Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) Reviews

My team and I work with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security and handle all related tasks, including deploying virtual machines and configuring all aspects.

Our security team's roles include networking security, and our responsibility is to deploy all firewalls across our organization's sites, both on-premises and in the cloud.

The most valuable features of Check Point CloudGuard Code Security include our approach to manage it via the management we have on-premises, and we also deploy the same extension management of CloudGuard to manage all the virtual systems on Azure.

We effectively use artificial intelligence with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security, as we have teams that work with AI and we frequently manage our firewalls using AI along with the CloudGuard and all virtual systems.

There are still areas for improvement with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security. All the features we have on the firewall on the on-premises side, we also have under CloudGuard such as IPS, Anti-Bot, and all these blades are set up in our CloudGuard.

The initial setup of Check Point CloudGuard Code Security is very challenging because it requires more preparation, and we need more guides to understand how to set up all aspects.

I would rate the support for Check Point CloudGuard Code Security as good because we can quickly email support about any problems we encounter, and they reply instantly to provide help. I would give it an eight.

To deploy Check Point CloudGuard Code Security, it requires four people on our team to manage all the Check Point devices.

Some challenges with Check Point CloudGuard Code Security include that we noticed FortiGate is much more efficient on AWS, and our team prefers to deploy FortiGate there instead of CloudGuard due to the management challenges on the cloud.

I do not have experience with CyberArk, we only work with VSX and the family of VSX, which is provided by Check Point.

I can recommend Check Point CloudGuard Code Security to other organizations as it is a good platform to protect our organization. On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution an eight.

I am currently evaluating a hybrid solution for our infrastructure since some of our services are hosted on-premises while others are processed through the cloud. We have multiple websites, applications, and some non-web-based applications that we need to protect.

The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage. 

The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature. It also supports legacy applications and improves security access. Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions and provides necessary protection between our central office and peripheries through VPN access. 

The solution allows for proactive support and parts replacement.

The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation. The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.

I am happy with their support. They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution. The support rating is about seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Positive

We looked at FortiGate and some open-source solutions, however, they either did not fully meet our requirements or required a dedicated person for administration, making them cost-prohibitive.

We collaborated with our vendor, A1, which also offers parts replacement and support as part of the package.

The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support.

The price is fair for the features offered. For us, it is cost-effective compared to hiring a dedicated person for administration.

Prior to choosing the current solution, we considered FortiGate and other open-source solutions.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Protecting our websites or our customers' websites is our top priority. We transitioned to Check Point WAF from on-premises WAF to safeguard our external perimeter. Essentially, I am focused on protecting our external infrastructure and web services.

It helps me sleep at night, providing peace of mind. It saves time, money, troubleshooting, and maintenance and reduces the need to hire people to manage the technology because it is so easy to use.

The WAF is the best feature. The application firewall's ability to block and recognize all attacks in real-time, such as DDoS, is invaluable. Identifying attacks and integrating with the rest of the ecosystem are features I am very fond of.

It's a pretty robust product.

CloudGuard protects against threats without relying on signatures. This is one of the best features. As an engineer, I don't have to review signatures one by one by one. 90% of the other players use signatures. So you have to review the attack, the signature, and how to mitigate it, etcetera. Removing the signatures from the equation removes a lot of time required for an engineer to review signatures, apply signatures, verify that these are applied to the infrastructure, etcetera. So removing that from the equation and protecting the infrastructure at all times is very cost-effective. 

Signature-based also causes a lot of false positives. So having no signature also helps remove a lot of the false positives. 

I cannot think of any needed features.

Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received. Reducing prices would be welcome. 

Integration with more technologies or Check Point products, or on-prem products, could improve robustness. Many organizations are moving to the cloud. Some cannot fully transition and require solutions similar to on-prem devices. 

I have used the solution for the past two years.

Support is the same with on-premise devices, and it is very good. Since it is cloud-based, I do not need them as much. 

Positive

I have used CloudGuard, Imperva Cloud WAF, and Barracuda Cloud WAF. I have experience with all of the major players.

I have seen what we were used to before and how much time we spent. We used to manage on-prem devices for other partners that could run from other vendors. When you migrate to the cloud, it feels like saving 90% of your time.

