Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

In today's world, we can't completely rely on traditional signature-based devices, as technology involving cyberattacks is becoming more sophisticated. We require an all-in-one solution that can defend against newly-created attacks, necessitating the usage of NGFW firewalls. This is where Check Point comes into the picture.

Our environment contains multiple roaming users, where we have to extend trust beyond the organizational network. Not only is there east-west traffic to deal with, but a large volume of north-south traffic, as well. We are required to monitor all of the traffic, which includes many branch offices connected centrally.

Monitoring Data via DLP in such a scenario, we require a single solution, which is nothing but Checkpoint.

It has not only improved our environment but the entire organization. Adopting it brings better functionality.

Starting from the basic firewall blade to sandbox threat emulation and threat extraction, it works seamlessly to protect against both known and unknown malware.

After the version 80.xx migration, Check Point stability and security have improved tremendously.

Through the management server, it has become very easy to manage the configuration for each of the blades, as well as the day-to-day operations. With central management, it has become possible to manage endpoint devices as well.

Check Point has the best technical support, which I feel if we consider other firewall vendors in the market, is an important distinguishing point.

Stateful inspection is one of the strongest points in this product, which is applicable while creating policies for application and URL filtering.

Check Point provides dedicated blades to monitor network traffic, which helps while troubleshooting network and packet-related issues.

It is easy to filter traffic based on source-destination services, time, etc, which is an enhancement over other firewalls in the market.

Check Point fulfills our requirements but it is important that they stay on top of competitors by addressing certain points.

There are issues with stability while upgrading devices with hotfixes. For example, many times, a device will stop giving responses after an upgrade (observed in 80.10 release).

The rule database needs to be improved because when we apply rules for the destination, based on service and application and URL filtering Layer, the parallel lookup fails.

I have more than three years of experience with Check Point NGFW.

Stability can be improved further.

Scalability is excellent.

Technical support is very good and provides the right solutions every time. They are highly skilled.

We have seen many customers migrating their firewall from Sophos to Check Point, or from Cisco to Check Point. The main reason has been that they were not getting NGFW functionality and the security feature sets that Check Point provides.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I implemented it with the help of a vendor.

We are definitely getting most of the things that we expect from this product.

Check Point is a vendor that listens to customers and determines what they want. Based on the requirements and the solutions offered by other vendors, Check Point will negotiate to try and give the customer the best price.

Check Point offers options and operates differently from other vendors with respect to licensing. Each blade requires that you have a license.

We also evaluated Palo alto.

I think people like me love Check Point because in my experience over the years, I have not heard of a comprise where Check Point was protecting the network. As long as the devices are configured properly, this is a very small chance of being compromised.

In general, the NGFW features in Check Point fulfill our requirements, which is expected from a Cybersecurity firm that has been involved in the field for a long time. 

We use firewalls to protect our private environment from the public environment. My IT group is in charge of protecting the environment and maintaining safe usage of the internet. This product gives us a better, safer solution for the users within our company. 

Using this solution saves us time because nowadays, there are many malicious sites, as well as other threats and viruses on the internet. As it is now, we are not required to do anything because we have the antivirus and regular updates from Check Point. That is very helpful for us because when new viruses emerge, we just install the new signature and it works to protect us.

What used to take me seven days to do, now takes me only five. However, this is not just a time benefit because it better protects our environment as well. I estimate a 20% to 30% reduction in the number of attacks, compared to before.

I like the antivirus, attack prevention, three-layer architecture, and data center management features.

The antivirus updates are quite frequent, which is something that I like.

Central management is a key feature. We have between five and ten firewalls on-premises, and if we want to configure or push the same configuration to all of the firewalls, then the centralized management system is very helpful. It means that we only have to push the configuration once and it gets published on all of the firewalls.

The level and availability of training should be improved. I have seen people that are not well trained on the Check Point firewall and the reason is simply that the quality of available training is poor compared to that of other firewalls on the market.

The command-line interface (CLI) should be more user-friendly.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for approximately four years, since 2017.

I work on the Check Point firewall five days a week and the stability is very good. In general, the updates to the software and antivirus are very stable. We have not faced any issues.

It is very easy to scale and extend usage. We started with five firewalls and now there are approximately ten. There is not much effort required to scale and it is not very complex.

Directly or indirectly, there are between 2,000 and 3,000 people using it. Whenever their traffic is required to be sent to the internet from the office environment, the traffic passes through the firewall.

