Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We place our CloudGuard Network Security gateways at the front on Azure, positioned with a load balancer. The configuration includes a load balancer and gateways on a virtual automation scale set in Azure. 

The solution is easier to manage than an on-premise firewall. It is easy to manage. The use of dynamic objects for these gateways made it easy to create the right rules and the right policies. Integration with Azure is also easy where we have to just add the subnets. In an on-premise setup, we have to add everything from scratch. We can automate a lot of actions.

We have the product deployed on Azure China. One crucial concern is the version limitation; unfortunately, in Azure China, we are restricted to running version R80. Our architecture has a Load Balancer, VMSS CloudGuard, etc. The duplication in this setup prevents the application from seeing the original client IP. This poses a problem for certain applications that require the original IP for login purposes. Although we managed a workaround with a different architecture involving a WAF, it is not as straightforward as the standard Azure setup.

I have been using the product for two years. However, my company has been using it for five to six years. 

CloudGuard Network Security's stability is high. 

The solution's scalability is good. 

We typically open tickets with our partner, but there was one instance where they couldn't provide a solution. In that case, we opened a ticket with Check Point directly, and they responded within four hours, resolving the issue.

We initially used on-premise solutions, starting with Juniper firewalls. However, when we migrated to Check Point for IPS protection, the experience was really good.

We have seen ROI with the product's use. It helps us reduce the manhours with upgrades and odd fixes. We can automate the process. It takes only a small amount of time. On-premise solutions require informing users about potential interruptions and, in worst-case scenarios, significant disruptions. The process involves extensive preparation, including ensuring that the necessary conditions are met for updating the cluster members one at a time. In contrast, on Azure, automation simplifies everything.

We tried to use Azure Firewall for one application as a proof of concept. However, Check Point is easier for us. 

We operate in a hybrid cloud environment with both on-premises and Azure, but we don't currently use other cloud providers like Amazon. Our on-premises SmartConsole remains in use, and overall, everything is running smoothly. Our confidence in the product is high. We believe that we can do better with its help. I would rate it a nine out of ten because it's very good with high potency and potential. However, it's not perfect. I faced issues with Azure China, and it's not as straightforward on other cloud platforms.

This feature is integrated into the security solution of Check Point, and its CloudGuard flagship product is very valuable to our company. It has helped us to make posture, recommendations, and security improvements to the network of our Azure public cloud. We have been able to improve our current implementations and future deployments of networks in our infrastructure in the best way, making assessments that provide us with improvements that include building a more secure environment.

This tool managed to help us improve our security from deployment to reconfiguration of networks - both in our Azure public cloud and on-premise networks, thanks to its improvement reports.

Its integration and use of features, such as advanced threat prevention, have helped us a lot with malware prevention and also with avoiding exposure to false positives.

The best practices that this product has at the network level are incredible. We have improved a lot so far, and now we have a more secure and complete infrastructure.

CloudGuard Network Security provides advanced threat prevention capabilities that can detect and block known and unknown threats, including malware, viruses, and zero-day attacks. This helps a lot for companies that have their infrastructure both on-premise and in Azure.

CloudGuard Network Security includes application control features that allow administrators to control which applications can access the network and how they can be used.

The automation of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is incredible. It helps us to deploy implementations with good practices in the network; this is a great value add to the tool.

It would be very good if the company could expand the current public documentation in order to improve the implementation of the solution, and initial configurations, among other items. It would help us be able to implement it in the fastest and safest way possible.

The costs are high. They could revalue them by lowering them a bit and making them more attractive to many customers, and likely they would be able to sell more.

It would also be good to validate the Check Point Infinity Portal. Sometimes it sticks a bit or responds a little slowly.

The solution was used during the last year. It is a feature integrated with the Check Point CloudGuard tool.

It's a very comprehensive solution. However, we have not found any other solution that generates the same level of security as Check Point.

The costs seem high. However, the product is also incredible. It provides great value.

We value tools such as Defender for cloud, among others, however, this solution is the most complete, and we trust Check Point.

I recommend doing a little research before purchasing the product.

We use the solution for safeguarding the network security infrastructure. This has been one of the greatest achievements since we come across CloudGuard Network Security. 

It has launched effective security measures that can monitor security and provide feedback. 

Workflows across the company ecosystem have can flow smoothly without experiencing any challenges. 

The multi-channel security system monitors our cloud and hybrid servers. Transfer of files from the company database to the cloud servers goes through secure channels mapped by this platform.

A well-established encryption system now secures communication and workflow management systems. Data compromisation situations reported before have been fully eliminated since we deployed this software. There is increased production with secure workflow channels. The IT team can access and control the network security of interlinked company applications. We have developed a modern digital infrastructure that can access and give reliable reports based on real-time results. We no longer experience continuous system failures with automated performance monitoring tools.

Network security threat tools can launch and give advanced reports to the IT team on the future performance of various systems. 

The data analysis dashboards provide comprehensive reports and graphic representations of network security. 

