, we will actually be able to combat this using Check Point firewalls if you get the proper licensing." Then, we did web bots on Check Points. 

About five years later, an auditor said that we needed to do a RADIUS Authentication, not a clear text password nor the Check Point local password. So, we implemented that as well. This was a bit tricky because they didn't want the local guys to have RADIUS Authentication, but anybody coming from the outside would have to go through RADIUS. This was a bit tricky with Check Point because I had to involve Check Point support in the process as well, but we were able to do it. This was one of the client use cases.

The initial setup was straightforward. I told one of my colleagues in my last job, "Just follow the prompts and you should be able to install it. It is a very simple, basic thing. Just do it as a gateway, then that's it. You are done". 

Before, on R77.30, there were cluster IDs and people needed to know what they were doing. In the R80 cluster, the cluster ID is gone, so it is very straightforward and you don't have to be an expert to install it.

A new installation on the VMs (about a week ago) took me around 20 minutes or less. This was a lot faster than I imagined, and I've created quite a lot of resources to their management and Gateway as well.

If the firewalls go down, then the employees' car payments would stop. This would be a disaster. 

There are three types of licensing: Threat Prevention, NGTP, and Next Generation Threat Extraction. Before, it used to be you would just enable the license of whatever blade you wanted to buy. Nowadays, Threat Prevention would be sufficient for most clients, so I would think people would go for the NGTP, license which includes all the blades.

All sorts of councils in London use the solution. In my new job, there are quite a lot of councils and schools as well. They need to know the web traffic from their users, e.g., what they are searching and looking for and where they are going. Therefore, its application and URL filtering comes in quite handy. I've seen the application and URL filtering on Palo Alto, and it is a pain to get those details from it and create a report for users. Whereas, the user report is very easy to get with Check Point.

I have not seen another firewall offer the same level of logs that Check Point offers. I have worked on ASA and Juniper SRX. While they are a bit similar, they are not exactly what Check Point has to offer.

This is not day-to-day firewall work, where maybe a node can do it. If you get into a trouble, you can't actually involve Check Point support all the time, especially when you won't get a response. You need to employ people who are certified. Check Point has a lot to sink in, and it's not an easy thing. You might just expose your environment, even after spending a lot of money.

It is future-proof. I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.

I use it for UTM [Unified Threat Management]. I use a gateway firewall at the office.

Next Generation Firewall, along with Threat Emulation and Threat Extraction, is what I use. Real-time prevention is there to protect against zero-day malware and Check Point Sandbox.

And then, the CPU-based emulation is a better feature than any technologies not having that. Check Point has a CPU-based emulation. Normally, Fortinet and others, they do it differently. But these people work on a technology called CPU-based emulation. 

This CPU-based emulation is a unique CPU-level technology that catches malware before it has an opportunity to deploy or evade detection. They call it SandBlast. Check Point SandBlast Threat Emulation. That is a great feature, which they are using. It controls attempts to bypass OS security controls also. And then it avoids deep security.

I use our Check Point firewall for all the NATing of my applications. I use it for external traffic monitoring where my Internet links are connected, and I use it as a gateway.

The drawback is that I want to push the policy from my management console itself instead of on the Check Point device. For example, if I have two different firewalls, I want to push the policy to the gateway, and then it will take 10 to 20 minutes to roll back the policies. It should be applied faster.

I have been using it for more than a year.  

It is a stable product 99.4% of the time. 

Check Point NGFW has a feature where it can top two of the firewalls, and then we can integrate the performance. 

It's a cluster kind of solution where they can integrate.  

For the firewall, the support is good. 

Positive

I also use CloudGuard Security Posture Management. I also used Fortinet.

The major difference, I feel, is the threat emulation. It's zero-day protection. The supply chain attack is very, very low compared to all firewall vendors. 

For example, being parallel to Palo Alto Networks or FortiGate and NFT OS or Check Point, that supply chain attack was very, very low in our Check Point firewall. And then the maintenance was very, very low compared to all.

That is my takeaway. My one of my takeaways before proceeding with my procurement decision was that there are two things: one is the security point. Another one is performance. The last one is very, very important. That is for the supply chain attack because we need to concentrate more on other products also. 

So I don't want to spend too much time on the maintenance part. So this supply chain attack was very, very less compared to other providers since we are using multiple firewalls. This particular firmware was very stable, and there was no need to update until unless it is necessary and shared by Check Point team. So my takeaway is that the supply chain attack was very less compared to all.

If the person knows the technology and the basic functionalities of a firewall, they can integrate it very fast.

We took three days to deploy.

Three people were involved: my IT security manager, myself, and one L3 engineer who deployed the product.