We are very happy with our experience with technical support. They are very knowledgeable and the process for resolving tickets or problems is fast. We have had incidents dealt with quickly by their team. 

Prior to Check Point, we were using Cisco ASA and we are still using it today. The reason for implementing Check Point is that we wanted more advanced features. What we found was that after 2017, we needed better protection for our environment, and that is something that comes with advanced firewalls such as Check Point and Palo Alto.

I'm very happy with the Check Point firewall because it includes many features that are missing from Cisco ASA. Also, it offers a better and easier experience.

One of the significant differences is that Cisco ASA does not have a central management system. If we want to configure 10 firewalls with the same configuration, it is not possible to push them all at once. Instead, you have to configure them one by one. Apart from that, the antivirus and threat management need additional hardware because the functionality is not present in Cisco ASA. 

One of the positive points about Cisco ASA is that the training is very good, and it is available on the internet. This makes it easy to use for somebody who is new to the product. This is unlike the case with Check Point, where quality training is not available.

We found the initial setup to be straightforward, as we have many experienced people in our team and they have worked with Check Point firewalls. 

We used the central management functionality a lot, and we initially configured five or six firewalls. It took between six and seven months for the complete deployment.

Our implementation strategy included the three-layer architecture, the centralized management system, the console, and the web UI. We followed the process that was recommended by Check Point.

Our in-house team was in charge of the deployment. We have a team of seven people that work in shifts, and we did all of the work, with some support from Check Point.

Six or seven people in different shifts are required for maintenance. At any given time, we generally work with two or three people during the same shift. I think that two people working at the same time are sufficient.

We have seen ROI and when you consider the features like central management, antivirus, and threat management, it is a good investment.

We did have cost savings, moving to Check Point from Cisco ASA. We required additional hardware devices, such as an IPS solution, antivirus, and threat management. In addition, we needed too many resources because we had so many individual ASA firewalls. There was no central management system, so more staff were required.

Ultimately, with Check Point, we needed fewer people and we also saved on the cost of hardware.

The price of this solution is average; not too high and not too low. It is more expensive than Cisco ASA but cheaper than Palo Alto.

After the first package of licenses, we have not needed to purchase additional ones. When our license expires then we will purchase another one. 

We also evaluated a solution by Palo Alto and we chose Check Point because it was more cost-friendly.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that it is good to see a company like Check Point is continuously working on the quality of their product, and we should learn from that. It is good to improve over time because it is very easy to get into the market, but it is not too easy to sustain. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing this firewall is to ensure that they are trained completely because it is not easy to use. Moreover, there is not much training available online, so you want to have trained with the device. This is a product with many features, which are pros, but these same features can become cons if you are not using it with complete knowledge.

In summary, this is a good product and they have been improving continuously, but there are still some areas to improve.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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 have two clusters. We are using them as both perimeter firewalls and data center firewalls.

In the past few years, we encountered attempted attacks on our company and we succeeded in finding that we were those attacks, or that some user or workstation was communicating with malicious sites. Without the Check Point Next Generation Firewall, we wouldn't have had the tools to identify these things and to remediate the problems.

A firewall is a firewall. It's a Layer 4 machine that blocks or allows traffic for ports. That's the basics and we don't need a next-generation firewall for that. But the features that are important include:

• IPS
• sandbox
• SandBlast
• Anti-Bot
• URL filtering.

A basic firewall is a basic firewall. You don't need Check Point and you don't need Palo Alto or the other vendors to block ports from source to destination. But we need the advanced features of this product to give us the visibility into, and the security and protection from, scenarios that are not the usual source-to-destination attacks. The solution needs to understand what the connection is, what the behavior of the connection is, and what the reason for the connection is. It can't be a stupid machine. It needs to know that if you're allowing port 53 from source to destination, that it has to check and give us the information that this communication is legitimate, and not something that is malicious.

We just upgraded to the latest software version of Check Point so we have a lot of new stuff to learn. The older version had a little bit of a problem with identity awareness and with HTTPS inspection with the visibility of the logs, and the implementing of rules. But as far as I can see now, with the new version, most of the problems were fixed.

In terms of new features, maybe it would help if we could start to manage all the stuff in the cloud and not in the on-prem servers. The management side could also be faster when you install policies. But other than that, I'm satisfied.

I've used Check Point NGFW firewalls for more than eight years.

In all the time I've been using Check Point there have been no major issues or problems. It's a very stable environment and a very stable solution, in my experience.

