Check Point Quantum Force (NGFW) Reviews

We are using physical appliances along with some VSX's in our network. We mostly use firewall only (due to high traffic usage). We are using CP NGFW to protect the company from the internet and also provide security while we are connecting to the internet.  

We have physical clusters that we manage via our company's external connections through S2S. We are managing our core and client networks with separate clusters. Applying security rules and providing NAT when we need it. We are also using CP in our DRC environment to provide SRC and DST NAT with VSX to provide access to machines that have the same IP addresses.

Back when we had a different brand of firewalls, we were having trouble managing all of them separately. With Check Point's HA capability, we merged all of our Check Point firewall management. With this, we can apply a viable DRC solution that our company needs and also manage, view logs, and administer all of the components together.

With the capable appliances, we don't experience any CPU and Memory utilization most of the time. With the help of new versions, Check Point is moving forward. We hope the upcoming version will provide hyper flow, and this will solve our elephant flow problem.

The solution offers a good GUI. It is easy to use, smart, simple, and user-friendly.

The client VPN and S2S VPN capabilities are great. Check Point's mobile access provides us with flexibility. We don't have a single point of failure regarding the VPN access points anymore.

We can use Check Point NGFW physically, virtually (with Check Point VSX), and on the cloud with CloudGuard. We have most of the features available even within these different environments.

We can apply SAM Rules (without installation needs), and Custom Intelligence Feeds.

It has good API support and provides value when you need it. 

The API support is good. However, Check Point needs to focus on more prepared scripts for some tiresome actions. Other vendors provide this, including Palo Alto). We are in a big organization now, and we need good tools to maintain stability and get rid of the objects and rules that we don't use.

If you are working within a big organization, you may have some CPU and memory utilization problems. Most of the time, we are encountering these kinds of problems, and due to that, we can't use other features and blades other than the firewall or threat prevention.

I find Check Point's log experience a little tiresome as it does not provide information with limited blades enabled. We'd like to see information around session time, sent and received bytes, etc. Even if you manage to get some data, you may find it not very reliable.

I've been using Check Point's NGFW and its features for about five years. 

I found Check Point's stability a little bit so-so. Not that good, not that bad. Most of the time it is reliable. We had lots of problems before due to the utilization of our firewalls. Most of the time, the hotfixes provided the solution. However, applying hotfixes and getting in touch with the R&D when needed may be tiresome.

It's pretty good. The HA Features provide a good solution so far, and with Maestro it will perform better.

I had the chance to work with Fortigate and Palo Alto Firewalls before. Due to the stability and know-how regarding Check Point, we chose this vendor.

We always believed and saw that the money we spent on Check Point was not in vain.

We are using the solution for the perimeter. It's used as a core firewall, with almost all transactions passing through the firewall. For instance, in a cellular phone company, all transactional authorizations pass through the firewall, while in a bank, authorizations for branches and ATMs go through the firewall. The main customers are in the BFSI, telcos, industry manufacturing, and other large enterprise sectors.

Check Point's solutions allow organizations to operate securely with a reliable core firewall in place, ensuring that transactions proceed smoothly.

The Check Point firewall is used as a core firewall offering high reliability with at least two synchronized data centers, creating a fault-tolerant configuration. It is considered a very stable platform with minimal bugs.

Technically, there is no need for improvement. That said, they need to be more aggressive and protect more of the channels on the commercial side. Additionally, the user interface could be more user-friendly.

We have been using Check Point solutions for over twenty-five years, since the very beginning.

The firewall is highly stable, being described as one of the most reliable, with a stable platform and few bugs.

Using the Maestro technology, the firewall has good scalability. It allows for flexibility and growth by stacking clippings without needing to change the chassis.

Customer service is generally good. With Diamond or Diamond Plus service for banks, the support level meets customer expectations. The internal team of Check experts also ensures issues are resolved efficiently.

Positive

We are familiar with and have supported other solutions like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco yet primarily do business with Check Point.