The architecture and functionalities are managed by me, and then the deployment is taken care of by our team members.

Compared to Fortinet and Check Point, both are the same.

Check Point is coming up withsome AI integration and some AI features. They are using threat emulation on the AI front, but they are also discussing the quantum processor, where they have integrated many new features.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We use Check Point NGFW for enterprise firewalling, VPN, data loss prevention (DLP), user authentication, and zero-trust connectivity. All the functions of Check Point NGFW are utilized.

The most valuable features in my experience include perimeter firewalling, cloud and mobile security, application control, URL filtering, DLP, threat prevention, intrusion protection, and safeguarding against malware, botnets, and zero-day attacks. Check Point NGFW's multi-layered security architecture enhances data protection strategies by unifying security management, which is crucial in environments with too many separate products. The application and identity-based inspection are critical for understanding the data packets within the network.

The primary area for improvement would be the configuration process. While Check Point NGFW is not inherently difficult to configure, it might be intimidating for newcomers. Other products, like FortiGate, are perceived as more intuitive because they are easier to configure from the start. This has led to a perception that may affect market share.

I have been working with Check Point NGFW for many years, probably around ten years.

I have encountered stability issues primarily with VPN, which required a code upgrade. However, overall stability is high, and I rate it a nine out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is quite scalable. I have used units that never exceeded their capacity. If specified correctly, even the smaller boxes offer high session and bandwidth rates, making the solution highly scalable, even up to telco-level requirements.

My experience with Check Point's technical support has been positive, especially during setup processes. Even challenging issues like those with VPNs have been resolved efficiently with their help.

Positive

The initial setup of Check Point NGFW can be daunting for new users, but once you understand it, the setup is straightforward. For me, it's an eight out of ten in terms of ease of the initial setup.

The perception is that Check Point NGFW is expensive, especially when all software modules are included. For larger enterprises with comprehensive service requirements, it is reasonably priced. However, in the medium-sized business market, it can be seen as expensive, leading to switches to alternatives like Fortinet.

I rate Check Point NGFW an eight out of ten. It's a solid solution, particularly for large enterprise businesses, especially in banking and government, where there is always a need to diversify between different products. The overall product rating I would give is an eight.

We're using Check Point NGFW for network security, intrusion detection, intrusion prevention, application control, DDoS attack protection, sandblast, mobile device management, identity-based access control, reporting, access control policy, scalability, state-of-the-art security gateway, support, threat prevention, accelerated policy installation, concurrent security policy installation, advanced routing, easy upgrading, logging and monitoring, smart events, and smart console.

Check Point has improved our organization's security posture, especially the IBAC, application control, IPS, and IDS. It's easy to set policies on the firewall, which has greatly simplified cleanup and management.

We recently upgraded from R80.10 to R40, and we've had an overwhelmingly positive experience with this version. Our visibility of threats and vulnerabilities has improved. Check Point added new features and revamped its reporting and analysis.

Check Point's rule management helped us simplify access control. At one point, we had more than 1,000 access control policies, and it was challenging to manage them all. We cut it down to 300 policies using Check Point's management features, and we are still working on reducing this further to achieve the best way to manage policies. Its logging and monitoring enable us to trace and investigate suspicious traffic.

Check Point doesn't warn us when rules are about to expire. It was also inconvenient that we had to change hardware when we upgraded. It would be nice if they made the new version compatible with current hardware or if it only required a minor upgrade.

I would also like it if Check Point cut the number of steps needed to upgrade from R77 to R81. They should also make it possible to convert access control policies from the firewall to the management server and to downgrade from a higher version to a lower one. 

I've been using Check Point NGFW for six years.

The solution has been stable, and Check Point promptly delivers patches and updates.

I rate Check Point support nine out of 10. When we need help, they're always fast and efficient. Check Point's customer service is one of the major reasons we've stuck with this solution.

Positive

We adopted Check Point because of the cost and support.

If you have the right training, you can set up Check Point with minimal supervision.

Before you buy, check which features you need, and if possible, I recommend signing up for at least a three-year license.

We considered several vendors, including Fortinet, Cisco, Huawei, Sophos, and Barracuda.

The tool helps with VPN and connecting mobile devices. We also use it for identity security. It filters internet access and controls applications. The firewall has an intrusion prevention system and stops data loss. 

Internet access and filtering are important, and data loss prevention is definitely key. The threat access builder is useful. Application control is also big for us. We use it to check and block application downloads, looking for malicious or rogue software. This feature is very helpful.