We have around 600 to 700 endpoints, workstations, points of sale, and mobile devices. We also have about 200 servers, a WiFi environment, and a networking environment that is not small. We have implemented it 100 percent but, because of the Coronavirus, the company itself is not 100 percent capacity.

For now, we have implemented everything that we wanted and the firewalls are working 100 percent. There are no plans in the near future to grow. Of course, if everything goes back to normal, maybe we will grow.

There are no problems for us in terms of scalability because we're not working at full capacity. We designed the new solution to give us the resources that meet our needs for the moment and for the future. There is no problem with scalability and we can add new firewalls, or replace what we have with bigger firewalls. Everything is okay in terms of scalability from our side.

We continue using our partner for resolving problems and doing the changes that we need. That is the way that most vendors are working. First of all you need a partner and then the partner will open up a case with Check Point.

But one of the best things about working with Check Point, especially here in Israel, is that there is a direct line to the support, because we have such a good relationship with them, to speed things up.

The support is fast, professional, and thorough. Those are the most important things when you have a problem. If we need to call for support from either our partner or Check Point, we get a quick response and, usually, a fast resolution of the problem.

We migrated from Check Point to Check Point

It was really pretty straight forward because we upgraded from an older Check Point product. The installation and the assimilation of the new firewall was very quick with almost no downtime and almost no problems.

We deployed four firewalls in two clusters and, all in all, it took about one day of work; half a day for each side. That includes the installation, the configuration, and the exporting of the configuration from the old system and, of course, all the fixes and patches.

On our side there was one person involved in the initial setup, just to make sure that everything was going okay and, after the installation, to do all the checks and verify that everything was working fine and as needed.

We deployed it with the help of a partner, called Spider Solutions, here in Israel. Our experience with them was good. The technician that came here to install the firewalls was professional and thorough. Everything went according to plan, with no issues.

The whole initial setup was done by the partner and our role was more oversight to see that everything was okay and to give the information that was needed to proceed.

The pricing in this category is a jungle, but Check Point was very competitive. They were very forthcoming and agile for our budget needs.

I have checked a few other vendors and solutions but, in the end, Check Point is the best candidate for our organization. That's true technology-wise and because of the support. Because Check Point is an Israeli company, it's very easy to get help very fast. We speak the same language and that helps as well. Doing support in Hebrew is very helpful for us. 

Other vendors were either more expensive or, to get some of the features, we would have had to upgrade to a bigger, stronger, and more expensive machine. But with Check Point, that wasn't the case.

Check this solution and see how it fits with your organization. See how easily you can manage and control the environment. The visibility and the management provided by the product is one of the most important things, other than the security features that the product has. And check the sizing carefully. Check that the machines you're going to buy are sufficient for your current needs and the future needs of your organization.

We use the solution to protect our organization and workers from the outside Internet or any untrusted network.

We have the three-tier architecture of Check Point. We use its consoles, central management system, and firewall device for managing it. This three-tier architecture is recommended by the Check Point Community.

We protect our internal customers using Check Point Firewalls by providing them security as well as detecting vulnerabilities. 

The most valuable feature would be the central management system of Check Point because we can manage multiple firewalls through it at the same time. It doesn't matter the location.

I also like the advanced Antivirus feature of Check Point.

The Threat Management feature makes it very easy to detect the vulnerabilities and other factors. We can make new policy according to it. Policy creation is very simple in Check Point. Because the logs are very good in Check Point Firewall, this reduces our work with the reports that we are getting from the Threat Management. It is very convenient for us to use the reports to make new policies for security and other things.

It is very user-friendly.

The training for Check Point Firewall should increase, including the number of Training Centers. For most new people in our organization, we have to provide them training from our end, as they are not trained in Check Point Firewalls. So, we have to do the training, from our point of view, to make our engineers able to use Check Point Firewalls. However, with other firewalls, they are already trained, so we are not require to provide them training. This could be improved by the Check Point Community.

I have been using it for the past six years.

The Check Point Firewall is stable. 

The updates that we get are also very stable. We haven't found any stability issues in the updates at all. Features, like the Antivirus, are updated with almost every release and done on a frequent basis.

The scalability is very good for Check Point Firewall. It is very easy to increase. For example, during the COVID-19 period, we increased our deployment on an emergency basis, and it was very easy.

My organization has around 4,000 people. 

For Check Point, we have a team of around eight people who manage it. We are basically a team of senior network engineers.

The tech support is very good for Check Point. We get straightforward solutions for it every time, and they do not take a lot of time since we have to resolve the cases quickly in a live environment. So, they are very helpful and capable.