If the price could come down, I would be very happy with the product.

I will not disclose which vendor is the best. In specific cases, some vendors perform well, while others are competitive at the high end. Check Point is one vendor that I really appreciate, and I will not mention the other, however the competition is very close.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. Nobody is perfect. 

I have found features like Cisco ASA and Firepower most valuable. Secure Firewall is a secure firewall with features like WAF and web applications. We have web filtering applications, secure features, and application controls among other features.

I have found features like Cisco ASA and Firepower most valuable. Secure Firewall is a secure firewall with features like WAF and web applications. We have web filtering applications, secure features, and application controls among other features. I am not using Cisco SecureX with Secure Firewall.

Currently, I have no suggestions for Cisco Secure Firewall. I am not working on the next-generation firewall of Cisco. As I already mentioned, I have no suggestions regarding the features and improvements. I am not working on Cisco firewall currently.

Overall, I have been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for almost three to four years.

I would rate the technical support by Cisco a nine out of ten.

I think the implementation is easy. GUI-based implementation for firewalls is straightforward. Although the command line is a very simple process, next-generation firewalls now come with GUI-based interfaces.

In comparison to other vendors, the pricing is reasonable and affordable.

I am currently using some Cisco products. I am currently using some switches of Cisco. I am working on the ASA series. I stopped working with Cisco Firewall more than one to two years ago. I am currently dealing mostly with other Cisco products. I am not dealing with Cisco Secure Access or Cisco Duo. I am working with different product vendors such as Check Point and Fortinet. I am working with Check Point Web Application Firewalls and using bundles with them. I am using some features such as WAF and UTP bundles with application controls, web filtering, email filtering, and DNS filtering and controls that are implemented with UTP enterprise bundles and other WAF applications. I have been dealing with Check Point for three to four years on different products. I am using other platforms and testing some things for the networks. I am also using some other products with them.

I did not have new features or functionalities that I have used recently in Secure Firewall. Check Point WAF is used in my company and my customers are using it. I have seen measurable business and security outcomes since implementation of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). All vendors design firewalls with application filtering. As per current incident reporting, we implement and update our feature updates and security databases. These databases are updated regularly. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) works fine for every product like Cisco, Check Point, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. I am currently not using Check Point WAF as a primary solution, just for a specific purpose. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is working fine and reports, detects, and stops attacks such as IPS and detection. I would rate Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) a nine out of ten. The existing features are working fine, but new day-to-day attacks and issues arise in the environment globally, dealing with attacks such as phishing and DDoS attacks daily. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) could improve by addressing the new day-to-day attacks and issues that arise in the environment and globally dealing with attacks. I have been satisfied with pricing, technical support, and performance. I am a customer of Check Point. I have been working in this field for several years. My overall review rating for this product is ten.

I use the solution for almost all of our web servers.

Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again. 

The rate limit feature is the most useful feature of the product.

We don't need to rely on signatures. We are protected when the signature doesn't exist. 

It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies. It blocks items that would affect the company.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate. It took a bit of time, however, not long. We're near zero false positives. 

The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good. More user-friendly features could be added. Perhaps something between CloudGuard management and the virtual appliance on-site could be faster. 

It could be interesting to have an app for smartphones to manage all the cloud environments.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is always good. 

The scalability is always good.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. I am satisfied. It is always good. 

Due to the nature of our business, we have heavily invested in backend API development, providing services exclusively through this interface. Similar to how banks and medical industries utilize data from centralized sources, our APIs cannot be exposed directly to the Internet. To safeguard these critical APIs, a robust security solution is essential. 

Check Point CloudGuard WAF fulfills this need by intercepting all incoming internet traffic, categorizing requests as legitimate or malicious, including attack details, and blocking suspicious activity at the initial stage. Only verified, non-malicious requests are permitted to interact with our APIs.

When we activate the WAF, our security signatures and all the latest threat intelligence are immediately updated. Our protection is automatically refreshed every few hours to address emerging threats. For example, if a zero-day attack originates in Europe, Check Point CloudGuard can detect it within minutes and distribute a new signature globally. This ensures that when the attack reaches Australia, it is already blocked by our up-to-date WAF.