Initial setup can be complex, especially in large or redundant deployments. Expertise is required to manage configurations, especially with complex operations and a high volume of users and VPNs.

The implementation team has around 20 people, with a total group including maintenance and support numbering 60.

Monetizing the risk is complex, and despite having software for calculating ROI in security, traditional calculations like the FAIR methodology do not apply efficiently in Latin America.

Check Point and Palo Alto solutions are among the more expensive options, but once a platform is adopted, switching is difficult. Clients tend to stay with the same brand for extended periods.

We have evaluated solutions from Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco, however, the main offering is Check Point.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Check Point Next Generation Firewall both as a perimeter firewall and as an internal firewall. 

For customers, we recommend using the open platform, which is the software installed on your own server. We usually find that you get a lot more performance out of the software that way. Also, a lot of energy companies use it as well.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall helps us with routing failover, setting up a web dashboard for better management of the platform, and ensuring the stability and availability of our firewalls with its backup features.

The price point is good. You get a lot more features for the cost. How it's bundled and packaged is very simple to order. All the features are bundled with the product, and it's just a matter of checking a box to turn it on or off. 

Performance is usually better on OpenServers, where we provide the server on the Check Point platform.

The operating system and platform could be more tightly integrated. Some features are better done on the OS side of the platform. Integrating all features into one dashboard should avoid switching between the new and old dashboards.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall is quite stable. For features like backup and data, I would rate it highly.

Check Point Next Generation Firewall offers excellent scalability. With OpenServer, it's just a matter of purchasing licenses that enable more CPUs to be used. We can increase the RAM on the box and allow for more network traffic and customers onto our platform.

The support is great. I usually get it online and it meets our needs effectively.

Positive

Setup is easy. I would give it an eight out of ten.

The pricing is fair and more competitive than many competitors. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I would rate it around a three in its category.

Cisco does not support SSL inspection, and its detection capabilities are limited. I would say Check Point is comparable with Palo Alto in terms of features and detection capabilities.

I would recommend Check Point Next Generation Firewall because of its detection capabilities, which ensure protection by identifying malicious files and suspicious activities. The price point is also lower compared to Palo Alto for the same features.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Mostly enterprise customers use it for their system security as their main firewall. For example, some customers have multiple backup connections, including fiber connections, for redundancy. 

They use Check Point as the main firewall, and others use it for email scanning and file scanning to detect any vulnerabilities.

The firewall scanning, like antivirus scanning and malware scanning, are very good. Blocking the user is also very easy. If you want to block a user, we can just do it within the solution.

The reporting is quite easy and good, and you can see traffic in real-time. But compared to Sophos, Sophos is still better. There are still areas in Check Point that need to be improved.

It's actually quite good, but the only problem we faced was during COVID when people wanted to work from home. 

We had to use third-party software to give users access because the Check Point option didn't work as expected. So we used Check Point in the front, but we used third-party software for the virtualization of the applications and everything.

When using redundant connections, sometimes there are issues like one connection going down and switching to another connection. Also, breaking rules can be complicated. 

For example, if you want to make a rule for a specific connection, like assigning some users to one ISP and other users to another ISP, you have to use another device, like a third-party firewall intervention and routing, to get the desired results. Other than that, it's good performance-wise.

I've been working with Check Point for the past six or seven years. We always work with the latest version.

It's very stable. No issues there.

It's scalable.

Our clients have raised questions to technical support. They all have accounts, so we give them the login details. They send an email to support and get a support request. But normally, we try to handle everything on our own. 

If there's something we can't handle, like a firmware-level issue, only then do we get support from Check Point.

It depends on the client requirements also. Some government agencies need Check Point, and some clients need others like Cisco or Sophos. After Cisco, a lot of clients have changed to Sophos. So, we provide solutions depending on the client's requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward, just like any other normal firewall. 

• Deployment strategy: 

The deployment process depends on the client. For example, if it's an existing customer with an existing firewall, we first see what their current requirements are from the existing firewall, what they need to implement but cannot, or what challenges they are having. 

