Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We have a constant need to evolve and are migrating towards the cloud due to greater availability and better benefits at the level of hardware and computing.

With the understanding that we must have a faster, more efficient team with greater benefits when creating equipment or application services, we were looking for a solution with high user acceptance. We also wanted to meet the external and internal needs of the company and maintain solid corporate governance that includes offering the highest level of security standards. This product allowed us to create that level of security and develop natively in the cloud.  

The product has allowed us to develop applications from the cloud - even with large environments and well-segmented security lines. We're managing to prevent threats from any front with automated security. We can easily design, install, and configure everything from the cloud in a coherent way. It's easy to establish security policies to manage local and cloud environments now.

I am turning to a multi-cloud solution. Being able to achieve analysis and prevention of advanced threats and security in the network regardless of the environment has been great. It doesn't matter whether they are hybrid clouds, local networks can be resolved entirely in the cloud, and everything is managed from a single panel. We've managed to achieve a centralized visualization of our infrastructure, giving us greater insights and an overview of everything that happens in the organization.

The CloudGuard Network Security solution has given us an overview yet has allowed us to segment the cloud in many ways. We can create networks where we can separate the data, information, and structure of history. We can segment databases into smaller groups by type or quality of the resource. 

We're able to validate in a logical and physical way across layers and can segment data to allow for greater reach in terms of management. In the future, we'd like characteristics to be further simplified. While today we can manage some scopes, there are still some segments in the OSI layer we cannot manage. We'd like visibility on security and perimeter management qualities in order to reach other layers of the OSI model. Right now, we don't have the scope to reach some physical layers. 

I've been using the solution for less than a year.

We use Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for the firewall. The firewall protects our various customers in the optic cloud.

Check Point CloudGuard is quick to deploy and easy for the customer to use. The user interface is user-friendly and easy to use.

The solution is not that flexible when deploying on-prem.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for six months.

We have had many performance issues with Check Point CloudGuard on the cloud. The issue is with the OS version at this point.

Because we are in the demo phase of using Check Point CloudGuard, we only have a small amount of users, all in our IT department.

Personally, I have not had to reach out to customer service and support, however, I understand that our clients have many clinical issues.

Positive

The initial deployment is easy. The length of time to deploy depends on the number of customers, or the number of websites the customer has. It can take anywhere from one day to a few days to deploy Check Point CloudGuard.

We use an in-house technical team to deploy the solution.

Check Point CloudGuard is proving to be a good solution for both the profit of the company and for deployment for the customer.

Check Point CloudGuard is a suitable solution for many customers that are using the cloud.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of 10.

As a company, we are a value-added reseller. We have to use it first before we can propose it to our clients. We have to give it a clean bill of health before we can actually propose this to the client. We have to conduct a proof of concept, which runs for around 30 days. The client has to give the okay before we can actually deploy it for them.

Clients have been using it and they haven't had any negative feedback. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The product is scalable.

We find the stability to be quite good.

Check Point is one of the few solutions that pay attention to cloud security. Many others mostly focus on providing on-premises solutions.

To be honest, we don't have many clients who have taken CloudGuard, as the feedback has not been that great. There are a few clients who have taken the CloudGuard due to the fact that there is a lot of competition in terms of endpoint protection from Trend Micro and other leading vendors. 

There are few clients who have CloudGuard and the response is quite positive. However, it comes down to dealing with the challenge of when the client needs both protection for workstations and their physical and virtual servers. With Check Point, we don't have that ability. They have just CloudGuard, which protects the workstations and servers. With other vendors, there's a separation between the endpoint protection for workstations and for the servers and then something else for the virtual environment. The challenge comes in when you're trying to propose this to the client. They'll ask you how they can be sure that this will protect their virtual or physical data centers collectively, and also protect the workstations.

Most clients nowadays tend to move to the cloud and their data security is key. If CloudGuard could be able to give the client that full visibility of how their data is protected on the cloud, then that would be a great selling point for Check Point.

Generally, visibility is the issue. Clients really just need more visibility to know they are protected. 

We find the stability to be good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is there if a company needs to expand it. 

