What advice do you have for others considering CloudGuard for Application Security?

I suggest to others that if you have web-based applications or HTTPS traffic, you must use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect your service. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 9.

Azure DevOps ( /products/microsoft-azure-devops-reviews ) is a comprehensive platform that streamlines our development workflow and enhances team collaboration, though the pricing structure could be simplified.

I would advise someone considering Check Point CloudGuard WAF to invest in proper training. The platform's advanced features can be challenging to grasp initially. So, take the time to learn how to use the product effectively. It is well worth the investment.

I would advise others to use and implement Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a solution in the firewall segment. Check Point has been in this segment for two decades and is more stable than other firewall vendors. I recommend using it and implementing all the features it offers. Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security. That's why I rate it ten out of ten.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. Overall, it is a very good solution.

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

If someone is only using a cloud-native product and not using something like CloudGuard, I'd advise buying it. It is a very good product. Now with WAF, I see many attacks being prevented. It is a good solution for me. I have five million requests per month on our web server. The last results I saw showed maybe 50% to 60% of attacks being prevented. I rate it ten out of ten. I am very satisfied.

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

My advice would be to use this solution since it's cloud-based and the deployment is quick and easy. Overall, the platform is great. I would consolidate it from the usual infrastructures, though. Every platform requires someone to focus on it, so it would be good if an integrator would be more involved in this specific solution.

My advice would be to check the use cases you need to see if CloudGuard suits you. I recommend the solution in general. I would rate it a nine out of ten. I can’t give it a 10 because there’s always room for improvement. I’d say that there should be better support from the integration team, I’m not sure if it’s Check Point’s responsibility, though. Overall, the product is excellent.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

Security headers, such as content security policies and HSTS policies, protect applications from web vulnerabilities like cross-site scripting attacks and cookie theft. These parameters can be defined at the CloudFront level or within a WAF. WAFs operate in two main modes. Initially, they may be set to detection mode, monitoring activity without blocking traffic. This is useful for assessing the impact and tuning the rules. Once your implementation and team are ready, you can switch to the blocking mode, where the WAF actively blocks suspicious traffic. It’s important to carefully configure this mode to avoid blocking legitimate traffic, which can cause disruptions. Additionally, you might see cost savings if you don’t use an API management platform and instead rely on WAF to manage API-related features. However, the decision depends on your specific architecture and implementation needs. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

To those evaluating CloudGuard WAF, I would advise that for integration, make sure they have a trusted partner that is going to help them with the integration plan or they have the in-house skills to develop that plan. I would rate CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten.

Implementing CloudGuard WAF allowed me to address the challenges of securing my applications and data in a rapidly evolving cloud environment. Using CloudGuard WAF has brought significant benefits, including improved threat protection, streamlined policy management, and enhanced usability. I noticed these advantages shortly after the first deployment. It is extremely important to me that CloudGuard optimizes security to protect my applications without solely relying on signatures. To access the false positive rate, I typically review assessment reports available on platforms like AWS or Azure. By evaluating how effectively the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and minimizes false positives, I can reduce the total cost of ownership for my web application security. The solution's privacy features, user-friendly web console, virtual deployment options, and physical appliance capabilities have all contributed to reducing my total cost of ownership. Overall, I would rate CloudGuard WAF as an eight out of ten.

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. Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a ten out of ten.

The advice I would offer to others regarding Check Point products revolves around their robust features, particularly the rollback feature. I appreciate how Check Point handles this compared to some competitors who use their own driver on the DriveSpace, whereas others leverage Microsoft VSS. Regarding email security, it's straightforward to deploy and has a high catch rate compared to competitors. Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

For those evaluating WAF solutions, there are so many options, but I would recommend relying on a company like Check Point that has a great ecosystem. Their solutions are not only made for the cloud. They also have specialization in all types of security. With their AI and ThreatCloud, you have information about what is happening in the security world. The information that they provide is very useful, so rely on a company that is big enough to provide the security that you deserve. In this project, there were a lot of technical issues that we had to manage through our engineers. It was our first project and the interaction with the development teams was important. It was very important to get the due dates and stay on track. For a successful project, you need to have a close interaction with the client, especially if the client is not a specialist in security. Check Point also helped us a lot with this project. Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten.

Based on its effectiveness in safeguarding us from potential attacks and the value it has demonstrated, I would give it a perfect score of ten out of ten.

False positives happen occasionally, but it's not a big deal for me. I prefer false positives over the risk of something going undetected. The tool's abilities for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies are good. It has helped us reduce the TCO for the web application firewall. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The auto-generation of WAF rules has positively impacted our security posture by efficiently identifying and mitigating threats. In cloud security, it may reduce delays in detecting and responding to security incidents. By checking the security posture of clients' websites, we can assess cybersecurity risks, such as those specific to certain industries, improving overall security awareness and readiness. The deep API protection provided by CloudGuard has several benefits, such as comparing API calls to updates in cybersecurity groups and enhancing security for web applications and APIs. An example of CloudGuard's effectiveness is when protecting cloud-based RP systems or electronic invoice applications. In these cases, CloudGuard secures the cloud environment, including databases, against malware, encrypts applications, and provides overall application protection. CloudGuard integrates well with existing cloud security tools and management systems, making it easy to implement and manage. I would recommend CloudGuard to others, especially for organizations heavily reliant on cloud infrastructure and applications. It provides comprehensive security coverage, including WAF, which is essential for safeguarding applications in the cloud. I often suggest CloudGuard to clients to enhance their cybersecurity posture and mitigate risks effectively. Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF as an eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Application Security an eight out of ten.

You need someone knowledgeable to run the system. Today, with all the technology and everything, the company just wants to buy control and be lazy. "Let Check Point do the work." But this does not happen with Check Point because you need professional eyes. Check Point's price is very low compared to those controlling the system. You have to learn to investigate the solution to work better with it. The knowledge costs more than the system. The solution has a hybrid deployment, and I don't know a company that only chooses one deployment or another. There is no support available for Check Point. There are things you have to look for, and that's it. Check Point is the world's first and probably best security company. They might change its face, give it new names, separate into new models, and so on, but in the end, they are the best security company in the world. I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

This is an excellent tool that helps improve security and governance.

This is an excellent tool that provides secure connections.

Whenever new users are going to acquire a tool of this type they need to look for the greatest amount of information that offers them the most benefits.

We could not have prevented many external attacks without AppSec. I am happy due to its great performance.

It is a must-try security solution for all kinds of businesses. There are awesome features at extremely low cost.

The solution works very well. They just need to improve the support and documentation.

They are offering fantastic IT security solutions and should keep evolving this way to keep up with the pace of IT security advancements in a recent technological era.

I really recommend users take their time to try this solution. It is very good.