Then we compare the features of the existing firewall and Check Point firewall, and we tell them what the rules will be, like incoming and outbound rules. We try to see what is the fastest way, without any downtime, how we can point or configure the checkpoint. 

Then, after that, we do the testing, because almost all of the offices need that. So, normally, once we set it up, we give them one month for testing. Normally, for a better line or something, we just use a certain IT department or a sub-department for testing. After that, if it's okay, we hand it over.

In a nutshell:

Requirement Analysis →  Feature Comparison  → Rule Definition → Testing and Validation → Phased Rollout → Client Acceptance

• Deployment time: 

Normally, for a site, more or less, less than one month. It depends on the number of users. If there are a very large number of users, like 600,000, then it will take around one month or more.

• Deployment resources: 

Normally, we have two technicians working. One is from the Philippines, trained in Sophos and Check Point. We don't need many more staff for the implementation.

• Maintenance: 

It's very easy. Only the licensing. Every year, we have to pay, but sometimes clients talk about the cost. Also, very recently, there was a ransomware issue. The only issue is, for example, if it's ransomware, and it doesn't get detected by Check Point and gets infected from another source, we have to prove that it's not from the outside but from the inside. Because there are a lot of case scenarios like this, those are the things mostly.

• Integration capabilities: 

Integration is a little bit challenging. It's much easier for integration with other applications and domains. When integrating with a domain, there are still some small issues. For example, when applying a group from the domain controller, we sometimes need to test a firewall and do some reporting. There are small issues like that for the integration of LDAP. Other than that, it's good. It can pull up the users and groups, but there are some minor issues when we apply them.

It's effective and good.

Compared to Sophos and others, Check Point pricing is good for the current market.

In terms of features, Check Point and other firewalls are almost the same. There are no special or advanced features.

I can recommend it to other people. Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Currently, we utilize Check Point firewalls, IPS, site-to-site VPN, and remote access VPN features for our various client operations.

We have implemented a cloud firewall for one of our customers and primarily handle perimeter security using Check Point firewalls for multiple customers.

We also handle POCs, implementation, upgrades, and daily security operations as part of our services.

We are distributor partners who also distribute Check Point products to our customers. We recently convinced our clients to use Check Point firewall services and signed a contract with them.

We have not received any issues from any clients using Check Point services so far. It is really great to use and up-to-date. In Check Point, we have never seen it hit any vulnerabilities like other products.

Also, the TAC support from Check Point is excellent. I really appreciate it when dealing with complex issues. It allows us to easily obtain vendor support without many issues compared to other products.

Certifications and training from Check Point are valuable. I recently attended a boot camp and found it both knowledgeable and enjoyable.

Recently, I came across the Check Point Infinity AI feature in one of the Check Point webinars, which I believe is unique and will be very useful in the future.

Also, Check Point Harmony and Quantum deliver uncompromising performance with advanced threat prevention, policy management, remote access VPN IoT security, SD-WAN, and more.

Infinity Threat Prevention is an innovative management model. It provides zero-maintenance protection from zero-day threats and continuously and autonomously ensures that your protection is up-to-date with the latest cyber threats and prevention technologies.

The upgrade process of Check Point could be simplified to match other products.

For some of the MSSP partners, Check Point should personally go and give demos to them. This way, the MSSP can show their clients what Check Point is capable of and what kind of new technologies and features Check Point is coming up with.

Adding automation for upgrades and hotfix installation would be a beneficial new feature for administrators from an operations standpoint. Additionally, Check Point should pay more attention to endpoint security; they are currently lacking in that area compared to other competitors.

I've been using Check Point products for more than eight years.

The solution is 100% stable. 

The solution offers 100% scalability.

Technical support is very good.

Positive

No; we have multiple clients, so we use multiple products.

The setup is fine; I've only faced issues during upgrades.

The expertise of the vendor is excellent. I'd rate them ten out of ten.