We have secured our digital systems with high-grade security tools that cannot be bypassed by ransomware attacks. The customer service technical team provided virtual training to our team and provided the best article guidelines. 

The automatic features seal all loopholes that could be exploited by cybercriminals.

The operations require skilled manpower with extended experience of working with networking systems for better results. 

The cost depends on company size, and licensing terms are not favorable to small-scale businesses. 

The good sides are many from my experience, and I could recommend it to any growing company that requires the best-performing network security. From the first deployment, we have experienced improved and secure network infrastructure. We have been working closely with the customer service team, and there is no situation that has led to negative objections. 

A combination of on-premises and cloud computing services under one interface could enhance simple and comprehensive monitoring. 

They can integrate tools with policy recommendations and notification alerts on when to remove specific objects of the user's choice.

I've used the solution for one to two years.

The product's stable performance has stimulated business growth.

The set network security planning has been achieved, and we are happy with it.

The customer support team never disappoints.

Positive

We started with this tool and have no intentions of leaving it soon.

The setup was complicated since we had to get proper guidelines from the customer support team.

We deployed through a vendor team, and their level of expertise is high.

The ROI has grown positively since we deployed it.

Companies can try it for themselves and explore its great benefits.

We landed straight to CloudGuard Network Security due to the positive comments made by our partners.

I am satisfied with the current performance.

As per the solution's blade design, there are many options. For example, you have to buy a UTM blade and an advanced malware blade, etc. If the blade license is there, we can configure from the firewall GUI. 

The net policy and routing are also great features.

If you compare the GUI with the Palo Alto and Cisco, they're very easy. Check Point, due to its design, is a little bit complex. They should make the GUI easy to use so that anyone can understand it, like Fortinet's GUI. Many companies end up using Fortinet because the GUI is very easy, and there's no need for training. They just deploy the box and do the configuration.

Also, we have to inform customers that with Check Point there's no need to purchase any routing device. Check Point can do that routing as well as the Firewall and the IPS. The marketing should be stronger, to show that customers only need one box to handle all the features. It will be cost-effective and enhance the performance and value, but because of their poor marketing, customers don't realize this.

In the future, a color string would be powerful. Sandboxing should also be offered. Many people want the Trend Sandbox but not on the cloud. In the Middle East, there is a policy for Sandboxing that states it should be on Trend as per the government law. They have Sandboxing solutions on the cloud, but they have to bring the solution onto Trend also. Palo Alto has Wildfire, Cisco has Talos, and Forcepoint has one available as well.

In the future, routing protocols should be more supported like OSPF and BGP. There needs to be integration with the SDN. I don't know if SDN is there or not in Check Point, but SDN is one of the major requirements nowadays.

The solution is very stable.

We just deployed the solution, so scalability I cannot speak to right now. But, as per Gartner and NSS Lab, they're allegedly very good. I don't think there will be an issue with scalability.

I am currently also working on Cisco ASA, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

I'm an Operation Engineer; I handle the deployments myself. 

Compared to Cisco Firepower Threat Defense, the solution is cheap. However, not as cheap as Fortinet or Palo Alto. If clients have smaller budgets, we would have to advise one of those instead.

There are two deployment model modes in Check Point. One is a gateway level and one is a no gateway all-in-one box solution. With the gateway level, only hardware will be there, all operating systems are stored in a VMware and if there are any issues in the hardware, you just replace the box; all of your policies will be saved into VMware.

The all-in-one box you have the GUI policies and also the gateway so it's secure. If there is an issue in the box - like failure or downtime - all of the networks will be affected.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We haven't been using it too long, so we haven't had a chance to look at all aspects of the solution. I would recommend Check Point to customers because it is an affordable option.

Our use case for the product is to prevent or protect the file server in the Cloud. The plan is to gradually integrate more solutions behind it. We work with Azure and AWS. 

The tool's most valuable features are threat prevention and protection mechanisms. 

The connection to the on-premises management requires using the CLI. It's not just a click, and you cannot edit in the management to prepare everything. You need to do it online and in real time. After that, you must execute a script, and then you should be happy that it appears in the management.

I have been using the product for five years. 

CloudGuard Network Security is stable. I haven't encountered any issues with its stability. 

The tool is scalable. 

Choosing between Palo Alto and Check Point is more of a personal preference based on the management you prefer. However, in terms of protection, both provide a comparable level of security, making you feel equally safe. The choice between Palo Alto and Check Point often depends on the customer. If a customer is already using Palo Alto, it might be challenging to convince them to switch to Check Point. 

Deploying the product on different cloud platforms, like Azure or AWS, poses challenges due to variations in terminology and identification methods among platforms.

CloudGuard Network Security's pricing is fine. 

In most cases, we use the smart management on-premises. With the hybrid solution, we have one log visibility of every single management, which is an advantageous concept. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I manage the delivery team of a tech services company. We implement and manage security systems for our clients. CloudGuard is a solution we deploy for larger enterprise clients.