Although the WAF still produces false positives because of the signatures, we can apply a rule to exclude them easily.

Automated threat intelligence is crucial because a ransomware attack can compromise a network in minutes. Imagine an attack occurring at 3 AM when staff is unavailable; the damage may already be done when someone investigates. Ransomware can infiltrate and complete its task within just a few sessions. Once inside, attackers can lay dormant for months, covertly sending data using internal IP addresses. These addresses are often whitelisted, making it difficult to detect whether the outbound traffic is authorized or malicious. Automated threat intelligence can rapidly detect and respond to attacks, unlike manual processes that take 15 to 20 minutes, often too late to prevent significant damage like a completed ransomware attack. Systems like OCSP, utilizing best practices from multiple vendors such as Azure, Microsoft, CheckPoint, Palo Alto, and CloudStrike, provide an open platform for sharing and updating threat signatures. This enables organizations to tailor their security measures based on specific application needs and behaviors, effectively mitigating risks without unnecessary restrictions.

Cloud-based WAF solutions, such as Check Point's, offer significant advantages compared to traditional on-premises WAFs like Cisco or Palo Alto. On-premises WAFs require substantial upfront costs for hardware, expensive licenses, and frequent, costly upgrades as technology evolves. Cloud-based alternatives eliminate these expenses by providing the latest features and capabilities without hardware or software management. This flexibility and cost-efficiency make cloud WAFs appealing to many organizations. However, cloud solutions can be more expensive for high-throughput applications like Instagram or Facebook due to data transfer costs. At the same time,  on-premises options might be more economical in these cases. Ultimately, the best choice depends on specific network size, criticality, and application requirements.

Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure. In the first secure phase, pre-built signatures are used, eliminating the need for a live tracker as the necessary data is readily available. This approach efficiently blocks threats without progressing to the slower, resource-intensive second phase. Unlike competitors who process every request, this method conserves CPU power and prevents application slowdowns.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's code could be improved. While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code. Ideally, we would prefer consistent configuration across all products to simplify deployment, but in this case, the ISE is incompatible with the two or three different models we've identified. Therefore, we must rely solely on the GUI for configuration.

I have used Check Point CloudGuard WAF for four months.

It was stable in the four months we ran Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. We only reached 80 percent of our CPU capacity.

The technical support is good. We didn't use them much, demonstrating the product's quality.

Positive

At that stage, our primary goal was to select a suitable WAF to replace our existing F5 WAF. While the F5 WAF performed well, we sought to eliminate it due to excessive licensing costs. Given the high expense of our entire WAF solution, we explored alternatives, including Azure WAF, Check Point WAF, and Palo Alto WAF. Although we initially considered Cisco WAF, it was quickly discarded as outdated. After a two-week evaluation, we narrowed our options to Azure, Check Point, and Palo Alto WAFs.

The deployment is straightforward and similar to any standard firewall installation. While the process took four days due to design finalization, deploying directly from code can be completed in less than thirty minutes.

Two people were involved in the deployment, one working on the design and the other on the ISE.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF. I would rate the cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF as eight out of ten, with ten being the most costly.

We evaluated Cisco WAF, but it is outdated and no longer competitive. Since we utilize Azure Cloud, we opted for Azure WAF due to our preference for cloud-based solutions. Azure WAF has performed well and is seamlessly integrated behind the scenes. We also evaluated Palo Alto, but configuration challenges through ISE led us to discontinue its use seven months ago. Check Point CloudGuard WAF was abandoned for similar reasons. Azure WAF's integration with ISE, including built-in Bicep modules for CLI configuration and deployment, is a significant advantage. Currently, we manage approximately 35 IP addresses and require two distinct stages for WAF settings and module deployment. Consistent signature stem definition across different environments is essential. ISE was crucial in our decision-making process, ultimately replacing Check Point due to the latter's lack of ISE integration, a critical requirement. While Check Point offered several strengths, the absence of ISE was a deal-breaker. Overall, Azure WAF has met our expectations.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

We have six environments in multiple locations and eight products that use 20 APIs.

We have a team of four working with the WAF.