The ROI is really good.

In terms of cost, pricing, and licensing, Check Point is not very expensive or complex.

We did not evaluate other options. 

My overall experience is really good. I am enjoying working with Check Point products, especially on the firewall. It's much easier compared to other firewalls.

The solution is used to provide firewall security to cloud integrations.  

The spoofing prevention feature is the most valuable feature.

The solution provider needs to upgrade the IPSec VPN port because VPN branch-to-branch configuration can be easily implemented at our company, but several difficulties arise in a cloud environment like AWS or Azure cloud. The aforementioned cloud providers often need to create VPN interfaces, but in a few cases, these teams don't have the knowledge for configuration or IP points; their knowledge remains limited to the architecture of the clouds on a networking level. 

In future releases of the solution, a remote access VPN feature should be added. Our organization expects the aforementioned feature because we have a secure validated configuration in our remote access VPN, and the feature would allow easy configuration.

For instance, if a customer wants to connect a VPN to a particular domain laptop, our company can integrate the domains with our network's remote access VPN, but the user is unable to connect with other personal laptops.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for five years. 

I would rate the stability of the solution as seven out of ten. The tech support is not operational sometimes, and in a few cases, the tech team of the vendor is unable to provide support with a proper explanation or resolution. Check Point NGFW fails to provide workarounds for certain issues and thus leads to huge time consumption for a single task. The support team of Check Point NGFW on a few occasions takes five to ten hours to resolve an urgent VPN issue which impacts the stability. 

At our company, if we raise an RMA for Check Point NGFW, it takes immense time, which is around 15 to 30 days, to obtain the box, whereas other vendors offer it within five to seven business days. Due to the aforementioned issue, our organization needs to implement a test device on the environment and purchase temporary licenses for that device so that the customers in a stand-alone environment can access the internet. 

In Check Point NGFW, sometimes the logs consume excess storage, and even the storing or indexing process is not implemented correctly. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

Support is available for Check Point NGFW, but the support team, in most cases, is unable to provide an effective and on-time solution after collecting logs. I would rate tech support a seven out of ten. 

Neutral

I worked with Palo Alto previously before transferring to Check Point NGFW. I wanted to learn about Check Point NGFW in-depth as it's considered a difficult solution compared to others, so I ventured into it. 

In our company, we have the option for both cloud-based and on-prem deployment of the solution. The management server integration is different for the aforementioned options. If the traditional management server is present locally, in that case, at our company, we are using the solution for integration, but if a cloud is involved, some keys need to be integrated with the cloud management to let the firewall have internet access. 

Almost every time when the management server reaches or expands to another country in our organization, we face difficulty with integrations. The deployment time of Check Point NGFW depends upon customer requirements, but it takes approximately 15 to 30 days. More feature integrations demand the involvement of more teams in the deployment process. In my area of business, about 50 to 70 customers are using Check Point NGFW. 

If the solution is in a cluster environment, a maintenance window is not required and most of our customers are using the solution in a clustering or stand-alone mode. 

It's an expensive solution. 

Most of our organization's customers are using Check Point NGFW for networks, as enhancing the firewall's performance is not required; if the firewall goes inactive, total protection decreases. Our organization's customers don't want to depend on any particular product and are thus investing in multiple security products. 

On a few occasions, integrating a RADIUS configuration with Check Point NGFW has been difficult because some versions are not supported. I have also faced trouble regarding authentication when integrating Check Point NGFW with Azure EAD. 

Recently, Check Point NGFW has been integrated with zero-threat AI security features. In our organization, we are installing the solution on the Blade architecture, where the aforementioned features function well enough. I would recommend Check Point NGFW to others. I would rate Check Point NGFW overall a six out of ten. 

Our customers have been using it for the network security.

Unlike Fortinet, where the log loading process can take up to a month, Check Point stands out for its efficiency. While other solutions may only provide logs for a short period, such as one or two months, Check Point impressively retains logs for up to six months on some machines and at least three months on others. This extended log retention period is a significant advantage for our customers, providing them with valuable insights and enhancing their overall security posture.