CloudGuard's intelligent tools help us automate many manual security tasks, guaranteeing our customers' environments will be secure. It saves a lot of time because jobs that might require five or six people can be handled with one or two. 

Check Point solutions are not easy to use if you don't have experience. We have some Check Point specialists, so it's not difficult for us. The user experience might suffer if we don't have the time to follow up with our clients and ensure they are using the right options. Clients also want more local support in Portuguese and Spanish during their normal business hours. That's something I hear from my customers and my team, too. 

I have used CloudGuard for two years.

CloudGuard is stable. 

CloudGuard is scalable.

Check Point's support isn't the best, but it's good. 

We also use solutions by FireMon, AlgoSec, and Akamai. We're constantly comparing products and looking for ways to get more features with less money. Akamai has more solutions, whereas Check Point is more specialized. 

Our clients are large and complex, so it is complicated to deploy CloudGuard in their environments.

We had a reseller and use IBM as an integrator. Our experience was positive. 

CloudGuard is reasonable. 

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

In our company, we have infrastructure in both Microsoft Azure and on-premise. We wanted to centralize an environment of governance, control, and best practices, at the level of Microsoft Azure. We were able to implement Defender for the cloud at some point. However, we already had security products from Check Point. The idea was to centralize all our tools in the same environment to make it easier to support administration.

With Check Point CloudGuard we have been able to successfully implement a layer of protection for our cloud and our on-premise environments.

With Check Point CloudGuard Network Security, we have been able to provide advanced security and security in the Azure network in addition to all the security additions associated with Check Point which are very important. Each one provides a role or complements the security of the company.

The panel or score can help evaluate the reality of our cloud and hybrid infrastructure. It has an excellent capability. The Check Point blueprint has taken us to the next level of protection.

It really is a pretty complete solution.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is complemented with all the features and becomes a security giant. The most important features, at least for us, are:

1 - It allows for the implementation of centralized security through Check Point Infinity in addition to being able to manage the security of hybrid and cloud environments.

2 - The trust and security provided by advanced threat protection is a point of distinction. We have not seen any false positives. Its anti-malware prevention is very good, and protection against ransomware is one of the features we require for our infrastructure.

3 - Additionally, it can be integrated with most public clouds, making it attractive.

There are a few features or improvements that can be mentioned. One of them may be that the Infinity Portal is sometimes slow. A performance improvement could improve the administrator's perspective.

At the cost level, the solution is somewhat expensive. They could have an improvement to be a more feasible solution for everyone.

The support must improve. It is the biggest issue that Check Point currently has. Sometimes it is better to investigate oneself than to wait for a solution from the support department.

We implemented this tool a few months ago to be able to validate the security associated with our cloud environment. In this case, we implemented against Microsoft Azure.

Previously, we used Microsoft Defender for a cloud solution. It's a very good tool, however, Microsoft is new in this field.

It is definitely important to test the tool before defining it in a production environment. It is also good to know the costs with a professional.

Previously we checked to see if we could stay with Microsoft Defender for Cloud. However, we opted for a centralized environment with more security muscle of its own.

It is one of the best solutions on the market. I challenge you to try it so you can say the same.

We primarily use the solution when clients are for searching in the servers. We compare the solutions or servers that are available and we seek out new features for the new solutions for our customers. We're solution providers. This is one of the products we offer.

The solution, overall, has worked very well for our organization.

The reliability of the product is excellent.

The configuration capabilities are very good.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The capability and the response, in terms of the time of response of the transactions, is very important for my customers. It's something they need to continuously work on to make it better.

The memory and hard disk capability could be strengthened.

The product should integrate next-generation firewall features such as anti-spam and anti-spoofing.

I've been using the solution for 20 years or so. It's been a long time.

While the stability is okay, the servers could use more RAM memory.

In general, the scalability is good. If a company needs to expand the solution, it should be able to do so.

We typically work with medium-sized organizations. In some of the companies, there are as many as 1,000 users.

Technical support has been good. We don't have any complaints so far. If a customer needs to reach out to them, they can do so.

The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's rather straightforward. A company should have too many issues getting it set up properly.

The deployment process is quick and easy. It takes maybe an hour or two. It's not a long time.

In my company, we have 20 people that manage the deployment and maintenance for our clients. You only really need two to manage everything.

Check Point has moderate pricing. It's not the most expensive, however, it's also not the cheapest. Typically, when clients are looking for a solution, it comes down to the price.

Typically, our clients will also look at Palo Alto as an option. However, typically, it is more expensive.

Clients may also look at Fortinet products, which are a bit less. Check Point tends to sit in between the two in terms of pricing.

We're solutions providers. We're partners with Check Point. We offer integrations and support. This is one of the products we offer to our clients.

We're using the latest version of the solution. The platform is R80.40. It's deployed on VMware's virtual environment.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. The likelihood of running into issues is low.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've largely been satisfied with the product.