Technical support is okay. It's average. The local support is good, however, now when you go to global support, there's a bit of a challenge. It takes time compared to other vendors. Their global support is not that active. I have some clients who have been complaining that they raise a technical issue and it takes maybe one or two days before they get any feedback. 

That said, here, in terms of technical support, the local Kenyan support is very good. They're quite supportive.

I also work with Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. 

The other vendors, they're not doing that well in terms of cloud security, as they tend to concentrate on on-prem security. The physical security, that's at the endpoint level. However, Check Point is doing quite well in terms of cloud security. 

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's quite simple and straightforward.

The solution is expensive. If I rate Check Point, Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto, Sophos comes in at a cost that is pretty low. Then Fortinet, and then Palo Alto. Check Point is at the edge. It's a bit expensive or it's quite expensive. When you are trying to propose Check Point, it's more of an OpEX and even a CapEx project. It cannot go through a normal request for a quotation. It has to be a CapEx project. At the beginning of every financial year, a customer or end-user has to consider this to be able to purchase a Check Point firewall.

For most Check Point CloudGuards, it's not actually deployed on the private cloud of the end-user. They usually deploy it on the public cloud.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The clients who are using it have nothing bad to say about its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution. They are doing quite unique workarounds with cloud security while many others are more focused on on-premises.

This solution is very important for our network. We use it for the data on our servers and for our internet connections. We also use it for all of our user devices to connect to outside corporations. The IPS on our devices prevents any issues from occurring. We use the on-prem version of this solution.

We currently upgraded our devices to a new version. We have noticed a performance increase. We tested filtering features and it's an interesting feature that helps us with our tasks. We don't need very complex features.

It's a high-performance device. The network performance is also really good. We check how much time it takes for the servers. Our network performance has increased since using this solution. 

We have a local consultant for this solution. They can handle most of the operations with my team. We work together with the consultant sometimes for complicated scenarios like migration.

The initial setup is difficult. It took me three tries to get it right. The setup took two or three hours. We migrated from an old to a new one. It's not so complex but Check Point is complex in comparison to other firewalls. For example, Palo Alto is easier to install than Check Point. 

We negotiate every deal to get a discount for a higher number of devices. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten and I would recommend this solution. Their support team should be faster because sometimes when we need support their responses are late. 

The ability to host multiple virtual systems, categorize them based on their function and importance and the ease of use with which these can be deployed.

We do not need to keep provisioning hardware each time there is a requirement for a new firewall. Having a physical server capable of hosting many virtuals and also provide performance and redundancy is a big benefit and hence our preference for VSX.

Each new version does offer a new set of features plus also incorporates bug fixes identified during the life cycle of the previous product. Hence, this product keeps on maturing as newer versions are released.

More than 15 years.

Not from a product point of view. The critical aspect here is proper planning, performing several dry runs and identifying potential issues to the best possible extent. It's really about planning and testing prior to implementing.

No, because we keep on top of our installations. We maintain them by performing routine maintenance, and hot-fix applications. Stability wise the product is stable but we had issues when we had really old hardware that had a less than stable OS.

No issues encountered.

Excellent – the vendor always supports us and is very proactive. We have excellent relations with the vendor.

Definitely excellent. It’s a pleasure to talk with the tech support people and know they fully understand the issues – this gives us a sense of comfort.

No previous solution used.

It was simple. That is because the solution is architectured and designed from the ground up and the relevant teams were involved from the beginning.

We did an in-house implementation.

Cannot give exact figures but we have made a lot of saving by implementing this product in our organization.

We were clear on our options – no we did not choose any other options save for the most important ones.

Think of VSX as similar to VMware ESX solution. It will, in the long run, save a lot of money with the return it gives to the company. It is easy to maintain by a capable support team and can easily fit within the network where there is a requirement.

The solution is very easy to use.

The product is quite flexible.

The installation process doesn't take very long.

We've found the stability to be quite good overall.

You can scale the solution if you need to.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

The user interface is okay, depending on who is using it.

We haven't had any issues with integrations. It seems to handle them quite well.

