Check Point NGFW Reviews

My company is an IT service provider. We suggest customers choose the Check Point next-generation firewall along with other OEMs for their environment. Once they choose (and confirm the product with model capabilities), we migrate the existing firewall to the new firewall. 

I have deployed multiple Check Point products. Based on my experience and its effective features, I do suggest customers go with Check Point NGFW. I love its security profiles which effectively secure the organization's LAN, DC, and DMZ network.

The solution has improved organizations via:

1. Ease of deployment: We can easily implement and deploy the check Point NGFW.

2. Deep Inspection: It inspects traffic beyond just port number and IP address.

3. Threat Prevention: It has multiple security features and we can enable and integrate these features like IPS(Intrusion Prevention System), Anti-Bot Protection, and SandBoxing.

4. Organizations can enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) in their network environment to verify their identity before they access the network. this feature keeps the integrity of the LAN network.

My favorite feature of Check Point NGFW is its "deep traffic inspection capability" due to the fact that:

1. It provides deep-level control over the network activity, allowing you to prioritize critical traffic first based on organization requirements.

2. It analyzes application behavior to detect suspicious activity.

3. We integrate with Sandbox technology to safely detonate and analyze zero-day threats. 

4. It also blocks the application and prevents them from accessing the organization's LAN network.

5. It gets a regular zero-day signature update.

During my initial level implementation of check Point NGFW, I faced issues troubleshooting. The problem was with its command line. 

Check Point runs on Linux and its command line is Linux-based. However, at the time, I was not familiar with Linux commands, and I invested lots of time in finding the Linux command and understanding the meaning, then went for troubleshooting.

It would be very helpful if the OEM provided all the Linux commands in a way that we could easily understand and follow the steps to configure or troubleshoot the issue using the command line.

For the last year, I have been implementing and deploying Check Point NGFW in multiple client environments. 

Its NAT automation and routing intelligence are excellent. We are not required to configure NAT rules separately; we can enable them while creating an object. We are also not required to configure reverse routing for LAN subnets.

At this time, Check Point NGFW is more stable than other options.

The scalability is wonderful.

Customer service and support are good. However, they can be enhanced.

Positive

We do not choose the solution. Rather, we provide multiple solutions to the customer.

The solution is easy to implement.

We are from the vendor side. We can help implement the solution. 

As of now, everything is good as per the market scenario.

We did not evaluate other options. 

Check Point is mainly used for internal communication. Our clients have multiple platforms, and customers use it for internal communications and protection, from the DMZ to the LAN to the DMZ, and also for MPLS connectivity with multiple branches. 

As I've seen, the customers also use it as a gateway for publishing their website. This is only for the perimeter, however.

It is very easy to identify the logs. It is also very well managed because of the threat cloud architecture. 

Another thing is that whenever we make changes on the firewall, we first need to publish them and then install the policies. This allows us to double-check the policies before they are implemented, which is helpful.

We faced many challenges. For example, an issue with the managed view that Check Point has. When clicking on a rule, we are supposed to have a full view of that rule and its log portion. This should show what's passing through the rule, what's coming to the rule, and all of that on a single pane of glass. Currently, the log isn't showing when we click on a particular rule. This might be an issue with an upgrade or something. Because of this, we can't implement anything on the live system; we only have a maintenance window every weekend, and it's hard to troubleshoot within an hour.

Another problem is that when we created around two lakhs of Check Point objects on the firewall, it became very slow.

I have been using it for two months. 

It is not slow. But, we implemented two lakhs of objects on the firewall, and that caused the slowness. It can happen with all firewalls, not only Check Point.

Currently, I work with enterprise customers.

It was good. No issues with that.

Positive

I can recommend Check Point, Fortinet, and even SonicWall. 

I come from a system integrator background, we first understand the customer's requirements before suggesting a firewall. Sometimes we aggressively push SonicWall because the user's requirements are more aligned with SonicWall. That's how we propose solutions.

It is very easy to install, not that complicated.

The complexity and time depend on the customer's requirements.

No maintenance: In the past two months, we haven't faced anything that required replacements on the firewall.

Pricing is good. The price is very reasonable for enterprise customers.

