Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six to seven years.

It is very stable. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use it to protect our network from the outside world and unsecured networks. We also use it to provide a safe, secure network to the internal users of our organization.

I am using various versions on the model, like R80.10 and R80.30.

• Antivirus
• Threat Prevention
• The central management

These are vital, advanced firewall features for the market. They protect the environment more than the usual firewalls. 

Check Point's study materials should be provided by the company directly and be of very good quality. This is not provided right now and something that the company can improve. 

A disadvantage about Check Point is people in the market are not too familiar about its usage and people lack training on it.

I have been using it for the last six years (since 2014).

Check Point Firewalls are very stable. Check Point is one of the oldest company in firewalls with a very stable product. They provide good, stable updates.

It scales well. Recently, during COVID-19, we did the scalability process, and it was easy.

Currently, this is used only for our inbound networks to provide security to our internal network. Around 6,000 people are taking advantage of this technology directly and indirectly in our organization.

We have certainly increased number of firewalls in our organization. In the future, if is required, then we will definitely use more.

I have used the technical support very frequently. I would give them around a nine out of 10. They have very good support. In critical scenarios, they provide us very quick solutions, are very well-trained, and have a good knowledge about the product. That is what we expect from them. I am deducting one mark to allow room for improvement. 

Previously, we were using the Cisco ASA Firewalls, which are one of the most demanded firewall in the market. We switched to Check Point because their firewall is more advanced than Cisco ASA. They are also providing us the extra benefit of features, like their central management system, Antivirus, and Threat Prevention, which were not provided by Cisco ASA. 

It was straightforward; it was not too complex. It was simple to install and use the features, as we were already trained. Our company used their trainers before installing it. Getting all the knowledge of the firewall's features beforehand worked very well for installing/deploying the solution in our environment.

We were using different firewalls that we had to replace. For that replacement, we required two years for the transition to Check Point to get it to work.

For our implementation strategy, we used three-tier architecture strategy in which we have a console, three-tier management Gateway, and the firewall.

We have around 20 people on the team, because it is a large company. So, I deployed it with the help of 19 members. The team of 20 people work on different shifts and we manage all the organization's firewalls. We are all network engineers, though some of us have different designations.

It has a good return in terms of usage and the security that it provides. We are very happy with the security capabilities that this firewall has.

Check Point Firewall costs more compared to the other firewalls in the markets, as pricing is little high. However, it is easy to take the license and use it in the firewall.

We did an evaluation between Cisco ASA and Check Point. We had options to extend Cisco ASA or switch to Check Point, but we switched to Check Point Firewall.

Be knowledgeable before implementing this firewall because it has many advanced features compared to the normal firewalls in the market. If you want to use it in a better way, then you need to be trained on it. 

There were a few members who joined our organization who were familiar with Check Point, but they do not know about every feature which could be used and taken advantage of to better secure our network. I recommend getting proper training before using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10 because I am a very happy customer of Check Point. I have had a good experience with this firewall. I like is the way it is improving a lot with the times.

We use it as a normal firewall for perimeter security, using some of the Next Generation features, like Anti-Bot and Antivirus. 

We have two ISPs. We have a different firewall system in front of the Check Point Firewall. We also have normal Cisco switches combined with the Check Point solution. Then, our internal network is with Cisco, which is about 300 servers and 1,500 clients.

Since we are an insurance company, the solution is a necessity.

Two-thirds of our employees are working at home at the moment, so we use the VPN feature more than we used to. Of those two-thirds, only 100 or 200 are using the remote client from Check Point. The other employees are using other technologies, like NetScaler from Citrix. 

We use the basic firewall functionality, plus the VPN functionality, a lot.

We have about 100 remote sites, which is where we use the VPN functionality. For private lines, we prefer to do further private encryption on the line. It is very convenient to do it with Check Point, if you have Check Point on both sides. It is convenient and easy to monitor.

The firewall feature and DDoS Protector, when turned on, keep away attacks from the outside. They also prevent users from accessing things on the Internet that they are not supposed to access.

The Threat Emulation definitely needs improvement. A couple of years ago, we did a comparison with other companies, e.g., Lastline, offering threat emulation and threat detection functionalities, and Check Point was lacking. 

I have been using Check Point for 22 to 23 years. I have been using Check Point NGFW for 15 years, since 2005.