Sometimes, the firewall doesn't pick up on certain things. If an attacker is clever and uses a low-profile indicator, the firewall might flag an anomaly but not give enough information to decide if it's worth investigating. The threat intelligence component also has challenges. It doesn't always tie alerts to active campaigns or threat actor groups. We often have to do extra work and use other products to figure these out.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 2500 users. 

The tool's support was responsive in critical situations, but for non-critical issues, they sometimes dropped the ball or didn't get back quickly enough. We had to do a lot of follow-ups and escalations to our technical account manager.

Neutral

Before choosing Check Point NGFW, we used Palo Alto Networks. We switched because of issues with Palo Alto. Their customer support wasn't very responsive. Some policies weren't working right, letting things through that should've been blocked. We compared different pricing options and features before deciding on Check Point NGFW. The main differences between Palo Alto and Check Point NGFW were mostly in how they worked for us. They both offer good next-gen firewalls, but we had some problems with Palo Alto. Sometimes it wouldn't notify us quickly when something got through. Its prevention wasn't always as strong as we wanted.

We felt Palo Alto's traffic inspection was only partial, not checking everything thoroughly. Check Point NGFW seemed to offer better inspection. Check Point NGFW also had better threat intel and application control. With Palo Alto, we couldn't see all our applications, only some of them. This caused shadow IT problems. Cost was also a factor in our decision.

The initial setup of Check Point NGFW is relatively straightforward. It's similar to other firewalls I've used and not too complex. If you have all the prerequisites in place, it's fairly easy to set up. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate the setup process around seven or eight.

The deployment takes about a week. We had a deployment process that involved going through change management, getting approvals, notifying stakeholders like the infrastructure team, and deploying the solution.

We used a consultant for the deployment because we were dealing with other initiatives and it was a tight situation timing-wise, even though we could have done it in-house.

Aside from the consultant, we had two or three staff members involved in the deployment. Their job roles were mainly on the security side - security architects, engineers, and analysts. Their roles were fluid, so they could take on various tasks if they had the knowledge or interest. For maintaining the solution, the number of staff required depends on the scale of the deployment. In our setup, about two people were in charge as the main points of contact.

I saw definite operational impacts from using Check Point NGFW. It helped prevent breaches, data security issues, and security incidents. We constantly saw attempts being blocked and picked up by the firewall. This was an improvement over Palo Alto, where some things got through without being detected. With Check Point NGFW, we got a significant return on investment because it prevented a major incident from happening and escalating.

I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten. It costs around 100,000-200,000 dollars per month. Besides standard licensing fees, we paid extra for enterprise-level premium support. There were also onboarding costs factored in. These additional costs made it more expensive overall. The total cost was around 100,000 dollars, which was challenging for our budget. Check Point was also pricey, not much different from Palo Alto Networks. However, we decided switching to Check Point was better because it offered more capabilities for a similar price.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

The primary objective was to replace the Cisco ASA firewalls with Check Point NGFWs. In addition to their firewall functions, these NGFWs also provide features like Web Application Firewall and Network Data Security. We used this approach to consolidate security measures into a single, comprehensive solution, much like having a master key at the main entrance rather than separate keys for each window and door. This streamlines security management and ensures a more efficient and robust overall security strategy.

There are several crucial advantages to using Check Point NGFW including its ease of use, as it provides a unified interface for managing multiple security functions. It offers impressive scalability to meet the demands of a large organization and can handle substantial traffic. Its simplified management, enhanced remote support capabilities, and the ability to facilitate secure VPN connectivity for numerous offices and employees are highly beneficial.

The current model is predominantly hardware appliance-based, which can incur substantial costs. These appliances must be purchased separately, contributing to a significant investment.

Our most recent engagement with Check Point NGFW was a year ago when we implemented it for one of your financial sector clients.

The stability of the firewall has been exceptional, with very minimal disruptions. There was only one instance of downtime, and it wasn't attributed to any fault in the firewall itself or the hardware, but due to a configuration issue. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The scalability of Check Point firewalls is a notable strength. These firewalls can handle a substantial number of connections. For instance, they can manage up to one million connections on the NDSW server. Regarding its VPN capacity, it can support around 5,000 to 8,000 users per box, which is quite impressive. This scalability makes Check Point firewalls well-suited for organizations with high connection and user requirements. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Their support team has demonstrated an approximately 24-hour turnaround time, which is considered quite good. We have rarely needed to engage with Check Point support because most issues are resolved internally. Typically, we turn to OEM support only when we encounter challenges that are beyond our capabilities.

I also have experience with Fortinet and Cisco, both of which have made significant developments recently. They have introduced software-based firewall and system solutions, which have garnered attention from customers. This shift in the competitive landscape has led to changes in customer preferences, with more organizations considering Fortinet as a viable option for their security needs.

