Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

The primary use is to protect the organization from any kind of attack. It is able to isolate, secure, and control every device on the network at all times. Solutions should have the ability to block infected devices from accessing corporate data and assets.

It provides access to the Internet for corporate resources in a secure manner. Our resources are used to host applications and services that are accessible to end-users over the Internet.

It is used to provide required/limited access for third parties who want to connect to our corporate network. Access is granted based on application type and should be independent of port or protocol.

It provides next-generation protection including IPS/Web Filtering/SSL decryption and more. 

It offers centralized policy management capabilities for all firewalls.

This solution was able to provide access to our internet-based resources using our application/FQDN.

The license offers different modules for NGTP and SNBT. It provides multiple functionality or blades, which can be enabled on the firewall depending upon organizational requirements.

Other than stateful packet filtering with the NGTP license, it provides blades such as IPS/URL/VPN/Application Control/content awareness/Anti-Bot/Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam. With SNBT, it provides additional security using the SandBlast Threat Emulation and SandBlast Threat Extraction for Zero-day attacks in real-time.

Any file, before it reaches an endpoint, is executed in a virtual environment for analysis. Based on the verdict and configured policy, a decision will be made as to whether it should be delivered to the endpoint or not.

It provides the flexibility to use any module with the NGTP and SNBT license. Depending upon the requirements, the blades/module can be enabled on the firewall security gateway and it can be deployed easily.

In case SSL decryption or IPS need to be enabled on any security gateway, it is simple to do. We can go ahead and enable the module/blade and then create a policy, deploy it, and it will start to work.

It has a default five-user license for Mobile/SSL VPN, so the organization can check the solution any time or can even provide access to critical users on an as-needed basis, without getting the OEM involved, all on the same box.

For smaller organizations with the correct sizing of the appliance, they can use the full security solution on a single box. It will provide financial benefits along with reducing the cost of purchasing additional solutions or appliances. 

For example:

• URL Filtering Module: It can replace the proxy solution for on-premises users with integration of application control and the Identity module. Active Directory access can be provided based on the User ID and the website or application.
• SSL VPN or SSL decryptor, and more. 
  
• Core assignment for each interface, which can be done using the CLI. If the administrator determines that a particular interface requires more compute, he can manually assign additional cores accordingly. This is done by enabling hyperthreading on the firewall. 
• The policy can be copied from any security gateway and pasted onto another one.

This is a zone-based firewall, which differs from other firewall solutions available on the market. It changes the way the admin manages firewall policy. The administrator has to be careful while defining policy because it can lead to configuration errors, allowing unwanted access.

For example, if a user needs to access the internet on the HTTPS port, then the administrator has to create a policy as below, rather than using NAT for assigning the user's machine to a public IP.

Source: User machine
Destination: any
Port: HTTPS
Action: allow (for allowing the user's machine access)

This has to be done along with the below policy:

Source: User machine
Destination: Other Zone created on Firewall
Port: HTTPS
Action: block 

The two policies, together, mean that the user's machine will not be able to communicate with any other L3 Network created on the firewall.

The firewall throughput or performance reduces drastically after enabling each module/blade.

It does not provide for standalone configuration on the security gateway. Instead, you need to have a management server/smart console for managing it. This can be deployed on a dedicated server or can be deployed on the security gateway itself.

I have been using the Check Point NGFW for more than eight years.

This solution is very much stable and does not require frequent changes in architecture. The patch frequency is limited and it does not require frequent maintenance windows in terms of downtime.

This firewall is very much scalable. The introduction of Maestro has changed the concept of hyperscaling.  

The technical support is excellent. The center is located in major cities in India along with the Check Point presales team.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have been using Check Point for a long time.

During the initial setup, support is excellent. It is a well-known OEM and they have people ready to resolve any issue that should arise.

Our in-house team deployed it with support from the OEM.

Cost-wise, it cheaper than industry leaders such as Palo Alto. The licensing is straightforward; there are only three types of licenses that include NGFW, NGTP, and SNBT, so the organization can choose its license according to their requirements.

We have evaluated solutions by Juniper, Cisco, and Palo Alto.