It offers average pricing. Previously, I worked as a system integrator, and we faced some cross-product environments where Check Point was quite costly compared to the product we were working with.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use the Check Point Next Generation Firewall for whitelisting and blacklisting of addresses. It's part of our identity management solution and is utilized for inbound and outbound traffic services. 

Additionally, it is integrated with our DMZ, managing traffic from an IP addressing scheme. We also use it for monitoring different types of classified and nonclassified applications.

Check Point has improved our organization's ability to manage both classified and nonclassified applications securely, ensuring they pass through multiple layers of security within our firewall infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features is the ability to whitelist and blacklist sources to control access to our ecosystem, ensuring secured SaaS application access. It provides robust security across classified and nonclassified applications and integrates well with our existing infrastructure.

The graphical user interface (GUI) could benefit from some updates, although it is generally satisfactory in its current form.

The solution is stable, and I have the utmost confidence in its software stability.

The application is very scalable, allowing us to manage security across different network layers and support various applications and activities.

Customer support quality depends on the person you interact with. However, the support team we engaged was knowledgeable and well-versed with the application, allowing us to resolve any potential issues effectively.

Positive

We switched to Check Point due to cost and maintenance benefits. The previous solutions required significant resources to handle network and communication alignment during upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward, with no significant issues arising from the box configuration.

Our implementation team comprised about thirty individuals, including supervisors for each stage, to manage testing, validation, staging, and production.

We conducted a detailed analysis and determined a high return on investment. Maintenance and stability were key factors contributing to a favorable ROI.

We found the pricing reasonable, ensuring the product was not overpriced. However, I am not familiar with the exact cost details.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others for its robust security and scalability.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We needed stateful inspection, logging, integration with Active Directory, and the ability to monitor devices using standard SNMP for use cases. Now, with the tool's Skyline product and OpenTelemetry, we can monitor it through Prometheus and Grafana. It has all the features we needed when we certified the solution.

Integration with Active Directory, IPS, standard VPN, and the firewall itself are the most valuable features for us. We haven't yet certified or aren't using Application Control, anti-bot, or anti-virus features.

Significant improvements have been made in the product. I started working with the R65 code and then upgraded to R74.40. When they transitioned from R77.30 to R80.x, they made major back-end modifications, switching from a flat file system to Solaris and Postgres. This was a big step that neither customers nor their support staff were fully prepared for.

Now, they're adding more features due to the increased flexibility of the new back-end. The main improvement I'd suggest is better preparation when introducing new features. Before releasing, they must train their support staff to troubleshoot these new features. The transition from R77.30 to R80.x was problematic due to a lack of preparation by Check Point, customers, and support.

Sizing is crucial, but we've never had issues with the products we've sized for each environment. The Maestro solution provides a lot of flexibility. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest scalability, I'd rate it a ten.

I use Palo Alto firewalls. Check Point NGFW was the first to invent the stateful inspection firewall. They focus more on security and try to keep their motto of "keep security simple". They don't get bogged down in marketing or complicated terminology when using their products.

Even enabling a firewall blade on Palo Alto requires learning about different sync ports, how sync ports differ between chassis, and navigating through multiple GUI tabs for configuration. It's not as straightforward.

On the other hand, Check Point NGFW has kept things very simple for deployment. You set it up once, and then you can repeat the same process repeatedly.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate the initial setup as ten. The process is straightforward: you rack and stack, configure the management code, create a standard policy, establish SIC, and push the policy. This process has remained consistent over the years.

For deployment, it took us longer than the typical two weeks because we had to design solutions for different scenarios. Check Point offers various options, such as clustering solutions, Maestro solutions, and standalone solutions. We had different use cases—some required standard clusters with ClusterXL, while others needed scalability solutions like Maestro. We also had to factor in sizing considerations.

The certification process took about the same amount of time as other products. We've been using the Maestro solution for a while now, so when new platforms are released, there isn't much change required beyond certifying the new hardware and ensuring backward compatibility with our certified solution.

Initially, it took a little more than two weeks to certify. However, the actual deployment still follows the same standard process and is actually easier now than it was in the past.

We call the team responsible for deploying certified solutions to the service delivery team. It's made up of two groups: build services and service delivery. The build services team works with our networking team to ensure our network and peering devices are set up right to host the firewall.