We used to have more problems. For the past five years, unless we have had a bug, which happens like once a year, it has been pretty stable. We did have a bug for the last three months, which has just been fixed. Before that we had another two or three major bugs. However, when there is a bug and it's not known to Check Point, they need quite a while to get it fixed. If they have a fix already, then there is a pretty quick turnaround to get it fixed.

There are three people working on firewalls, but not at 100 percent. We have the equivalent of one person doing firewalls 100 percent of the time using three people.

For our requirements, it's scalable enough. We have a 1 gig uplink to the Internet, which is easily doable with open servers. 

We used to have some problems with the performance, then we upgraded the license and the scalability has worked well since.

There are 1,200 to 1,500 users.

It depends whether the problem is known to Check Point. If they are aware there is a problem, quite often it will then depend on which tech you finally land on if it's easier or harder to get to the root cause. The last issue was in India so that was pretty bad. It's easier if you get directly through to Tel Aviv or Ottawa, but you can't choose. Once they know what the issue is, it's pretty good. It pretty much depends on the engineer that you get. There are pretty good engineers and there are many engineers who are at just the starter level at Check Point who are not really into the stuff. Sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's easy, depending on the problem and the tech engineer you get.

To the next manager, it's pretty easy to escalate an issue, if needed. Though, it depends on the manager. 

Our current sales staff isn't too good. Though, the one before was pretty good. So, you can escalate on that process well. As an escalation path, it works most of the time.

Once you do it for over 20 years, it is straightforward. If you have done it a couple of times, then you know what to do. However, even if you are a beginner, Check Point is more straightforward than Palo Alto or something like that. Once you get the idea of how a firewall works, Check Point does it that way.

There is a central location where we deploy upgrades, which normally take one business day since we have several clusters there. 

When deploying the solution to remote locations, we have several models to choose from.

When we tried Threat Emulation, we have received professional services from Check Point. However, for the normal setup, we don't involve any professional services.

It is like insurance for us.

The pricing and licensing are pretty steep. They know that they are good, so they are pricey.

We are also using Forcepoint, which is a little bit different on the OS and focused more on IPS/IDS. It is a good practice to combine two different firewall vendors in case one of them gets hacked.

We also evaluated Palo Alto, like five years ago, but that doesn't make much sense for us. 

Since we are trying to get our customers to do more self-service, we should see more inbound traffic. So, the usage will increase in the next two years.

We get more attacks from the outside these days, so it has become more important to use systems like Check Point. When I started with security 25 years ago, it was still something not everybody was aware they needed. Today, it's common sense that everybody needs to protect their perimeter.

Plan first, implement last. You should first be aware of what assets you want to protect and what are your traffic patterns. You should plan your policy and network topology ahead of time, then start to implement a firewall. If you just place it there without any plan of what it's supposed to do, it doesn't make too much sense. I think planning is 80 percent of the implementation.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10. It would be better if the support was quicker in the cases we had. Apart from that, we are happy with the functionality.

I support multiple clients within the UK, the EMEA region, the US, and now in Asia Pacific as well. I specialize in Check Point firewalls. I design and secure their data centers, their on-premises solutions, or their businesses security.

The firewalls are mostly on-premise because most of our clients are financial organizations and they have strict compliance requirements. They feel more secure and have more control when things are on-premise in the data center. However, there are use cases where I have helped them to deploy Check Point solutions in the cloud: AWS, Azure, and in Google as well. But cloud deployments are very much in the early stages for these clients, on a development or testing basis. Most of the production workloads are still on-premise in data centers.

Most of my customers are still using R77.30, and they are on track to upgrade from that to R80, which is the current proposed version by Check Point.

One of our customers has just recently been attacked by malware and internal DoS attacks, and they have a multi-vendor, multi-layer firewall approach. The internal firewalls are Check Point. The great thing about Check Point is that because of its central architecture, you can very quickly pinpoint where the attacks are coming from. It gives you comprehensive reporting when the attacks start and when they've stopped, so you can see the complete, end-to-end picture: where the point of attack is, at what time, and what host. They can track all of that.

However, in parallel, that customer is using other firewalls which have no visibility. One of the main advantages of having Check Point firewall is definitely that it gives you absolute in-depth visibility.

Among the valuable features are antivirus, URL inspection, and anti-malware protection. These are all advanced features.