Before implementing the security gateway, you need to be sure about the license and modules that you are going to enable. This includes determining the proper size, as it can affect throughput drastically after enabling each module. This is especially true for SSL decryption.

The architecture needs to be studied before finalizing, as the configuration is done remotely using the centralized smart console. All of the security gateways need to be connected to the management server for any policy configuration, and they should be available at all times.

I work as an internal network team member. We protect the company environment from outside threats, outside viruses, and ransomware attacks. It is kind of an IT administrator job.

They are protecting internal security as well as giving us security from the outside world or public environment. 

It protects the environment. It gives advanced features to our company, like Antivirus, more granular security policies, and more control over the traffic, e.g., what we want to allow or deny to our environment. 

What I like about this firewall is it has a central management system. We can configure or monitor a number of firewalls at a time from the central management system. 

They have a logging system where we can have our logs visible. The logs are easy to view and understand. 

While the logs are very good and easy to understand, when you want to download these customized logs, they don't have as many features compared to competitive firewalls. 

Check Point has a very good Antivirus feature. However, compared to the competition in the market, it is lacking somewhere. In my last organization, I worked with Palo Alto Networks as well. I found that while they both have an antivirus feature, the Palo Alto antivirus feature is much better. Check Point should improve this feature. It is a good feature, but compared to Palo Alto, it lacks.

I have been using it for the last three years, since 2017.

Check Point is already a very big name in the market. Our software updates, even the Antivirus updates, are very stable in the market. There are no problems with its stability.

Performing maintenance for a solution takes around 12 people. Maintenance is something that our team is capable of. Internally, we have had many training sessions on Check Point Firewall. Our seniors have managed that for us so we are capable of doing it. Most of our BAU is done by us.

Scalability is very easy. I haven't found anything that is the issue with the scalability of this firewall. If you have complete knowledge of it, the scalability is not tough.

I used their assistance many times. The experience with them is sometimes very good. They give the best solution in a short amount of time. Two out of 10 times, I feel that they are only looking to close their tickets. They are keen to do that. My personal experience with the support is an eight out of 10.

We currently use Check Point and Cisco ASA. The purpose for the company is to increase the security. They were only using Cisco ASA Firewall, which is kind of a degrading firewall right now because it lacks many features, which are advanced in Check Point Firewall. With Cisco ASA, we need to purchase additional IPS hardware. But, for Check Point, we do not require that. Also, if we want the same configuration for multiple firewalls at a time, then Cisco ASA does not support that. We have to create the same policy in each firewall.

We have our own on-premises firewalls, not cloud-based. The production time took around nine to 12 months' time. The setup was completed during this time.

We follow the three-tier architecture for this firewall, which is also recommended by Check Point. We have the central management device as well as the web console and firewall.

For the deployment process, there were only four senior network engineers involved from our company.

It is easy to control from the central management system. For example, if we have 10 firewalls, and we want to push that same configuration among them, we can use this solution's central management system to do that simultaneously. So, there is time saving in that way. The time savings does depend on the situation. For example, if I am running half an hour of work on each firewall, that will take around 300 minutes. However, if I do this work from the central management system, then it will only take 30 minutes to push the same configuration to those same 10 devices.

They sell it in one box. In that one box, they sell Antivirus and Threat Prevention. They have everything, so we are not required to purchase additional IPS hardware for it.

The cost of the pricing and licensing are okay. They are giving me a good product as far as I know. It is more expensive than Cisco, but cheaper than Palo Alto, which is fine. It has many good features, so it deserves a good price as well.

I have experience with Palo Alto Networks Firewalls and Cisco ASA Firewall. Compared to these solutions, Check Point has a very good, understandable log viewer. It is easy to view and understand the logs, which helps a lot while doing troubleshooting or making new security policies for the organization. Also, it is very easy to create new security policy rules.

The Check Point Antivirus feature lacks in comparison to Palo Alto Networks. Also, compared to other competitive solutions, the training for Check Point available right now is very expensive as well as the certification is little expensive.

Get properly trained. When I entered this organization, I struggled with this firewall. There are very few good quality training programs available in the market. Or, if it is available, then it is very expensive. So, I advise new people to get properly trained because it has many feature sets, and if they do not use them with the proper knowledge, then it could worsen their situation.