The service delivery team focuses more on the firewall itself. We need about three or four extra people from build services for firewall deployment. They act as go-betweens with the network team, ensuring our firewall solution works well with the peering devices when we put it in place. The build services team is important because they ensure everything fits together properly when we set up our firewall.

For maintenance, the solution is pretty stable. We have a global team, but a separate team handles regular firewall changes and daily operations. For support, we have about ten people total - three groups of three people each. This team manages around 1200 firewalls, including Check Point and Palo Alto devices.

Check Point NGFW is much cheaper than other platforms, including Palo Alto. Its scalability, especially with the Maestro solution, is a big advantage. If you're looking for good security at a reasonable price with a good return on investment, I believe Check Point NGFW is the way to go.

I've been dealing with Check Point NGFW for my entire career. I started with their Stateful Inspection feature. The term "Next Generation Firewall" is just marketing. Check Point's UTM product was designed from the ground up with next-generation features. They have a feature called Blaze. Besides stateful inspection firewalls and VPNs, they offer IPS, application control, URL filtering, antivirus, and antibot. You can also integrate it with third-party tools like Active Directory for authentication. This combination of features is what's called a next-generation firewall.

Other vendors use terms like app ID or user ID. They focus less on ports and more on ensuring services match their intended use. For example, if port 22 is enabled, it should be for SSH service, not something else. We use both Check Point NGFW and other products. I think if you commit to one vendor's approach, it can be hard to switch late.

The primary use case of many organizations is to protect their environments from outside cyber threats across multiple layers of infrastructure. For example:

1. At a perimeter level, it protects the network at the parameter; many organizations use this firewall.

2. It provides scalability and seamless traffic flow in a network. 

3. It has all-in-one next-generation features, so many organizations save money using this firewall.

Check Point NGFW helps in many ways, including:

1. Using the application filter feature, I can block all the unwanted applications which are not used in the organization. Due to this, less bandwidth is used in the network. This leads to a cost cut in the ISP bill. 

2. With the help of URL filtering, I can block very easily. If this is not blocked, users may surf malicious websites or download malicious files.                             

3. Evaluation licensing helps us to conduct POCs and explain all features to customers. 

I love the application filter, as the user cannot access any applications that are not relevant to them. This reduces the likelihood that someone may access an application that contains a malicious link or file that the user may download, which in turn reduces ransomware attacks and DDoS attacks.

They just need to improve the technical support and professional services in India. We have received many complaints about them from clients and also face the same issue ourselves. 

For the past one and half years I have been using Check Point Firewall for security.

We have a good impression of stability. 

The performance is very good; there is no issue with performance.

I've only deployed Check Point Firewalls and have used other older Check Point devices that reached EoL.

The initial set up is simple. Users just need to run the wizard to set up, and they are done.

I deployed the solution for many customers in the banking sector.

Costing and licensing are high as compared to other OEMs.

I mostly work on Check Point; others which I have evaluated include Cisco and Fortigate.

Mostly enterprise customers use it for their system security as their main firewall. For example, some customers have multiple backup connections, including fiber connections, for redundancy. 

They use Check Point as the main firewall, and others use it for email scanning and file scanning to detect any vulnerabilities.

The firewall scanning, like antivirus scanning and malware scanning, are very good. Blocking the user is also very easy. If you want to block a user, we can just do it within the solution.

The reporting is quite easy and good, and you can see traffic in real-time. But compared to Sophos, Sophos is still better. There are still areas in Check Point that need to be improved.

It's actually quite good, but the only problem we faced was during COVID when people wanted to work from home. 

We had to use third-party software to give users access because the Check Point option didn't work as expected. So we used Check Point in the front, but we used third-party software for the virtualization of the applications and everything.

When using redundant connections, sometimes there are issues like one connection going down and switching to another connection. Also, breaking rules can be complicated. 

For example, if you want to make a rule for a specific connection, like assigning some users to one ISP and other users to another ISP, you have to use another device, like a third-party firewall intervention and routing, to get the desired results. Other than that, it's good performance-wise.

I've been working with Check Point for the past six or seven years. We always work with the latest version.

It's very stable. No issues there.

It's scalable.

Our clients have raised questions to technical support. They all have accounts, so we give them the login details. They send an email to support and get a support request. But normally, we try to handle everything on our own. 