One of the great advantages of having Check Point as a firewall is that all of these are software blades, so you can buy a license or subscription and enable them and get the security up and running. With other firewalls, it's a completely different agenda, meaning some of them require hardware modules, and some of them have a complex way of adding the licensing, etc. Check Point definitely has a great architecture, where you can just enable the software blades and deploy a secure service. Overall, it provides ease of deployment and ease of use.

The area it needs improvement is the SandBlast Agent. It receives a file, or if it detects a Zero-day attack, it takes the file and analyzes it, either on-premise or in the Check Point Cloud, and then it reports back whether the file is secure or non-secure, or is unknown. That particular area definitely needs a bit more improvement, because there is a delay. That's one of the main complaints for most of our customers. Or if it is quick, then it's very complex. For example, if they have received a file which is "unknown" or has Zero-day attack malware, sometimes it doesn't get analyzed properly or it's locked into the cloud. So there are various small issues with the product that need possible improvement.

The SandBlast product on its own is a very good concept, and it works absolutely brilliantly. However, when you integrate it with existing firewalls, it just doesn't play very well.

The cloud solution is quite straightforward because it seems the SandBlast solution was designed, initially, for cloud deployments, where you've got multiple clouds or multiple vendors, and you are receiving files from different points. And on the cloud edge, for example in AWS, if you have Check Point sitting there, it works very well if you're running a virtual firewall. However, if it's on-premise and it's a dedicated appliance, then the performance is slightly different and the way it works is very different. So where it needs improvement is where it's an appliance-based solution rather than a software or cloud-based solution.

If I am using SandBlast on a virtual appliance — for example, I've got Check Point virtual appliances in AWS, and Azure as well, for a customer — those virtual appliances work absolutely fine as a service, as does SandBlast as a service. However, if it's an appliance, if it's a dedicated firewall on-premise in a data center and you add SandBlast as a software service, the integration is not that straightforward, so the experience is very different. 

It seems like they were possibly built by different teams, independent of each other.

I've been using Check Point firewalls for about 16 years. I am the main network or security lead and I have four other engineers who report to me. They also do design and deployment.

I work with approximately 40 companies that utilize Check Point.

Check Point firewalls are very stable. One good thing about Check Point is that they do rigorous testing internally before releasing updates, which is something I have not found with any other firewall products. With most of the other firewall products, when they release something, it's like the customer becomes the guinea pig for that particular version, whether a minor or a major update. However, with Check Point, you can see all the white papers and what ways they have tested a minor or major upgrade of the software version, and what the performance was like. What are their known issues and is somebody working on them or not?

So the software releases are very stable and you have visibility into how they operate and what the known issues are, so you know whether you should go ahead with them or not. And in case there is a problem, the support is excellent. You can reach out to Check Point and say, "Look, I've done the software upgrade and I'm experiencing these problems. How can I deal with them?" They are there to help you out.

There are times when we have problems in terms of software or hardware defects. We have sustained downtime, but most of the architecture I design is resilient, so if one device is down, the other one is working fine. Then in the background, I or my support team will deal with Check Point directly, to get a replacement. They're definitely quick to respond and very efficient. 

In the past, we had a lot of problems with licensing, specifically, but Check Point has redone the whole way they do licensing. It's very quick now, and very efficient.

Check Point firewalls are extremely scalable. Recently, I deployed Check Point in an AWS cloud solution for one of my clients, and it's been absolutely excellent in handling growth. They've grown from 10,000 users to a million users. The way Check Point has advertised the product, it is supposed to be highly scalable, which means it grows as your demand grows, and that has been the case. 

Recently we have set up a test case where we are moving over management servers from on-premise to a Check Point-provided Infinity cloud solution. We are still at the testing phase but, overall, it's been a great experience so far.

The teams we deal with within Check Point are extremely knowledgeable. They know how to understand the background of the problem, and they're very good about articulating how we deal with the issue, whether it's a minor software upgrade issue or it's a major failure of the hardware itself. They know where to look for the right stuff. The key point is they're very knowledgeable and very technical. And if somebody doesn't have the technical capability, they will definitely help you out to make sure you get to the bottom of the problem.

In the past, most of the customers I've worked with have used different firewall vendors, such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Juniper.