We are also using Cisco ASA, and we have been thinking that we need to go with Cisco or Check Point. At last, we have decided to go with Check Point because of its advanced features.

The initial setup was very straightforward. We didn't have many problems.

The deployment part took around nine to 10 months. We completely planned the deployment before doing it. Since we already installed Check Point Firewall in multiple branches earlier, we used those same plans to configure it.

We didn't require any external help for the deployment. Our R&D and tech were capable of doing it. Our deployment team consisted of six to eight people, working in different shifts, to configure it.

Overall, it is a good cost saving product. We do not have to purchase additional hardware for it, which is a good. This saves us 10 percent in costs compared to Cisco.

The solution saves us about 20 percent in our time, which is substantial.

The price could be decreased, because the competitors of Check Point Firewall are giving lower prices in comparison.

The licensing part is something that is very easy to do in Check Point Firewall. We just need to purchase the license, then we have to write the keys in while installing it. The good thing is that it is an easy process to update the license.

We are also using Cisco ASA and FTD. The problem with Cisco ASA is the GUI is missing, while the GUI is good for Check Point Firewall. Apart from that, in Check Point, there are advanced features, like Antivirus and Threat Management, for which we do not require other hardware, where it is required for Cisco ASA Firewall. So, Check Point provides us a cost savings in that way.

The central management system of Check Point is missing in Cisco ASA. This is a good feature because it saves time. We can use it to manage multiple firewalls through one central management device. It is also easy to use.

We are slowly eliminating Cisco ASA and using more Check Point Firewalls, bringing more Check Point Firewalls into our environment.

I have also used Palo Alto, but the organization is using Check Point because they have more confidence in things like Check Point's stability factor. However, more people are trained to use Palo Alto.

Get good training on Check Point, which is very rare to obtain at this point of time. Before implementing or deploy the product, you should be trained properly so you know all the features. It has heavy features in terms of quantity. You should know about each feature before using or deploying it.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of 10. 

We are using this solution for the security enhancement of our internal company network. This is to protect our customers as well as internal users from the untrusted network or outside world.

I am using the physical appliances of Check Point Firewall as well as virtual machines (VMs). We are using the same versions of R80 on our VMs that we are using for our physical appliances.

It saves a lot of manpower. If we have centralized management, then we do not require as many members on our team. So, this is a cost saving feature. If there wasn't centralized management, we would need 30 members instead of 11 members for our team. 

The nicest feature is the centralized management of multiple firewalls. With the centralized management, we can easily use and operate multiple firewalls as well as create a diagram of them. 

It has various features, like Threat Prevention and Antivirus. It is easier to use and have knowledge of a single device rather than multiple devices/technologies when doing an installation. It is also easy to use because of having Antivirus and Threat Prevention features within the same firewall.

I would like the user interface to be more user-friendly. I want the UI to be easier to use than Check Point's competitors. 

We have been using this technology for the last four years.

Check Point is the one of the most trusted vendors in the market. All the Checkpoint Firewall updates are very nice. We get the updates every months, and they are very stable updates.

The solution is very scalable. It is easy to expand it, if required. and doesn't take too much time. It also doesn't require too much manpower.

There are 2000 to 4000 people who are indirectly using Check Point Firewall.

It is always a good experience to work with their technical support. They are knowledgeable, always finding a solution. If we send them a bug, they fix it as soon as they can. 

I previously used Cisco ASA Firewalls for network security. 

Check Point is more advanced in comparison to Cisco Firewall. It has many good features, like central management, Threat Prevention, and Antivirus included in one device. With Cisco, we didn't have that.

The setup is straightforward, not complex; it was a simple setup. For the physical firewall, we just required a physical appliance, then we set it up according to our requirements. We had the complete setup guidelines. We used the three-tier hierarchy, which is standard and recommended for Check Point. We could also purchase service from Check Point to assist with the setup process. So, it was a good experience.

Our deployment took six to eight months.

We didn't require Check Point's help during deployment. After deployment, we did require their help for critical cases.

This product provides a complete return on investment. It gives us the level of security that we expect and should have.

The pricing and licensing part is something that could be improved. Check Point license and pricing are a bit higher compared to competing firewalls. I think they can work on that.

We didn't require an evaluation process. We knew that we had to go for Check Point.

I would rate the solution an eight out of 10.

Our primary use cases for Check Point NGFW are for perimeter security and content filtering for browsing behavior.