We're looking forward to the next Check Point with the solution and CloudGuard and everything on the same single cloud. Right now, that's not yet the case.

We're expecting more new features in the next release, however, I'm not sure precisely what is being added.

Check Point support, beyond CloudGuard, does need some improvement.

I've been using the solution for 18 to 24 months at this point. It's been a year or two.

The product is very stable so far. We haven't had any issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable.

The product can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not an issue.

We have 5,000 users on the solution in one particular case. They're on one account. It's kind-of a lot.

The CloudGuard technical support has been good so far. We have no complaints. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

From a firewall perspective, yes, we use some other solution, however, CloudGuard is basically filling a gap in the cloud area. Before them, of course, we didn't use any other thing. We were using something else that wasn't really related and when we moved to Check Point was when we first adopted CloudGuard.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment is fast. We managed it in about 24 hours or so.

We had 12 people that assisted in the deployment process.

We have to pay a licensing fee, however, we haven't really done any comparison shopping, and therefore I can't speak to if it is affordable or expensive.

Mostly, we are satisfied with the cost. We have some discount agreements and that's enough.

The solution always updates automatically, and therefore we are always using the latest.

We do plan to continue to use the product as we've mostly been quite satisfied with it.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are a solution reseller, and we also assist our clients with support. This is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

This solution can be deployed in many ways. It is available in the cloud on AWS and Azure. You can install it in a virtual machine, you can have it as a hybrid, and you can have it on-premises.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can start off with a simple firewall and expand it to UTM. You don't have to buy a UTM to start off with, but rather, you can buy a simple firewall and upgrade it. The simple firewall comes with many of the UTM features, in any case.

The management console can be simplified because at the moment, it is a bit of a challenge to use.

I would like to see support for software-defined wirings in the next release of this solution.

I've got Check Point systems that have not been rebooted in two years, so it is quite stable.

This solution is quite scalable, but it requires hardware upgrades from time to time. Or, if you go with a virtual environment then it is very scalable because you start with one CPU and can increase to twenty-four CPUs.

Technical support for this solution is fairly good. We have got enough skill in our business to do most of it, but once you raise a call with support, they give you quite the fast and effective answer.

The initial setup of this solution is in-between, but more on the complex side. It's not the most complex product that I've worked with, but definitely not the simplest product that I've worked with.

The price of this solution varies from small to extremely expensive. On average, it is normally on the lower end, being less expensive than Palo Alto or Cisco.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from this solution is to never assume that something is simple, because there's always a hidden snag that we run into.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Monitoring using SmartConsole and all its features is extremely easy, and I find SmartEvent an excellent monitoring tool for spotting threats and user behaviour.

The multiple virtual firewalls on one box are extremely useful and the interconnection with virtual switches is simple and easy to understand.

We need a product that is logical and for which we can find people skilled who are interested in learning it. Check Point is always a winner, as its an industry standard.

We have Microsoft CASB cloud app security and it's one of the least compatible firewalls. They really need to look at this, as both Check Point and Microsoft are major players. Why aren't they compatible? If we had Palo Alto then we wouldn't have this problem.

Three to five years.

No stability issues, not even once. The firewall is set up and and the various parts are interconnected. It works just fine. R80.1 is also a major improvement.

No scalability issues but I don't think we are utilizing the device to its maximum capability.

Good. We go with a distributor but they work okay. It is a lot more reliable with the latest OS than it used to be.

No previous solution. It's always been Check Point, though before the virtual firewall we used to have a Juniper fw. Now we are just Check Point because for the threats we face now, I don't think we need different firewalls at different layers.

The issue normally is getting SIC working between the gws and the management server. Actually it's reasonably straightforward, though you have to get it right. It used to be you had to have a certain type of disk drive but this is a better solution.

Look into this carefully and be sure you use all you buy. We haven't bought SandBlast or the bot solution but they look effective.

We did not evaluate other solutions. It was decided we would stay with Check Point.

Make sure you can make use of the virtual firewalls and read up on the device or take a course before you implement. Or, if you get it installed, make sure you have the right devices in the right virtual firewalls.