I would recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF if it fully meets the organization's needs, the cost is reasonable, and they desire AI and ML integration in the future. However, since we do not require AI or ML and prioritize ISE for our management approach, this solution did not align with our requirements.

I have a team that manages CloudGuard for me. We have different research centers using various cloud accounts and are trying to consolidate everything into a single landing zone to protect those areas. From a use-case perspective, I have different laboratories or research centers utilizing it for various purposes. We are mostly focused on AI, and some of those requirements cater to the AI segment as well.

From a protection perspective, Check Point is a well-renowned name. We are also using other products from Check Point, such as Harmony, Infinity, and XDR. We have a consolidated view of the overall security posture, which I find quite interesting.

CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. This is crucial for us to maintain application security and stop the threats coming into our environment, keeping our production part secure.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. It is the best. That is why I am paying for it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helps us with overall application and cloud API security. The consolidated view of the security posture that Check Point provides is very useful from an upper management perspective.

CloudGuard WAF has helped reduce our false positive rate by 30%.

From a security perspective, it is quite good. I am not very familiar with the detailed features of it because I have a team that manages it. 

I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further. I am content with what I have in terms of features and support, but if I start expanding the usage, I might need more help from them. I already have the best consultants from Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for around seven or eight months now.

I have not observed any stability issues yet. It has been pretty reliable.

The scalability is excellent and is one of its best features.

Customer service is one of the best in the market right now.

Positive

We did not use a similar solution previously. 

We have a hybrid deployment model with AWS as the cloud provider. 

Its deployment was smooth. We did not have any issues. 

We used Check Point for the implementation.

It has been only six or seven months now. I am hoping that by the time I complete one year, I will see the return on investment.

It has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall to a certain extent, but I do not have the numbers.

The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others.

I considered other solutions. I decided on Check Point because of its comprehensive suite of applications and the integration with my tools, providing a consolidated view of my security posture.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten. I believe there is always room for improvement, but there are use cases I have not yet explored. 

We primarily use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application security. It protects applications from various threats and vulnerabilities like SQL injections, cross-site scripting issues, and cross-site request forgery. We ensure proper security policies and logs are maintained.

CloudGuard WAF helps by providing advanced protection for web applications and APIs, defending against the OWASP top ten scenarios, and offering comprehensive AI-driven behavior analysis. This assistance in data protection is vital for financial domains such as banks.

One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard. It's easy for beginners in security to understand and set policies. The solution's easy access and AI-driven behavior analysis for real-time threat detection are also highly valuable.

Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability. Although they provide 24/7 support, there are sometimes delays in delivering solutions. Advanced bot protection has recently been improved, which has helped a lot.

I have been using the solution for over four to five years, working as a project manager and handling implementation projects. We are primarily focused on Check Point CloudGuard implementations.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten. The solution is quite stable.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The solution is highly scalable.

Customer service is satisfactory yet requires some improvement. I would rate support as an eight out of ten, as there is room for enhancement.

Positive

I have experience with other WAF vendors such as Imperva and Imperva WAF, which are leading products in India and have a significant presence in the US and UK.

The initial setup is generally straightforward, yet it can vary depending on the client's platform and whether deployment occurs on-site or remotely.

We have a team of around 25 engineers; 50% handle project implementation, while the other 50% provide post-deployment support.

Return on investment is seen when data is properly organized, and the ability to show reports to top management ensures that their expectations are met.

Pricing is average—not too expensive, yet not cheap either. CloudGuard offers bundled packages, which may reduce costs compared to paying for individual features as opposed to other providers.

I have evaluated solutions like Empower and EmpowerVac, which are leading WAF products in India and other countries.

I would definitely recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF to other users due to its availability, scalability, and support. These aspects contribute significantly to receiving new contracts and maintaining client referrals.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use cases include enhancing security for web applications and APIs, optimizing resource utilization to reduce costs, and maximizing efficiency in log management for better insights and savings, and was an great success case. The API protector could filter the real necessity of methods, making stronger connections. One last great point, that you could user more services in a in-line way and by an Server Agent, its an impressive service.

CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by simplifying security management and enhancing our ability to monitor and analyze logs effectively and also, giving visibility, and this last one makes the real difference;

The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF are the Anti-BOT context, that one is amazing! Also the API Protector Methods Filter, that could expose only real needed ones, The rich logging capabilities to giving a great visibility and Anti DDOS Working, its also impressive, because, improving your application in a non-stop way.