I am happy with the organization's progress, as they work hard on their product. It is a good lesson from a personal level: We should work hard and improve ourselves. 

I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.

We use Check Point firewalls to secure our internal network from the outside world and to provide a good, comfortable, and secure environment for our employees.

We have various models from the R80 series, such as the R80.10 and the R80.30.

Before, we were using firewalls from Palo Alto. The benefit of the Check Point firewall is that it has more security features. It has antivirus signatures and additional features for which we should require additional hardware devices in the firewall. It also gives us a central management system, which was not present in the Cisco ASA.

Check Point's Next Generation Firewall has many good features. It has a central management system, and that means we do not have to go to each and every firewall to configure it. We can manage them with the central device. 

There are also additional features, compared to a Layer 4 or Layer 3 firewall, such as AV signatures and devices, which are very helpful for securing the company's network.

The only thing which I think should be improved is that training should be increased. In my position I also interview potential employees and I haven't found many people in the market, nowadays, who are familiar with the Check Point firewall. They are more familiar with Palo Alto and Cisco ASA and they are more comfortable with them. Check Point is one of the good firewalls and training should be increased by the company so that more people are familiar with it and with their switches.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for the last three-and-a-half years.

The stability is very good. The updates we get for the antivirus and the URL filtering sites are also very nice and happen very often. That is a good thing because there are various new attacks coming out but we get their updates on time. 

In terms of the scalability, it is very easy to extend the utilization of Check Point firewalls. We did so in the past. We extended our environment in our organization and it was very easy to extend it.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 people who are using the Check Point firewalls directly or indirectly. They are passing their traffic through it. Expansion of our usage completely depends on the organization. If they want to do so they will tell us and, if that happens, we will definitely go for Check Point firewalls.

We have used Check Point TAC to resolve our issues. We have had good support. They have good engineers there.

We were using Palo Alto and Cisco before and we replaced them with Check Points.

We used Palo Alto in a  few of our sites, but we found Palo Alto was more expensive and its updates and services were also more expensive compared to the Check Point firewall.

Cisco is a very basic firewall in the market, and it has a limited set of features, compared to Palo Alto and Check Point. Palo Alto has rich features, but it is one of the more expensive firewalls in the market. The Check Point firewall is not too expensive, but it is also a third-generation firewall.

The drawback of the Check Point firewall is the lack of training materials. That should be increased.

We have a team of seven to eight people who have all installed and configured environments so the initial setup, for us, was a very straightforward process. And these are the people who handle maintenance of the firewall and manage it, during different shifts. They are all network engineers.

It took us between nine and 12 months to do the implementation. We have Check Point hardware so we followed the recommended, three-level architecture, in which there is a SmartConsole, the hardware security gateway firewall, and the central management device.

The pricing is good. It is less than Palo Alto's firewalls. Check Point has the same features as Palo Alto, but the licensing and cost of these firewalls are not too expensive. It is one of the best firewalls in the market in this range.

Check Point firewalls have many features. Before configuring it in an environment, you should know each and every feature of the firewall. You should also follow the three-level hierarchy which is recommended by Check Point.

There are a few add-on features for Check Point firewalls. I only learned that by using the firewalls. I'm very happy with the way Check Point is progressing. They continue to work on their firewalls even after making their name. That is something we should follow in our lives as well: Once we have made our name, we should not stop there. We should further build the reputation of the company and product.

We are very happy with the Check Point firewalls. The only thing missing, as I mentioned earlier, is that training should be increased for the firewall by the organization. Otherwise, we are very happy with investment in this solution.

We require local perimeter security in one of our workshops, which is why we require a new-generation firewall solution. The local equipment works for us to be able to provide perimeter security in our workshop.

Thanks to these Check Point Gateway devices and with the integration of many additional security solutions, we have protection against zero-day threats. In addition, we have the possibility of carrying out all the management from the Infinity security portal and can administer all our policies, view logs, and monitor devices, among other tasks.

Thanks to Check Point, we managed to carry out a better security implementation. By placing one in a workshop, we managed to solve issues with attacks and malware.

