Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We consolidated from three management consoles and three clusters to only one, which is a big improvement. 

In general, Check Point VSX is a good solution. Its blades and VSLS (Virtual System Load Sharing) work fine.

Having a web UI in the VSX (or something similar) would be nice. However, you can do everything in the CLI.

We are replacing three old cluster ASA firewalls and concentrating it into an all-in-one VSX cluster. This allows our central management have more time for other tasks.

Valuable features include centralized management using the MDM solution of Check Point and the Log Management module. The latest version of VSX supports all blades of Check Point's security suite.

I get maximum flexibility as I can use a standard management server to manage all virtual gateways along with a dedicated log server for each virtual gateway. Sometimes I can use a single server to manage all virtual gateways.

Earlier versions only supported the Firewall and VPN feature. Now I can run Anti-Bot/Anti-Virus, URL and App Filtering, Threat Emulation, and other blades.

I can assign weights to each virtual gateway depending on how critical each virtual gateway is.

The VSLS feature provides linear scalability so I can keep adding hardware (maximum of eight) to meet my performance expectations.

It is somewhat difficult to upgrade the entire hardware without downtime.

We have been implementing this solution to many customers in India and the SAARC region for seven years now. This is one of the most popular virtual firewall products in the industry.

We have not encountered any problems with stability.

A sufficient amount of planning is required to deploy a solution that is scalable. However, as Check Point allows an Open Server to deploy its VSX solution, scalability is not a problem once the base hardware is chosen appropriately.

Support is one area where efforts should be required from Check Point. Customers having multiple, more than ten, gateways are encouraged to consider Diamond Support services.

We did not use any other solution previously.

Engineers having less than three years of hands-on experience on Check Point products may find this product somewhat challenging. However, the best part is, once the product is deployed, there is no difference between virtual gateway and physical gateway from the operational perspective.

Check Point pioneered this product, so don't look anywhere else if you are looking for a stable and scalable product with top-notch security blades.

We did not evaluate any alternative products.

Choose your implementation partner very carefully. Choose someone who has done multiple, large-scale implementations and can show proof of the same in terms of customer references through emails or phone calls.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard for 3 years now. I use it in the financial sector, and use the gateways for perimeter security, east-west traffic inspections, and internet access. We have gateways for production, development, and outbound (internet access). The blades for IPS, FW, And URL filtering have been enabled with no problems. All the gateways are stable. We mostly use it for VPN site to site, and we can establish VPNs with Azure and other services. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has established communications with other devices and other cloud providers. CloudGuard has improved the passage of CIS and PCI regulations. The functions for autoscaling save costs for the company and the centralized management helps us with administration. CloudGuard complements the security model of the company. We only need one solution for all cloud providers as it offers good compatibility with lots of protection. the easy funtion of use the licence core in other gateways helmpe to save cost. And the easy VPN configuration helpme to stablish more than 100 VPN in an shortly time.

The most valuable features are the VPN Blade, IPS Blade, URL filtering, and Applications Control Blade. They help me to align with any compliance or regulations within our financial sector. The VPN blade has helped me to establish tactical communications. The logs help with troubleshooting and they are great. The IPS blade helps me to meet regulations and protect against intrusion. The applications control makes it easy to configure and created profiles. It blocks all the non-authorized applications. 

CheckPoint CloudGuard could be better at solving cases. In many cases, the client should be able to request or obtain a sufficient explanation or to obtain an appropriate answer. Check Point should improve the queue clients need to go through to obtain access to direct support chat. This should be for users with privileged access.  

CheckPoint features that should be included in the next release include the possibility to create a cluster on AWS and a Multi-region Cluster. They need to also include the possibility to use a managed web portal. 

I've been using the solution for about 3 years.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The initial setup is easy.

The team that helped us was very good.

The ROI we've had has been very good.

Our primary use case for this solution is a firewall.

The most valuable Check Point CloudGuard feature is the firewall. I also value the user authentication, IPS, and application control features.

The clustering and HE from the scaling availability could be improved.

The documentation could be much better as well.

I have been using this solution for about a year. 

I would rate stability as average, too. It's not the best, but it's also not the worst. 

I would rate the scalability potential of this solution as average.

Check Point CloudGuard technical support is good.

I have not previously used any solutions. 

Deployment was easy. It took about half a day to do all configure everything how we needed it. 

The first time we deployed it was through a Check Point pre-sales specialist. After that, we deployed on our own. 

If we end up needing to scale, we would have to buy a new license. 

We are a solution integrator and the Check Point CloudGuard Network is a product that I have experience with. We implement firewalls and other products for our customers.

The most valuable feature is threat prevention.

The initial setup is complex and could be made simpler.

The console could use some improvement.

I have been working with the Check Point CloudGuard Network for approximately three years.

This product is quite scalable.

I also have experience with Cisco Firepower and Fortinet.

This initial setup is complex.

Licensing is available on a monthly or yearly basis.

In summary, this is a good product and I have not found any problems when using it. I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like the firewall and the virtual machine. I also like that it's compatible with Amazon Web Services and Azure.

Check Point Virtual Systems is a complete solution, but pricing can be better.

I have been using Check Point Virtual Systems for about five years.

It's very stable. 

Check Point Virtual Systems is very scalable. 

We depend on the community a lot. It's good. The response time from technical support is also good.

The initial setup was complex. It took about four months to implement this solution. Four people deploy and maintain this product.

The price could be better.

We evaluated two or three competing products like Huawei. Check Point and Fortinet is quality, but the prices vary. Huawei is very easy to use, and it's common. The main difference between all is the cost.

I would recommend Check Point as it's an effective tool, and implementation is very easy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Check Point Virtual Systems a nine.

Our primary use case of this solution is for security.

The IPs and the VPN are the most valuable features of this solution.

I would like to see an improvement on the zero-day threat detection. It is also not very user-friendly, so it would be great if it could be less complicated and easier to operate. The dashboard needs to be easier to use.

Also, if the solution could be cheaper, it would really help, because it is very expensive. 

I would like to see sand boxing added to the new version.

The program is very stable.

The technical support is excellent and they always responded when we had an issue.

The initial setup wasn't too complicated, but it wasn't very easy and straightforward. Deployment took us about a week. 

It is a very expensive program and there are additional costs despite the standard licensing fees. So I would like to see it being more affordable in the future.

I will recommend this program to others and my rating is seven out of ten. I do recommend that users should always use the checkpoints and backup as often as they can.