I do not have appoints here, its pretty easy to use, and my opnion, It's the Best WAF for a CISO;

I have been working with CloudGuard WAF and the Anti-BOT, Anti-DDOS, Great Policy Method (Granular)!

CloudGuard WAF impressed us with its stability; it is a powerful tool providing great visibility.

CloudGuard WAF's scalability is excellent, especially as a SaaS, offering significant improvements over on-premises environments and providing consolidated scalability.

The technical deploy and support were amazing!

We previously used Cloudflare. Now, we are full deployed Checkpoint WAF to enhance our log insights, and visibility! Amazing experience!

The initial deployment was straightforward. We transitioned from an on-premises solution to a SaaS model, which was simpler and more useful. Our implementation strategy involved redirecting the site to the new solution and creating policies to ensure smooth operation.

We deployed the service with the Technical Supoort as a Professional Services from Grupo Facimus - NetSite, a Brazilian company and was an amazing experience! Great cost, one of our Best Partnerships! Thank you Grupo Facimus

We haven't seen ROI metrics yet, but we expect long-term benefits, especially in budget management and risk reduction.

Great and a fair cost provided between the Checkpoint and the Partner Grupo Facimus NetSite;

Before choosing CloudGuard, we evaluated options like Cloudflare, Azure and AWS. The main differences lie in policy customization, market size, and preset features. Each has its pros and cons, but CloudGuard stood out for its robust policy options and wide market presence.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF Score as 10!

By implementing Check Point CloudGuard WAF we aimed to address challenges related to enhancing security for web applications while leveraging powerful logging capabilities.

We check false positives in CloudGuard WAF using logs and the interface, and we have had very few issues, which helps our business.

Using preset policies, the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies without requiring full data.

The solution has cut our web application firewall costs because it is adaptable to our environment.

My advice to new users would be to focus on the benefits of software as a service and ensure clarity in understanding pricing, particularly for DDoS protection.

We have so many applications where the code needs to be verified before it can be transferred to production. This scans the code and all the configurations to detect issues. 

We're able to protect APIs from exposure and ensure we have credentials for transactions. If any misconfiguration happens, we can be sure we will not be compromised. 

The security on offer is great. It's secure in terms of testing all the workloads. We can test across any workload or multiple clouds. It offers unified prevention. It also offers posture management by verifying proper scanning. 

We use the GSL builder. It's easy to write customer rules or policies using it. Of course, you do need proper training on the product first. It takes around one week to get trained. 

We've been able to reduce human error, and you can build the rules for better coverage.

It provides functionality across cloud providers.

The solution helps us save time. We've reduced the amount of time spent by 25%.

Its unified security management console is a very complete dashboard. We can see all security threats and can gain visibility into what is happening. We have access to automation and can monitor the security of IT systems.

The product offers role-based access control so that we can set up different privileges for admin users.

Cloud Guard Spectrum is good for automating our organization's security across assets, workloads, and multiple clouds. With it, we have advanced pre-prevention across the cloud security network. It works for on-premises also.

We can easily determine our organization's security posture. It will ensure my application's availability time across the enterprise.

Network security helped us reduce our compliance and audit activities. We've saved about 20% of our time. 

Having a cloud detection response helps to very quickly identify security threats in our environment. It's automated so it saves us time. That way, people can work on other projects. On any given day, we're spending 20% less time in general worrying about detection and response. Our security operations are saving a lot of time using a unified platform.

There needs to be better security around API integration. 

I've been using the solution for two years. 

The stability of the product is very good. 

We have the product deployed to a single location. We have 250 end-users. 

The scalability is good; I find that I can scale up.

Technical support is very good. 

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

I was not involved with the deployment of the product.

The product does not require any maintenance. 

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is. 

We did not evaluate any other solution. 

I'm a customer and end-user. 

With CloudGuard, you can easily secure the workloads and applications running in a hybrid environment or public cloud. It helps mitigate risk and protects against data leakage or breaches. It's a one-stop solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'd recommend the solution to others.