Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

We use the solution as a perimeter and OT demarcation firewall. As we are a large utility company with a distributed network, Check Point plays a vital role in terms of network segmentation. Specifically, we need identity-aware authentication to give us the best VPN compared to other players in the market. 

Centralized management is a major plus of Check Point, which provides us with a better user experience. 

We use it to safeguard our office network on a routine basis. These firewalls protect against external threats, manage VPN access for remote users, and address various security scenarios. 

Our primary focus involves malware prevention, intrusion detection, and ensuring robust security measures to shield our office network from potential cyber threats originating from the internet. It serves as a traditional yet effective security system, providing comprehensive protection against hackers and potential risks associated with internet usage.

Check Point has a Purpose fit solution for our environment A lot of things need to be improved in Check Point NGFW. 

For example, their support team isn't very efficient and useful. The solution itself isn't easy to learn, making it hard for support to provide solutions. The design makes it so pockets (specific teams) have to work together when there's an issue, which creates a mess. Also, Check Point lacks competitive capabilities like SD-WAN and CGM app integration. 

Visibility needs improvement. For example, Fortinet shows all connected devices with IP addresses, MAC addresses, and sometimes usernames. More granular detail is crucial for security. 

Support efficiency, visibility, and adding competitive capabilities are key areas for improvement.

The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users. 

The Cleanup Rule's ability to discard unwanted traffic and the inclusion of default Autonomous Threat Prevention Profiles does simplify security measures; we're able to cater to various deployment scenarios. 

I was impressed by how easy it was to activate blades and implement them on a security gateway. 

The Smart Console's efficient user interface ensures that the changes to the policy are swiftly made. We're also able to maintain proper audit logs.

The solution requires improvements in the following areas:

- Having the Zone Alarm and the standalone endpoint VPN become compatible products. 

- Having Smart Console in-place upgrades with IP/fingerprint retention 

- A Mac version of the Smart Console.

- Streamlining of the endpoint solution and deployment options.

I've used the solution for ten years.

Technical support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented the solution through a vendor. They offered excellent support.

We use the product for safeguarding our office network on a routine basis. These firewalls protect against external threats, manage VPN access for remote users, and address various security scenarios. 

Our primary focus involves malware prevention, intrusion detection, and ensuring robust security measures to shield our office network from potential cyber threats originating from the internet. 

It serves as a traditional yet effective security system, providing comprehensive protection against hackers and potential risks associated with internet usage.

A lot of things need to be improved in Check Point NGFW. For example, their support team isn't very efficient and useful. The solution itself isn't easy to learn, making it hard for support to provide solutions. The design makes it so pockets (specific teams) have to work together when there's an issue, which creates a mess. 

Also, Check Point lacks competitive capabilities like SD-WAN and CGM app integration. And visibility needs improvement. For example, Fortinet shows all connected devices with IP addresses, Mac addresses, and sometimes usernames. More granular detail is crucial for security. 

Support efficiency, visibility, and adding competitive capabilities are key areas for improvement.

The product offers a robust and intuitive experience, catering to the essential needs of users. 

The Cleanup Rule's ability to discard unwanted traffic and the inclusion of default Autonomous Threat Prevention Profiles simplifies security measures, catering to various deployment scenarios. I was impressed by how easy it was to activate blades and implement them on a security gateway, with the process taking less than five minutes. 

Additionally, the Smart Console's clear and efficient user interface ensures that the changes to the policy are swiftly made, with the added benefit of maintaining proper audit logs.

Places for improvement include:

• Having a Zone Alarm and the standalone endpoint VPN that become compatible products.
• Having a Smart Console in-place upgrades with IP/fingerprint retention.
• Offering a Mac version of Smart Console.
• Integration of CPview and things like fw accel stat in the monitoring blade.
• No more legacy SmartDashboard for some features.
• Streamlining of the endpoint solution and deployment options and also offering the possibility to convert shared policy to unified policy when you run R80.X via some sort of wizard in a layer or so. This is a classical case for people who upgraded their R77 management.
• Offering a fixed deployment schedule for accumulator hotfixes. This would help us foresee maintenance windows in organizations with rigid change management procedures.
• Finding a way to restore the object search like in R77, where you could find any part of an object name and not a word in the object.
• Scheduling policy pushes in Smart Console.

I've used the solution for ten years.

Our customers primarily use it to safeguard their organization's network against malicious activities and closely monitor user internet usage. The key objectives include implementing controls on web and application usage to restrict unwanted activities among users.

The primary advantage stems from the precision of the application engines. Customers can rest assured that unwanted infiltrations into their organizations are unlikely due to the advanced nature of the IAV engines. The algorithms employed are notably stringent, and while they may not be publicly disclosed, they play a crucial role in thoroughly scanning all incoming network traffic. Leveraging this technology, customers can swiftly and effectively protect their LAN network with Check Point.

