Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

We use Checkpoint Firewalls to protect Datacenter VLANs against each other. In addition, we use them to protect our perimeter systems from the internet, and our internal network from the perimeter.

We have virtualized the systems on a VSX-Cluster using VSLS, but the basics are still the same compared to a traditional cluster. VSX gives us a bit more flexibility in the case of load-sharing. Therefore, it’s quite easy to react in the case of heavily used hardware distributing the load by failover or prioritizing VSs onto different nodes.

The biggest improvement is the central logging and management of all firewalls. Other IT-departments can get log-access and search for their own if there are missing rules or other issues.

Since we use Identity Awareness the solution becomes more flexible, as users no longer need static IPs. Especially for IT-users, who always need more rights, it was a big improvement.

Implementing Wi-Fi makes it nearly impossible to work without Identity Awareness. Unfortunately, we fought with some bugs in the IA-module, but we got them solved.

R80 management has improved and made the product more comfortable for IT people to use.

Filtering through rules and finding similar ones to add additional objects becomes much faster.

With an additional hotfix starting from R80.10, we are able to use the management with Ansible. From R80 on, we started creating objects via script or adding them to groups. That makes some parts “automatic”, or at least much faster.

With the new SmartTask offered in R80.40, we will be happy to configure some automatic control-functions.

The Check Point support needs a lot of improvement. We spend a lot of time troubleshooting issues ourselves, create good ticket descriptions, and try to explain in detail what has already been tested. Even so, it takes at least three ticket-updates before support really understands the issue. If you manage to reach the third-level support, you are still forced to be really critical of what kind of suggestions Check Point support is offering you. Running debugs on a test environment is quite different than running them in a heavily used production environment.

We have been using Check Point firewalls for 16 years.

We have a big environment with nearly fifteen multi-vendor clusters. We are using firewalls mainly for layer three access rules. But nowadays, application-layer-based security and threat prevention are also important. We are using IPS and antivirus blades actively, too.

In the Intrusion Prevention System blade, we are using a lot of different signatures and actions according to the impact, severity, and cost of the specified signature. The antivirus blade is also in the same logic as the Intrusion Prevention System.

Multilayered protection is provided thanks to Check Point. For instance, security is achieved both on the endpoint side, as well as the firewall side.

Another example is that we can prevent critical and high-risk applications from being reached through the internal network by utilizing the application blade.

All of the blades, except URL filtering, are in the same interface and provide big savings when leading the security operations.

Firstly, inline layer technology is helpful because it will classify the traffic according to different security groups. This means that we can isolate them totally and it will also prevent human error because you are limiting source, destination, service, and application parameters at the top of the inline layer rule.

Check Point is very administrator-friendly and the SmartDashboard is easy to use.

The Blades and security features are also very innovative and up-to-date.

With the IPS blade, the administrator can write signature-based exceptions for specific users. This provides flexibility to except specific connections from specific signatures.

The cloning and copy/paste operations are very useful.

The SmartUpdate interface is a little bit crowded if your company has a lot of software items.

As an administrator, one should know how to troubleshoot by issuing related CLI commands before or after upgrading gateways, or the management server, in case of a problem.

Hardware problems on Check Point devices, such as those related to NIC or disk problems, may occur at times. In cases such as this, the support team is available and does what is needed, including the RMA process if necessary.

We have been using Check Point for 10 years.

In my opinion, scaling is very important and it must be done ahead of time. I would suggest considering scale three years in advance, as opposed to just the present.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

Licensing issues may be confusing at times.

We did not evaluate other products before choosing Check Point NGFW.

The Check Point NGFW is the best product that I have ever used. It has pluses and minuses, as do others, but the usability, simplicity, and the configuration abilities are very user-friendly. After a while, other vendors just don’t come close to it.

The second thing is that is just works and it does it with ease. The upgrades and bug fixes are frequent and well documented. Also, the patches just work ;-)

There are some negatives but as I already said, they aren’t many and from my point of view, we can see past them.

It has made our lives and working in the company a lot easier. We have a better overview of the logs and what happens with the traffic in our company. Which means that the search for the certain logs is easy, quick and smooth. The overview of the logs is also very good as it is very detailed. The installation is allot quicker as it was before what also helps us with the implementation of the firewall rules. The rule consolidation is also very important as we have more than 60 fw rule change requests per day.

The rules are very easy to deploy and can be optimized pretty quickly. The R80 has a great feature on how the rules are processed, which costs less in terms of CPU and threads than it did before.

The features that are integrated into the firewall are very useful for our everyday use. Examples of these are the log manager, the firewall monitor commands, and the Linux commands. These are all very useful and helpful.

The VPN tunnels are easy to set up once you understand how they have to be configured.

One of the main features that need improvement is the rule filter export. All of the other vendors can export the filtered IPS as a PDF or CSV file, but with the smart dashboard, it’s just not possible. One can only export the whole rule base and then search for the IPS, which is super time-consuming as you can’t send the whole rule base to a customer. You would get weird questions about certain rules, why they are deployed or configured as they are, and maybe even get unwanted tips on how to change them.

We have been using Check Point NGFW for eight years.

In terms of stability, this solution is very good.

The scalability is high.