One of the most advantageous features of Check Point firewall is its multi-interface capability. While traditional firewalls typically have a single interface, Check Point stands out by offering tools with multiple interfaces. This capability, now known as SmartConsole, allows users to manage policies, security objects, and routing points all from one dashboard. This contrasts with other firewalls where users often have to log in separately to access different functionalities. The hierarchical structure of communication and management in Check Point firewalls adds complexity, making it more challenging for attackers to exploit vulnerabilities. Additionally, Check Point introduced SD-WAN functionality in December 2013, further enhancing its capabilities and staying ahead of the curve in network security.

There's a significant area for improvement when it comes to pricing. While frequent updates and patches are released, which is commendable and adds significant value, the loading time for SD-WAN updates can be excessively long.

The feature we're eager to see enhanced in Check Point is reporting, particularly in terms of highlighting past reports. Currently, if we create a rule for a report in the morning, we expect to receive an email highlighting it. While we can set this up, the issue lies in segregating the project into separate reports.

I have been working with it for five years.

Occasionally, we face certain issues and downtimes. Downtime varies depending on the type of changes or updates being made. For instance, a version upgrade typically requires only fifteen minutes for reboots. However, for patch updates or version updates, downtime can extend to at least one hour. In some cases, especially in custom environments, downtime may exceed two to three hours.

It provides good scalability. Despite having only three customers, I've implemented the firewall for over a thousand users. These users are situated in factory environments, meaning there are thousands of endpoints, including those connected via VPN.

I am relatively satisfied with the level of technical support provided. We primarily work with Indian support teams, and while some technical engineers are exceptionally intelligent and quick to resolve issues within ten to fifteen minutes, others may take longer. However, the crucial aspect is that they eventually provide an answer or escalate the issue if needed. When I contact support, I first inquire about the assigned person, and if I am familiar with them, I proceed with the interaction. Otherwise, I prefer to escalate the query to another region to avoid wasting time. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

We have experience working with Fortigate and Palo Alto in the past. In Sri Lanka, Check Point has a strong marketing presence, which influences customer decisions.

The initial setup can be complex and may pose a challenge, especially for those without prior experience. Setting it up for the first time requires careful attention and a level of expertise to navigate effectively.

The deployment process begins with configuring the firewall's IP and other settings. Once this initial configuration is complete, we proceed to the AI portal. In the AI portal, the first step is to configure the interfaces. After configuring the interfaces, we proceed to install the created interface. Next, we move on to the SmartConsole. To access the SmartConsole, we download it from the app portal. Once the SmartConsole is installed, we can easily create rules for logging purposes, manage objects, configure networking, and VPN, and other technical tasks from the SmartConsole. Routing and related tasks are typically handled in the data portal. One individual is enough for the deployment. The duration of the setup process varies depending on factors such as the complexity of the customer's environment and the site architecture. For instance, in a relatively simple scenario with just two VLANs and a couple of VPNs, the configuration could be completed within a few working days. Maintenance is essential, with upgrades and patch updates being mandatory at least once every six months. This ensures the system remains up-to-date and secure.

Our customers are pleased with the return on investment. The occasional bugs and updates, common to all firewalls including Check Point, are being addressed promptly. The platform is regularly updated to ensure optimal performance.

The price is on the higher side.

While the cost may be a consideration, the level of security provided by Check Point is exceptional. In my experience, I have not encountered any cyber attacks. The only negative experience was not related to the firewall but rather to customer issues with the router. It's important to remember that compromising security for cost savings can ultimately lead to vulnerabilities. Therefore, investing in high-security solutions like Check Point is worthwhile. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I am currently working with Check Point Firewall because most of your customers have it deployed in their networks. Recently, we were involved in a significant firewall micro-implementation for one of our customers. We created configuration templates, specifically for routing and setting up bond interfaces within CheckPoint. These interfaces are similar to Cisco's port channels, where multiple physical interfaces are bound into one. 