Its most significant strength lies in its superior threat detection engines.

I would highlight the need for enhancements in technical support services.

I have been working with it for four months.

I found it to be reliable and stable.

It provides good scalability. In total, we are responsible for around three hundred and fifty endpoints.

Our experience with their customer support is not very satisfactory. We've encountered an incident at one of our customer sites, and despite reaching out for support and raising the issue with them, we haven't received a satisfactory solution from the support team in the past three months. I would rate it three out of ten.

Negative

Compared to other vendors such as FortiGate and Kaspersky, Check Point's protection engines stand out for their intuitiveness. However, the drawback lies in the pricing.

In our deployment process, there are two methods available: standard and distributed. The predominant choice in our country is the standard deployment, utilized by approximately ninety-two to ninety-five percent of our customers. In the standard deployment approach, a separate server is configured with three ports, situated between the firewall and the switch. Configurations are not directly applied to the firewall; instead, they are made on the server. After completing the configurations on the server, the changes, such as creating new firewall rules, are not immediately connected to the firewall. Instead, they go through the server, where calculations are performed, and the configured rules are loaded. If a misconfiguration is detected, the server notifies us, highlighting any inaccuracies in the rules or policies. This preventive measure helps avoid applying flawed configurations directly to the firewall. Regarding the ISMP modules, I believe a single individual is sufficient. Given some time for research, this person should be able to deploy it efficiently for me. The deployment time varies depending on the configurations. Maintenance primarily involves updating the firmware; aside from that, there are no additional requirements.

The greatest value is evident when an immediate threat targets your organization. Check Point firewalls excel in preventing such attacks, thanks to their highly advanced protection engines.

It is a notably expensive product in our country compared to FortiGate and other servers. The support services, licenses, and the additional requirement for another license to avail 24/7 support from Check Point contribute to its overall higher cost.

My recommendation is to allocate time for thorough research when working with it. Relying solely on their support may not be sufficient. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

For Check Point, the main cases are just perimeter security, network security, basically detecting threats on the network, antivirus, application control, visibility, login, and data threat prevention.

I like the GUI. In terms of functionality, it used to be the detection capability. Check Point has good security intelligence, which helps detect threats. They have the historical background to do that. But now, Fortinet is a bit better. 

A lot of things need to be improved in Check Point NGFW. One, their support team isn't very efficient and useful. 

The solution itself isn't easy to learn, making it hard for support to provide solutions. The design makes it so pockets (specific teams) have to work together when there's an issue, which creates a mess.

Also, Check Point lacks competitive capabilities like SD-WAN and CGM app integration. And visibility needs improvement. For example, Fortinet shows all connected devices with IP addresses, MAC addresses, and sometimes usernames. More granular detail is crucial for security.

So support efficiency, visibility, and adding competitive capabilities are key areas for improvement.

I have been with Check Point for a very long time. So, it has been almost six years.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. There is room for improvement here. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. My customers are mostly medium-sized businesses, but my clientele also includes enterprises.

There is room for improvement in the customer service and support. 

Neutral

I'm heavily biased towards Fortinet. Check Point is a direct competitor, so from my experience, it's a decent firewall. There are strong points and weak points, but Fortinet is superior for various reasons.

The initial setup is really straightforward. The GUI is very good. However, the issue I have is with the stability. In terms of simplicity, I don't consider Check Point to be a straightforward solution. Another point to mention is my experience in planning within customer environments. The outcomes are not always as expected. 

For instance, when setting up Check Point firewall and flat policies, the policies didn't take effect immediately. There was a situation where the policies took effect after about two hours. Such instances were mind-boggling. Regarding VPN issues, when implementing IP protection between Check Point and other vendors, remote access can be challenging.

In Nigeria, it's predominantly on-premises. Many organizations are moving towards cloud, but many others use a hybrid approach, both on-premises and in the cloud. 

A few are using Check Point in the cloud, but most test with Fortinet due to easier integration with public cloud providers like Microsoft. Public cloud vendors also have their own firewalls, like Microsoft and AWS. In terms of adoption, Check Point is behind in cloud adoption in Nigeria.

Overall, the process is very fast and depends on the type of deployment. For example, replacing a Cisco firewall with Check Point requires converting policies, which can take quite a while, depending on the size of the policy base. In my personal experience, setting up Check Point was very quick.

It's reasonably priced, but competitors offer much cheaper options. It's market-related, so the pricing makes sense for what Check Point offers.

My recommendation is to consider Fortinet as an alternative. Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten. There's room for improvement, especially since Check Point doesn't seem too focused on our region. 

In Nigeria, procuring the firewall and bundled services like technical account management and professional services can be challenging. The service delivery is not as efficient as one would expect, which wouldn't be the case for a European customer.