I've recently seen deployments where customers have tried to move from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and the deployment has gone horribly wrong because the product has not been tested by Cisco very well and is not a mature product. I've gone in and reviewed their business requirements and technical requirements and, based on that, I've recommended Check Point and done the design and deployment. They've absolutely been happy with the solution, how secure and how capable it is.

We use Check Point across multiple types of customers, such as financials, retail, and various other public and private sector organizations. I review their security architecture, which is firewall specific and, based on that, I have recommended Check Point. In most cases, I've managed to convince them to go ahead with Check Point firewalls as a preferred secure firewall solution.

The main reason is that Check Point is far ahead in the game. They're definitely the market leader. They are visionaries when it comes to security. Another reason is that a lot of firewall architecture starts from the firewall itself, which is the local firewall. It can easily be hacked and manipulated. However, the Check Point architecture, out-of-the-box, is very secure. They have a central Management Server and all of the firewalls are managed through that one central point. So in case somebody breaks into your firewall, the firewall is encrypted; they will delete the database. The architecture is secure by default. The good thing is that other firewall vendors have realized this and they've started to copy the same system that Check Point has used for the past 20 years now.

When working with the Check Point team on deployment, they're really helpful and very talented people. When you speak to other firewall vendors, they just think about the firewall from their point of view. The good thing about Check Point engineers, or technical staff, or even management staff, is that they understand what the requirements of business are and how they can improve or align the proposed solution. Overall, Check Point staff are very knowledgeable, they understand different industries, and they understand the product very well. That's definitely a competitive edge compared to other firewalls.

Once the design is done, for something simple the deployment can take half a day, whereas for a complex deployment in a data center it can take about five days.

Our implementation plan is divided into different phases. Phase One might be the physical cabling of the firewall device itself. Phase Two would be the logical setup, which means defining the interfaces and the virtual setup of the firewall itself. The final phase would be to bring it online in parallel with production, in a non-prod service, and test it to ensure it works as per the design.

A customer I'm working with right now was running with Check Point and they wanted to move to Fortinet firewalls. However, when I worked with them on the design to upgrade the existing Check Point firewalls, what we worked out was that even though the Fortinet might have seemed like a cheaper option, it didn't have the security capabilities that Check Point is offering. On that basis, the customer signed off on a project for upgrading their existing firewalls, on-premise and cloud, from R77.30 to R80.10.

It can be expensive, but it's value for money. What you pay for is what you get. You can go down in price and buy some cheap firewalls, but you're not going to get great support and you're not going to get the level of protection you need. With Check Point you get all of that.

With Juniper, one of the biggest downsides is support. The support portal is slow and I won't say the staff is competent in terms of understanding. They're very disconnected internally. What I mean is that the team working on the software development of the firewall has no interface with the support teams that are handling day-to-day TAC cases. They definitely struggle when it comes to understanding challenges, problems, and incidents with the firewalls.

In the past, Juniper firewalls were good, but recently the security offering has just not been there. They don't have anything like SandBlast from Check Point. They don't have up-to-date Zero-day attacks control. They're still running a very old architecture. They can do things like antivirus and URL proxy, but those are very simple features. They have none of the advanced feature set that Check Point has.

Palo Alto is very competitive with Check Point when it comes to security. However, one of the challenges with Palo Alto is that, overall, the solution can be extremely complex and expensive. That is one thing I've heard from customers again and again. Either they have existing Palo Altos or they plan to go to Palo Alto, but when they do a comparison with Check Point, what they find is that the overall value with Check Point is much greater than with Palo Alto firewalls.

If you're looking to implement Check Point as a security solution, definitely do your homework. Do some research, not just in terms of firewalls, but overall security architecture. Which ones are the leaders in the field? Which ones are there to deliver what they promise? And overall, how does the architecture work? Is it secure or not? And does it come from a team that understands how to support the solution itself? Are they consistent? Look at their track record for the past 10 or 15 years, or are they a new player? If they are, you don't know whether they're going to stay in the game or not. A good thing about Check Point is that its core product is security. They've been doing it day in and day out. You know they're there to stay in the game. You can trust them.

Check Point is a proven solution. A lot of customers and clients already rely on it. And for the Next Generation Firewalls, they're coming up with new features as security threats become known.

If somebody wants a secure and stable environment, Check Point is definitely the leader to go to; definitely the number-one choice. It's not only what it says on the box. In reality, I've worked with hundreds of banks and they're happy with the product because it works; in practice, it works. That's the main thing.