I primarily work on the network side, so my expertise lies in configuring and working with firewalls. I have experience in firewall policies and know how to configure them within Check Point, including blocking URLs and specific website categories. However, I acknowledge that there's room for improvement, particularly in areas related to application-level control within the firewall. While I can't pinpoint a specific area for improvement, I am trying to enhance my skills and knowledge in various aspects of firewall management.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for the last 12 months.

During a project where I was working with a customer deploying Maestro in their network, we encountered an issue related to multicast traffic. Check Point's expert team suggested that we install a package called Jumbo Hotfix inside the Check Point, which resolved the problem. Overall, despite this issue, Check Point NGFW is a stable product with minimal encountered bugs.

Check Point is a stable product, but when compared to other vendors like Palo Alto and Fortinet, I'd recommend going with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is a more stable and robust firewall solution than Check Point.

The deployment of Check Point was straightforward. In the Azure cloud environment, it took approximately thirteen minutes to complete the deployment, while on-premises, the initial setup was relatively easy and not complicated. I have deployed Check Point both on-premises and in the Azure cloud. The deployment in Azure took place around four months ago for a customer's proof of concept (POC). The primary reason for this deployment was to address the customer's VPN subnet limitations with Azure VPN. I suggested that moving to a cloud-based CheckPoint solution would provide better VPN connections without IP subnet limitations. In the Azure deployment, I created a hub and VPN and deployed two CheckPoint instances, not just one. To manage these instances, I used a load balancer within the Azure network.

Regarding firewalls, my role primarily involves designing and deploying them, then handing over the management to the operations team. While I find the deployment process relatively easy, the issues the operations team faces later on can impact my perspective. I'd rate Check Point a 7 out of 10. The ease of deployment is a plus, but we've encountered some problems with Check Point, particularly related to documentation. Compared to vendors like Cisco and Juniper, the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation could be improved.

We are using Check Point Next Generation Firewall both as an edge border gateway and as an internal gateway protecting users and servers networks. Using the Virtual System solution we create different network environments and virtual system firewalls in which we have different modules (additional license could be needed) activated depending on the topology of the network where the firewall is protecting the traffic. We are also implementing IPS on several internal firewalls that are inspecting such flows.

Mainly the easy central management with support for virtual systems has helped in the operating and analyzing time of the security department. We know that with other security solutions that don't scale well and don't have a central management system, you lose precious time operating the platform.

Under the same interface, we are using a stack of different security modules, so the learning curve is easier than the need to learn new interfaces for each specific appliance. At the same time, you can check the logs in a homogeneous way.

The management interface is easy to operate and is a standardized way of managing different firewall modules in the same client application. Additionally, it provides up-to-date security options through different license bundles and scalability to match almost any firewall security needs as you can easily add more systems to implement several cluster firewalls, running as a load-sharing whole system or active-standby members. The log explorer is also straightforward to use, and the results are easily exportable.

To provide visibility of the requirements you have to accomplish to perform some of the traffic security mechanisms. Several security modules are based on HTTPS inspection, losing a relevant security capability if you don't implement it in your network. So the product should point out this need clearly so you can fit your expectations in a real-world environment. That said, this is not a limitation of the product itself.

You need to read the requirements to take into consideration both throughput, security modules and storage (logs) needs so you can choose the appliance that best fits your organization.

I've used the solution for more than ten years.

In most environments, this solution is running pretty stable.

It is easy to scale both with virtual systems or by adding additional physical appliances.

Support has a good and fast response to new threats and is proactive with a big community.

Positive

We were using a Cisco firewall solution. It was outdated and the management interface was not unified.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet as well as Check Point

For the technical administration teams. I advise them to take, at least, the basic training so they can manage the solution adequately.

Check Point NGFW is a critical component of our security infrastructure. It provides comprehensive next-generation firewall (NGFW) security for our perimeter and DMZs, protecting us from a wide range of cyber threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, phishing attacks, and zero-day threats.