If there's something we can't handle, like a firmware-level issue, only then do we get support from Check Point.

It depends on the client requirements also. Some government agencies need Check Point, and some clients need others like Cisco or Sophos. After Cisco, a lot of clients have changed to Sophos. So, we provide solutions depending on the client's requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward, just like any other normal firewall. 

• Deployment strategy: 

The deployment process depends on the client. For example, if it's an existing customer with an existing firewall, we first see what their current requirements are from the existing firewall, what they need to implement but cannot, or what challenges they are having. 

Then we compare the features of the existing firewall and Check Point firewall, and we tell them what the rules will be, like incoming and outbound rules. We try to see what is the fastest way, without any downtime, how we can point or configure the checkpoint. 

Then, after that, we do the testing, because almost all of the offices need that. So, normally, once we set it up, we give them one month for testing. Normally, for a better line or something, we just use a certain IT department or a sub-department for testing. After that, if it's okay, we hand it over.

In a nutshell:

Requirement Analysis →  Feature Comparison  → Rule Definition → Testing and Validation → Phased Rollout → Client Acceptance

• Deployment time: 

Normally, for a site, more or less, less than one month. It depends on the number of users. If there are a very large number of users, like 600,000, then it will take around one month or more.

• Deployment resources: 

Normally, we have two technicians working. One is from the Philippines, trained in Sophos and Check Point. We don't need many more staff for the implementation.

• Maintenance: 

It's very easy. Only the licensing. Every year, we have to pay, but sometimes clients talk about the cost. Also, very recently, there was a ransomware issue. The only issue is, for example, if it's ransomware, and it doesn't get detected by Check Point and gets infected from another source, we have to prove that it's not from the outside but from the inside. Because there are a lot of case scenarios like this, those are the things mostly.

• Integration capabilities: 

Integration is a little bit challenging. It's much easier for integration with other applications and domains. When integrating with a domain, there are still some small issues. For example, when applying a group from the domain controller, we sometimes need to test a firewall and do some reporting. There are small issues like that for the integration of LDAP. Other than that, it's good. It can pull up the users and groups, but there are some minor issues when we apply them.

It's effective and good.

Compared to Sophos and others, Check Point pricing is good for the current market.

In terms of features, Check Point and other firewalls are almost the same. There are no special or advanced features.

I can recommend it to other people. Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

My customer is one of the big banks in Bangladesh, and they use the solution to protect themselves from malware.

The solution's most valuable feature is CDR (content disarm and reconstruction). The Infiniti Portal feature helps manage the firewall and get a proper report, which is required for management. Capacity and Maestro are good features that can produce better firewall speed.

I want better (DPI) Deep Packet Inspection in Check Point NGFW. The solution should include some behavioral features to detect the malware smartly.

Check Point NGFW is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability nine and a half out of ten.

Around 20 small and medium businesses are using the solution. The solution's scalability is really good. It has a feature called Maestro, which can increase bandwidth by three terabytes.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution provides good technical support.

Positive

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is not a cheap solution. Customers often need to pay a premium for its services.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a good firewall. You can mount it into your firewall in every country and have the report. You can find out how good it is. Customers can change this firewall or determine the efficiency of other firewalls, including Check Point. After 15 days, they can see the report, which is a good feature.

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

We use Check Point NGFW as our data center and branch location firewalls.

The solution is robust and can handle heavy workloads and user traffic well. The product is good. 

The tool's support is lacking. We find almost all its features useful, except for some challenges with VPN.

I have been working with the product for ten years. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 5000 users. 

The initial setup can be complex, especially for BGP configurations. I'd rate it a five out of ten for ease of setup. It's neither too hard nor too easy - it depends on your requirements. We deployed it on-premises. The initial deployment of our enterprise-grade device took about three months. We need about two people for maintenance, mainly for operational changes when needed.

We mostly did the deployment ourselves, with some professional services support from Check Point. Three to four people were involved in the deployment, including one from Check Point to validate our work.

The Harmony bundle is interesting, with many new features, but we're not evaluating it much as we're moving to FortiGate. We're not planning to increase the usage of Check Point NGFW. We're looking into SD-WAN and moving towards FortiGate.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.