We have a lot of flexibility now and a leg up identifying zero day threats. We have multiple ways of doing policies now that we didn't have before. The options are more robust over previous products and I would say that we're pleased with the product. The reports I'm getting are that we're satisfied, even impressed, with the options Check Point offers.

Packet inspections have been a strong point. Our Identity Collectors have also been helpful. In many ways, Check Point has been a step up from our SonicWalls that we had in-house before that. There's a lot of additional flexibility that we didn't have before.

We saw a noticeable performance hit using SonicWalls. Whether it's because we've provisioned the Check Point gateways correctly from a hardware standpoint or whether it's the software that is much more efficient (or both), we do packet inspection with very little impact to hardware resources and throughput speeds are much improved.

With SonicWall, after it would calculate inspection overhead, we might see throughput at, and often below, 15%. My network administrator gave me data showing Check Point hovering at 50%, and so we were actually seeing Check Point fulfill its claims better than SonicWall.

Because there's quite a bit of flexibility in Check Point, improved best practices would be helpful. There might be six ways to do something and we're looking for one recommended way, one best practice, or maybe even a couple of best practices. A lot of times we're trying to figure out what we should do and how we should handle a particular problem or scenario. Having a better roadmap would help us as we navigate the options.

The VPN setup could be simplified. We had to engage professional services for that. That's not a problem, but compared to other products we've used, it was a little more complex.

We started putting Check Point NGFW into production late first quarter this year, right before the pandemic hit. We put in two gateways and one management server.

Stability is there especially compared to previous security products. Certain things had quirky behaviors. For instance, once we upgraded to 80.40, a couple items inexplicably acted up (not uncommon for any software upgrade). Certain policies would drop and then show up again (remained in force, just briefly disappeared from management console). I would have to get some specifics from my network administrator, but I do recall some strange behaviors. One of them was fixed by a patch and another one still has a backup issue that's pending right now about how to best back up the device before we upgrade.

I haven't had to test scalability yet because we purchased it for our existing needs and as a company, our performance and our needs are pretty flat. We don't really have need to scale yet.

We are adequately equipped for what we need and we have room to grow and to add all of our users and possibly add additional products down the road and still have plenty of room to do so on how these gateways are powered.

We have a total of about 620 employees that use Check Point NGFW. I would say we are 80% there. There are still some users that have to be migrated to it once we test their accounts, their kiosks, that kind of stuff. 

There is one primary employee who is dedicated to maintenance and there are another two who back him up but our network administrator is primarily responsible.

Mixed experience, mostly satisfactory. Some support engineers are quite helpful and efficient, others required more patience working through support incidents. ATAM support has been high quality, and as previously mentioned, local support has been key to resolving some cases much more quickly. If we were giving their support a letter grade, it would be in the B range.

We were previously using SonicWall. We switched because we were struggling with performance, support, and strategy. There were things that were broken that did not have coherent or reliable fixes. At the time we did not consider it to be next-generation technology. There were problems with GeoIP enforcement. There were also quite a few performance problems, especially with inspecting traffic. It would literally bring the device to its knees once we turned on all the inspections that we really felt that we needed. It was under-provisioned, under-specced, and coupled with all the support problems we had, we started shopping for a new solution.

The setup was both straightforward and complex. There were some complexities in there that required us to get help. We have some local representatives that are very helpful and so we frequently contacted them for guidance.

We're still migrating people behind Check Point, especially in our main facility, but the heavy lifting was done by early summer. It took around three to four months.

Our strategy was to set it up in parallel with the existing firewalls and begin setting up policies and testing the policies against individual services in-house. Then, as we were successful, we would grab pilot users and migrate them to Check Point and have them start trying to break things or browse to certain sites and see what behaviors they were getting.

It was a slow migration with a handful of people at first. We tweaked their experiences and just kept adding people. It was gradual. We tested, fixed, and then migrated a few more incrementally.

We had two different ways of getting help. We have local representatives who are in the same metropolitan area and they were very responsive. Then when we would have to contact standard support. We were satisfied about 80% of the time. Sometimes follow-up was not there. Sometimes there would be delays and occasionally there would be rehashing of information that didn't seem like it was efficient. Eventually, we would get the answers we would need.

That's why we rely heavily on the local people because they could sometimes light a fire and get things moving a little bit quicker.

Primarily it's offered stability and caught behaviors and given users (and administrators) a level of confidence as they are doing their daily jobs. The inspection that Check Point does, even when we download a document or a PDF, offers a bit more peace of mind in those types of transactions. GeoIP is working like we had hoped compared to SonicWall.