Check Point NGFW needs to run marketing events. They have also to set up a support center in India. 

I have been working with the product for 12 years. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's initial deployment a nine out of ten. 

Check Point NGFW is expensive. 

We have customers from medium and corporate enterprises. I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The primary use case is to enhance security by safeguarding the internet connection for both servers and users.

Its greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, making it exceptionally suitable and reliable for managing gateways.

When it comes to Check Point's small business gateway series, there might be a need for hardware upgrades, as configuring them can sometimes be a bit challenging.

I have been working with it for two years.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

Seeking solutions from them can be quite challenging and often takes a while, which then impacts our workload. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have some experience with Juniper, WatchGuard, Cisco, and Fortinet.

The initial setup is relatively complex.

Deployment duration varies based on the customer's specific conditions. On average, an installation might take around twenty minutes.

The best solutions tend to come with a higher price tag. If something is inexpensive, it often implies a compromise in quality. The solution is indeed costly. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since the solution serves as a firewall and functions on a DMZ network while also providing public-facing services. I serve my company's customers as a firewall administrator.

My company's customers have benefited from the solution's performance, especially when dealing with a huge amount of traffic. Check Point is a well-known name in the security industry that opts for functionalities like signature-based detection and beyond.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the Quantum Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). I also like the solution's functionality, like autonomous threat prevention.

The complexity involved in the solution's initial setup phase and deployment process is an area of concern where improvement is required.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two years. I work as the solution's integrator. Speaking about the version, I use Check Point Quantum 6400 Next Generation Firewalls.

So far, I haven't faced any issues related to the solution's stability.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

If I take into consideration my company's customers who use the solution, then I would have to say that there are around 300 to 400 users.

I have availed the services provided by the solution's technical support. My company engages with the solution's local partner to avail the services provided by Check Point's technical support team.

Compared to Palo Alto and Fortinet, Check Point provides good internal performance, especially for big-scale enterprises and entities, making it a tool that is not just suitable for SMEs or mid-sized companies. Check Point is, however, pricier than other solutions.

The initial setup of Check Point NGFW is quite complex. When it comes to the product's setup phase, the engineer should understand the product, and instead of understanding the firewall, it is important to know how to manage or be an admin.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution's deployment is complex.

My company's customers have seen a return on investment from the use of Check Point NGFW.

I rate the pricing of Check Point NGFW a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price.

I take care of the solution's maintenance part, and I feel that it is a straightforward process.

Check Point NGFW is good for big companies.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a solid, up-to-date solution that helps protect the network infrastructure, resolving unauthorized access, attacks, and access to the infrastructure by cyber attackers.

We've been pleased to use Check Point's security tool.

To shield our perimeter, we decided to acquire a security manufacturer that would provide its gateway security applications both on-premise and in Microsoft Azure, for which Check Point, with its GW tool, fulfilled what was required to improve perimeter security.

Check Point NGFW gives us granular security with its intuitive policies, application control, monitoring, logs, and a wide range of blades that can be purchased and included in this tool, providing a more integrated and centralized security to improve infrastructure protection.

With this, we can use S2S VPNs to communicate with other sites. We can monitor and protect with Check Point.

There are several ways to implement it. In our case, we use an HA solution, a Check Point cluster that safely provides us with work continuity.

The characteristic that has caught our attention the most is its easy implementation in Microsoft Azure. Under a template, the tool can be provisioned with the best practices. Its licensing can be BYOL or PAYG through Microsoft Azure where it can be licensed on a monthly basis.

The different implementation options create wide variability for users.

This security tool is also up-to-date against the most modern threats, constantly being updated globally to provide intelligence accumulated by other devices worldwide to combat computer insecurity.

The tool is somewhat more expensive than its competitors. It could equalize the costs a little to be able to be more competitive.

On the other hand, Check Point documentation does not always help easy implementation for new users or amateurs in the security field.

Finally, the support must be improved. They need to improve times and schedules and solve both in local applications and in the cloud. Sometimes a solution is extended in the newest tools. Sometimes it is better to investigate one on your own than to wait for a Check Point solution.

We have used this Check Point NGFW for about three consecutive years. We have improved the technical capacity of the staff to use it. It's an excellent tool.

We used Cisco and Fortinet as tests. Check Point seems more robust.

A Check Point vendor is necessary to be able to address licensing properly.

I'd recommend carefully validating the documentation and carrying out test environments before implementing NGFW solutions in production to see the pros and cons that are generated in your infrastructure.

We evaluated various options, including security upgrades, performance, and Gartner ratings, to make the decision.

It is an expensive tool. It's very good and effective. If you have the option or facility to acquire it, I recommend you try it first and you will love it.