Check Point NGFW uses a variety of advanced technologies to protect our network, including intrusion prevention, application control, and threat intelligence. It is also able to detect and block sophisticated cyberattacks that traditional firewalls cannot.

Check Point NGFW has helped us to significantly reduce our risk of cyberattacks by providing comprehensive protection against a wide range of threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, phishing attacks, and zero-day threats. 

It has also improved our network performance and reliability by optimizing traffic flow and reducing latency. 

We are confident that Check Point NGFW will continue to protect our network from the latest cyber threats due to its advanced security features and its team of experts who are constantly monitoring and updating the product.

As a security professional with over ten years of experience, I've seen firsthand the devastating impact that cyberattacks can have on organizations of all sizes. That's why I'm so passionate about using the best possible security solutions to protect my clients.

One of my favorite security solutions is Check Point NGFW. It provides comprehensive protection against a wide range of cyber threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, phishing attacks, and zero-day threats. It is also designed to deliver high performance even in the most demanding environments, and it can be scaled to meet the needs of organizations of all sizes.

I've also found Check Point NGFW to be very easy to use and manage, even for users with limited IT expertise. This is important to me because I want to make sure that my clients can focus on their business without having to worry about complex security solutions.

Overall, I highly recommend Check Point NGFW to any organization that is looking for a comprehensive and effective security solution.

There are a few areas where Check Point NGFW could be improved. First, it can be expensive, especially for small businesses. Second, it can be complex to configure and manage, especially for users with limited IT expertise. Finally, its licensing model can be complex and confusing.

Despite these areas for improvement, I still highly recommend Check Point NGFW to any organization that is looking for a comprehensive and effective security solution. I am confident that Check Point will continue to improve its products in the future, and I am excited to see what new features and capabilities they come up with next.  

One thing I would like to see in the next release is an AI-powered threat detection and prevention system that can automatically identify and block new and emerging threats.

We've been a Check Point customer for over 21 years, and we've always felt that they are a trusted partner in our cybersecurity efforts.

Overall, I'm very impressed with the stability of Check Point NGFW. It's a powerful security solution that can meet the needs of organizations of all sizes.

One of the things that I appreciate most about Check Point NGFW is its flexibility. It can be deployed in a variety of ways, including physical appliances, virtual machines, and cloud-based instances. This makes it easy to scale your security infrastructure up or down as needed.

I've always been impressed with the responsiveness and expertise of Checkpoint's customer service and support team.

Positive

We have never used a different solution. We have been using Check Point NGFW since we first launched our network 21 years ago, and we have been very satisfied with its performance and reliability.

The complexity of the initial setup of Check Point NGFW depends on the size and complexity of your network, as well as the features and capabilities that you need.  

If you have a large enterprise with a complex network or need to configure all of the features and capabilities of Check Point NGFW, I would highly recommend that you engage Check Point Professional Services to help you with the setup process.

We have always used Check Point Professional Services to assist with our implementation.  They are very knowledgeable and can save you a lot of time and frustration.

To maximize the ROI of Check Point NGFW, it is important to choose the right deployment model, use Check Point's security services, and keep the software up to date.

There are a few areas where Check Point NGFW could be improved. First, it can be expensive, especially for small businesses. Second, it can be complex to configure and manage, especially for users with limited IT expertise. Finally, its licensing model can be complex and confusing.

Despite these areas for improvement, I still highly recommend Check Point NGFW to any organization that is looking for a comprehensive and effective security solution. I am confident that Check Point will continue to improve its products in the future, and I am excited to see what new features and capabilities they come up with next.

We evaluated Cisco ASA Firewall before choosing Check Point NGFW.

A few months ago, one of my clients was targeted by a sophisticated ransomware attack. Check Point NGFW was able to detect and block the attack before it could cause any damage. My client was very grateful for Check Point NGFW's protection, and I was relieved that I was able to help them avoid a costly and disruptive attack.