We have a lot of granularity in our policies. We can accommodate some really interesting scenarios on our operations floors, certain groups needing certain types of access versus other groups. We're accommodating them fairly seamlessly from migrating from SonicWall to Check Point. We might have struggled to try to make stuff happen in SonicWall, and Check Point just seems to ingest it and run with it. Having access to Check Point's AI ThreatCloud cloud has given us a lot of peace of mind. ThreatCloud is 25+ years worth of exploit research that informs and feeds CP technologies and gateways.

Another feature that's been helpful is the sandbox feature. A lot of companies offer this type of thing now, but CP has been offering it for quite a while. If end users are browsing websites, and they download a payload-infected document from a website, SandBlast will detect it and take it offline. It will sandbox it, detonate it there safely, pull out the content that we're actually looking for, then re-present that cleaned content back to the user.

Strongly consider augmenting standard support with Check Point's premium option or by purchasing ATAM/professional services time blocks, especially during deployment.

Standard support is decent, though occasionally frustrating from a turnaround perspective. While we sometimes wait a while for resolution on some cases, the information we receive is usually quality; that's been our experience.

We looked at Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos. I brought some of that experience to bear on our decision but our shortlist was Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point.

The reason I selected Check Point was partly its pedigree, knowing that Palo Alto formed out of Check Point. Both companies are built from the same DNA and each has a history and a culture I respect and trust. Check Point Research is regularly in the news it seems for finding exploits and vulnerabilities in popular cloud platforms. 

Check Point offered quality local support, including our technical sales representative and a support manager that live in the area. A couple of executives also live in the area. If we needed to escalate, we had the people here locally that could help us with that.

My former company used Palo Alto and, while I didn't interface with the products on a regular basis (we relied on the network team for analysis), I'd overhear frustrations with support. Palo Alto is also a great product and it wasn't an easy decision choosing between CP and PA from a technical perspective. I had never used Check Point prior to this position, but it outpaced its competitors in a few key areas, especially the pre-sales phase, POC engagements, local support options, and the maturity of Check Point's ThreatCloud technology.

My advice would be to look hard at premium support options. Know what your tolerances are, and if you expect fairly quick turnaround on support incidents, go ahead and invest that money in support. Definitely take advantages of pro services, buy a block of hours, whether that's 10 hours or 20 hours, and use that to fill in the knowledge gaps, especially during deployment. If you rely on standard support during setup, depending on how complex your environment is, you may be frustrated.

We did well doing what I recommended here. We bought two rounds of pro services (20 hours). I don't want to pile on standard support - it's not bad - it's just that if we were to rely only on standard support, I think our migration would have taken longer, and there might have been more frustrations. Because we had local support and because we bought pro services, it accelerated our timeline and it got us into production much quicker.

From what I've seen and heard from my staff, I would rate Check Point NGFW technology a nine out of ten.

The Next Generation Firewalls, the 64000 and 44000 series, provide us with support for large data centers and telco environments. They're quite reliable and provide great performance.

There are a lot of features which help us in providing a more secure environment for our organization, such as when we have Active-Active.

The most valuable feature is that the scalable 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to excel in large data centers and the telco environment as well. We have a lot of these types of customers, and these Check Point firewalls support them.

In addition 

• it supports dynamic objects, which we use for security purposes
• the antivirus is quite effective
• the logging and tracking are quite easy
• overall, it is easy to use.

The area where Check Point can improve is the antivirus, as it only provides a small number of updates for it. Updates should be more frequent.

In addition, the certification process is quite expensive. It should be a little cheaper so that everyone can be trained and certified and have better knowledge of Check Point's products.

I have been using Check Point's firewalls for more than a year. My responsibilities include implementing changes on the firewalls and troubleshooting.

They're quite stable and quite good. Management is simple because we can implement a lot of changes on the firewalls through the central manager.

They're quite scalable because they support large data centers, while offering reliability and performances as well.

The initial setup is quite easy. You don't need much training for it. Deployment takes around one week.

We have different stages in the setup process and we follow all the stages. We have to give structure to the plan, outline what we need to do. That goes to our manager, our senior experts, for approval. Then we implement the changes after their approval. Once the changes are implemented, we have our team leaders who validate whether everything is good and as expected or not. Then we close it. This is the basic strategy we follow in our organization.

About 500 to 600 employees work on Check Point firewalls in our organization and they have different roles. For example, I handle network and security admin. There are also security associates, consultants, and analysts.

The pricing of Check Point's firewalls is good. It is not that expensive.