The biggest thing is the central management. It is quite good and allows us to manage the different firewalls from it. We can implement and configure many firewalls and push our policies to them as well.

One of the most valuable features is the antivirus. It's very good.

We also now support cascading objects. We didn't support this previously, but on Check Point we do.

The dashboard is quite good, you can explore a lot of features there and it's easy to understand.

It also gives us SSL inspection, which provides more effective mitigation of defects and data leakage.

The antivirus is not as effective as it could be because updates are not that frequent.

Another area for improvement is that certifications are quite expensive with Check Point.

I've been using the Check Point Next Generation Firewall for the last year.

My role includes working on Check Point and Cisco ASA firewalls to make changes on them, per customer requirements or as the organization needs. I also explore new features and do troubleshooting.

It's quite stable. Until now, we haven't faced any issues.

The Check Point 44000 and 64000 Next Generation Firewalls are designed to be quite scalable. 

If we do face an issue which is not our support boundaries, we involve the Check Point TAC. They're quite technical, so they help us to resolve things. They are always helpful. They're knowledgeable and their response time is very fast.

Previously we were working on Cisco ASA firewall which didn't support the cascading objects. Also, Cisco supports two gateways, whereas the Check Point supports up to five gateways.

We also decided to bring on Check Point because there are a lot of switches that are not supported in Cisco ASA. Also, with Cisco, IPS does not come with the firewall and we have to configure it separately. The Check Point IPS comes with it.

There are a lot of features which are not supported in the Cisco ASA Firewalls.

The initial setup of the firewall is straightforward. I didn't find any difficulties in moving from Cisco ASA to Check Point. The dashboard is quite friendly, so it didn't take much time to learn.

Deployment took about three days.

We have different stages in our implementation process like planning, approving, implementing, checking and validating, and the last one is matching. Job roles in our organization go according to these stages the approvals. I do the planning part and my approval request goes to my team leader.

We have about 400 to 500 users. They are semi-technical or non-technical people, such as network and security engineers, who are tracking and monitoring the firewalls. If we're talking about troubleshooting we have from different levels, like L1, L2, L3.

It's saving us a notable amount of time. 

Check Point is good. It has a lot of features which will support a lot of things in your organization, and the dashboard is quite good. There are a lot of features, such as data protection and data inspection, at a good price.

We use them to protect our edge infrastructure and for interconnecting our sites using the VPN.

One of the most valuable features is the data center object integration with Azure. We are using Azure a lot and there is very nice synchronization between the objects in Azure, and it's very easy to implement rules using this feature.

Other valuable features include: 

• the VPN — it's quite easy to configure it and it provides us with an easy way to interconnect our sites.
• the CLI, for automating things
• it is very easy to manage, to make backups, and to configure
• the support and the graphical user interface.

The NAT services part needs improvement. It's not sophisticated. It needs functions like range assignment for NATing. The way you assign a list of IPs for NATing is too simple. It just allows you to use pools.

There could also be improvement to the automation. They should provide a tool for creating and maintaining rules.

I have been using Check Point firewalls for more than five years.

The stability is an eight out of 10 because we have had some problems with URL filtering, with the domain filtering in particular. When the domain is under a CDN, it sometimes gives us problems because there is more than one IP for each domain.

We have also had problems with data center objects or Azure objects where we have created a rule and the rule stops working. We opened a case with Check Point and they answered us. We installed fixes and it looks like it's working now.

The scalability is quite nice at the firewall level. It gives us the possibility of implementing clusters and high-availability.

We are also working on an Azure implementation and it looks good. We have not yet deployed to the Azure Check Point implementation, but it promises a lot.

We have about 200 employees and, on the administrative side, there are 12 to 15 people working with the Check Point solution. They are mostly networking infra engineers. We are using about 40 percent of the firewall capacity. We don't currently have plans to increase capacity.

We are satisfied with the support. When we have a problem, it's very easy to contact the support center and they give a fast response. I would give their support a nine out of 10.

I have worked with the Cisco ASA firewalls and with firewalls from manufacturers like MikroTik.

It's hard to measure ROI, but our sense of security, as a company, is good with Check Point.

In terms of quality versus price, Check Point is very balanced.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Check Point firewalls is that if you know how to work with Linux, you will be able to manage almost all the features.