This process can be a bit complex at times, mainly because it depends on the specific client architecture and how they want to set it up.

The deployment process can be rated at about six in terms of complexity. Several factors influence this complexity, but getting the infrastructure ready is often the most challenging aspect. To successfully deploy, you need to account for downtime, ensure proper backups are in place, and ideally test it in a sandbox environment before going live. After deployment, thorough checks and adjustments are necessary. It typically requires at least two days of parallel operation, where both the new and old equipment run simultaneously. In an environment with no existing infrastructure to replace, the process is generally smoother. Deployment typically involves a team of 2 or 3 people working full-time for 4 to 5 days, equivalent to nine hours a day. Maintenance is handled by a networking team, which includes a Network Operations Center. The team consists of approximately eleven people managing various network components, including L1, L2, and L3 devices.

When considering a POC for a security solution, it's essential to assess the various use cases and functionalities it offers, such as NDSW which is particularly useful for protecting sensitive data. Check Point NGFW is not solely a firewall; it's a comprehensive security solution with various capabilities. It can address a wide range of security requirements, making it a valuable and versatile asset for organizations looking to enhance their security posture. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The primary use case for these firewalls is to protect our perimeter from unwanted traffic in and out of our network as well as to control the flow of data to comply with our company security policies. 

It also plays an integral part in restricting or granting access at a granular level for certain users or vendors allowing us to monitor and protect end-customer data as well as protecting our users and network from malware, bots, ransomware and other bad actors that could disrupt our business operations.

Check Point NGFW products have improved the operation of our organization by allowing us to secure our perimeter from attacks, probes, malware, DDoS, bots and general bad actors. It also allows us to secure outbound traffic from our users. 

It allows us to fine tune how we allow users to access resources both in our DMZ and externally. This helps us to secure customer and user data in order to prevent privacy issues, prevent loss of operations or downtime which we cannot accept. 

Being able to use the products in redundant pairs has also allowed us to provide a more stable network.

There are several useful features that we utilize that are now valuable assets in terms of protecting the network. These would include user identification (ID Collector), IPS, antibot, antivirus, application, and URL filtering as well as the standard firewall security rules. They all work together to provide layers of security to protect both inbound and outbound traffic in order to minimize loss of private data as well as to ensure our network is free of bad actors attempting to use malware or ransomware against us.

Check Point could improve its products by working on stability. Overall, it is a stable platform, however, at times we have issues with 'quirks' and bugs that cause issues for our end users and typically are not straightforward to fix. 

Another issue that presents itself is upgrading. Small hot fixes are not problematic. That said, updating to a new version of the OS has been an absolute nightmare and caused significant downtime and a number of issues - not to mention wasted engineering time. Simplify the upgrade process and they may regain confidence in this area!

I'd like to see more use of applications and URLs in security policies moving forwards.

I've worked with the solution for seven years across two different companies.

The stability is good, yet it could use some improvement.

The scalability is very good.

It has always been slow and difficult to use technical support. It depends on a case-by-case basis, however, you have to chase and manage the case yourself or it will go nowhere. This likely comes down to a lack of experienced agents.

Neutral

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched due to the fact that Cisco's product was very hard to manage and lacked any real intelligence.

The initial setup is complex. A very large and multifaceted environment will always be complex to configure.

We used vendor support and account teams and in-house technical engineering.

It's expensive, however, compared to the cost of not protecting the network properly, it's worth the cost.

We looked at Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco.

Carefully consider the vendor before making a leap. It's very difficult and costly to change vendors at a later date.

We were looking for a solution to simplify our hybrid cloud infrastructure. We wanted something that could manage both our on-premises and cloud environments seamlessly. Nutanix offered that unified management plane. We also needed to improve our disaster recovery capabilities.

It's been really good. It simplified our operations significantly. We're able to manage everything from a single pane of glass, which has been a huge time saver.

The Prism Central management console is excellent. It gives us a centralized view of our entire infrastructure. Also, the built-in disaster recovery capabilities have been essential. We've tested failover scenarios, and they worked flawlessly. It simplified our operations significantly. We're able to manage everything from a single pane of glass, which has been a huge time saver.

The initial setup was a little complex, but Nutanix support helped us through the process. Also, licensing can be a bit complicated.

We've been using it for about two and a half years now.

Nutanix support helped us through the process when the initial setup was complex.

Positive

The initial setup was a little complex, but Nutanix support helped us through the process.

Licensing can be a bit complicated.

Absolutely. Especially for companies looking to simplify hybrid cloud management and improve disaster recovery.