The solution is easy to administer thanks to its dashboards. The monitoring is really useful.

The most valuable aspects include:

The best improvements to be considered are:

• Improvements in the time and attention given to solutions for generated cases.
• Licensing that is more comfortable and affordable. Currently, some prices are very expensive.
• In terms of language in the application, they could better facilitate the handling of others.
  

This is an excellent product of the new generation, administered in the Infinity Portal. We have used the product for at least two years.

Previously, we had not carried out verifications of other devices.

I've been dealing with the Check Point environment for over eight years, ever since SPLAT, the R75 versions, and mainly with a multi-domain management (former Provider1) set-up. I also use the Smart Management Server, with a standalone/distributed deployment.

I'm currently engaged in the design, implementation, and maintenance of a large-scale Check Point firewall environment (~100 GWs).

Presently, the customer is using Check Point for perimeter security, IPS, threat prevention, encrypted traffic, as well as access to the internet, and multi-domain server architecture.

The Check Point solution has improved the way the customer organization functions.

People are working within the organization all over the world, across NALA, APAC, and EMEA regions. Having Check Point as a security vendor made it easy to assure people they could access the resources everywhere, from offices, homes, and across the globe, especially during the pandemic, safely.

One of the last implemented projects was replacing an obsolete Client Auth solution with Identity Awareness, including integration to AVD.

The solution plays an important role in preventing security incidents from happening and preventing malicious attempts to infiltrate into the organization while quickly adapting and reacting to any attempts. For example, it protected us against Log4J vulnerability a few months ago.

It is easy to administrate and maintain.

The product is very granular in the Logs & Monitor section and also intuitive to use.

It offers good control and visibility over users' identities and actions.

It provides central policy management, which is easy to manage and maintain.

The product offers great performance tuning features like SecureXL, CoreXL, HyperThreading, and Multi-Queue.

The study material and training need to be improved and become more accessible to security engineers working with Check Point.

Needs serious skills for advanced troubleshooting. The configuration might get a little bit too complex for regular engineers, compared with easy administration.

We've encountered a few limitations when trying to accomplish simple tasks required by customers. For example, changing a domain name inside an MDS environment or missing a function in the database which removes the domain object completely from the database.

There are plenty of bugs that are not documented, or with too generic error messages.

I've used the solution for eight years.

In our logistics setup, we employ Check Point NGFW across various critical areas. For instance, we use it to secure different database applications within our systems, ensuring robust protection for our operations. Whether it is managing updates, maintaining standby reliability, or enhancing system performance, Check Point NGFW plays a vital role in safeguarding our logistics infrastructure.

Using Check Point in our system has provided several benefits. Firstly, it ensures secure access for authorized users while preventing unauthorized access from public users. Secondly, it enables us to monitor application usage closely, identifying any suspicious activity such as repeated failed login attempts. 

Check Point NGFW provides essential security, featuring no-obligation access for secure connections, strong intrusion prevention, and comprehensive antivirus protection.

One area for improvement in Check Point NGFW is the support process. It can be challenging to open a technical support case through the customer portal, often requiring additional steps to open the case.

I have been working with Check Point NGFW since 2015.

We have not experienced any major stability issues with Check Point NGFW.

Check Point NGFW is fairly scalable.

The technical support is decent. I would rate them as an eight out of ten.

Positive

Setting up a new Check Point NGFW is generally straightforward for us. With our experience and familiarity with the process, we can handle it without encountering any significant issues. We are used to creating simulations and implementing improvements, which facilitates the setup process, even at an intermediary level. We usually require two engineers for the deployment process, along with additional resources like network switches, PCs, and testing equipment.

The pricing for Check Point NGFW tends to be higher compared to other options in the market, especially for high-end models. In comparison with enterprise-grade firewalls like Palo Alto, Check Point is among the more expensive choices.

My recommendation for organizations considering implementing Check Point NGFW is to prioritize selecting high-end models for optimal performance and security. Check Point NGFW offers robust protection for networks and data, allowing businesses to maintain their operations with confidence. Overall, I would rate Check Point NGFW as an eight out of ten.

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.