The technical support is very good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is very easy.

I implemented and deployed Check Point NGFW alone.

Maybe the pricing is a bit high but you get the durability and the duration.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Cisco ASA.

We use this solution for our perimeter firewall to protect our web applications, systems, and network. We are running our complete business with Check Point.

The complete traffic is managed by Check Point. The Check Point threat emulation blade is enabled to protect zero-day attacks and it will detect and prevent attachments and other payloads from this type of attack.

We have been running Check Point for the last ten years and it protected our network, systems, and applications against the latest attack. Our organization is running 500 applications that are being protected.

The next-generation firewall will manage all of the traffic and prevent the latest & advanced threats from attackers. The latest operating systems R 80.20 is wonderfully designed and allows customers to manage everything with a single console.

The most valuable feature is that we are protected against zero-day threats.

Everything can be managed from a single console.

We would like to see the following improvements:

1. Multiple ISP redundancy.
2. CPU utilization.
3. VPN traffic.
4. HA concept, where if we apply the policy in the primary appliance that should be applied to HA appliance automatically.
5. The number of bugs has to be reduced.
6. The number of false positives should be reduced. 
7. Threat emulation has to be improved.
   
8. Reporting has to be improved.

I have been using Check Point Next Generation Firewall for ten years.

We are happy with Check Point technology and support.

Both IN and OUT traffic is managed by Check Point. We are happy with Check Point technology including the protection, management, and the ability to secure the enterprise network against advanced threats.

The solution is easy to use. I like the monitoring the most.

All the advanced features of automation, especially the first installation of tunnels, need improvement. Also, in terms of configuration, in terms of tuning, and fine-tuning the system, I think they do make it a bit hard for users. Right now, we need to teach admins, the network and security admins about system fine-tuning in terms of load balancing between CPUs, assignment of processes. I don't think a network admin or a system admin should deal with it in terms of when we are speaking about the firewall or networking device. It should be automatic.

It's a stable solution. There are about 15,000 users installed behind the firewall.

It's a scalable solution. It's very good.

It's easy to install Check Point, but not in the case of a large environment and multiple clusters. This is an ongoing project I can't tell you how long deployment takes. It's a huge network that I have. I have three people maintaining the solution.

I have a basic network firewall and not the advanced feature, full feature security system. I think they are the best. Still, for instance, when installing a tunnel in Check Point vs installing a tunnel in Cisco, the difference is that in Check Point nothing makes sense, and in Cisco you have the duration capability, the hierarchy of the configuration.

I would rate this solution as 8 out of 10. Mostly because of configuration problems - problems with configuring VPNs, and panels, etc.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall device and for our VPN.

It gives me very detailed reports. The endpoint solution for clients is wonderful.

We're looking at the endpoint because there are some smaller issues with internet connectivity within our country.

Although they have it now, we don't have a license for it, and I think mobile device security should be a standard feature. I cannot control someone bringing their device to my network and what they do.

Within the first four weeks, we had a few little issues with stability, consideration issues here and there. But the partner helped and gave direction that and now it's better. It's still under warranty so we are okay with it. We have about 250 users. We also have the administrative and the IT team in the company that manages different solutions.

We are definitely planning to increase the scale, especially the endpoint. The cost in comparison with the brand new addition will be okay.

Right now, the agreement we have is elaborate enterprise support. That means we are entitled to an engineer within 48 hours if we have issues that can't be resolved remotely. I've been satisfied with technical support so far.

We were using the Sonicwall NSG 3400. It's a good appliance, but the major problem is they don't have competent technical partners in Nigeria. So all our support was via email, phone, and remote. It wasn't very good which is why we had to change it. Sometimes our network went down and we had to start calling so that we can call on the device. They needed to have someone in Nigeria that could assist. That's why we had to leave it.

The initial setup was very straightforward. You can customize it and change it as you need. But the initial information is wonderful. Initial deployment took approximately two and a half days. Then, to complete everything took a week. Deployment took about 3-4 people.

We had a partner. A representative of Check Point came and did the implementation.

We pay a license fee on a three year basis. We have a three-year license. We pay $5,000-$6,000 a year.

I would advise anyone to try Check Point.

I would rate this solution 7.5 out of 10. I think they should make their licensing simpler.

The management of our company requires a firewall implementation. We use Check Point to complete the network compliance rules.

We use Check Point NGFW for compliance. The initial request leads to secondary requests. By the time you have recognition, there is recollection. For the main service, it's collection.

The feature we have found to be the most valuable is the management firewall. 

This product has room for improvement in technical support for Africa. There are some problems with African countries. We also need to provide excellent services. 

The additional feature I would most like to see included in the next release of this solution is removal management.

The stability of the solution is quite good. It has a great GUI and it's comfortable. I love the content. Of course, you also have great support.

The new version is highly scalable. Now all of our users depend on the firewall. We have about 150 users. We require two staff for deployment and management.

We previously used Sophos. We switched for more security. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Our deployment took two or three weeks. Deploying the first one was two weeks, but the other ones were around one week.

For the first setup, I used a consultant. For the second one, I didn't. We didn't need one.

Licensing costs for this solution are on a yearly basis.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate this product a nine. Nobody's perfect.