Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

Most security solutions traditionally have been protecting physical assets within an environment, or reliance on an inline hardware appliance. CloudGuard takes the security controls that were previously packaged with physical appliances in mind and extends them to the virtual infrastructure.

It's an add-on capability to an existing virtual infrastructure, such as an AWS, Azure, or even on-premise solutions. It adds a security layer on top of your existing infrastructure with zero latency.

We're hosting it ourselves on our hypervisors, as well as starting to do so in some of our private cloud instances. It's solely managed by us with a pair of consolidated management servers.

This virtual platform is unique in the way that it augments our existing physical controls through a centralized management system. When many organizations, like ours, went from physical servers to virtual servers and desktops, there was a blind spot there. We no longer had visibility into what was happening within our environment, and that extended to the cloud as well where it's difficult, if not impossible, to introduce hardware — firewalls and other security protection. This solution takes what is still required around intrusion detection/prevention, anti-malware, and other threat protection capabilities and extends it to all of our virtual assets, regardless of where they live, in a private or public cloud.

CloudGuard has closed a significant gap that we had in our environment. We were searching for the right solution for many years, to gain visibility into, and protection of, all of our virtual asset servers, desktops, and workloads. There have been other products throughout the years that provided a similar type of technology, but had we purchased and move forward with those, we would have seen a degradation of performance within our environment, as traffic would have to be what's considered "hair-pinning" and going in and out of the virtual environment to another either virtual or physical appliance. We intentionally delayed our purchase of this kind of solution because we were not satisfied with that architecture. We weren't willing sacrifice performance degradation on our network. That's really the big benefit of the CloudGuard, it is able to live within the same virtual instances as the other virtual assets and workloads.

What's most valuable to me is that it's a contiguous solution that aligns well with the components that we've relied on and trusted from a traditional hardware, firewall, and unified threat management system. My engineers and analysts don't have to learn another platform. We have already entrusted our security controls to Check Point for perimeter and physical security, and now we can do so at the virtual layer as well, which is key to us. It really augments their current stack of capabilities. It all aligns well under their umbrella of their Infinity architecture, which we have adopted.

It's meeting our needs at this time. If I could make it better, it would be by making it more standalone. That would be beneficial to us. I say that because our current platform for virtualization is VMware. The issue isn't any fault of Check Point, it's more how the virtualization platform partners allow for that partnership and integration. There has to be close ties and partnerships between the vendors to ensure interoperability and sup-portability. There is only so far that Check Point, or any security vendor technology can go without the partnership and enablement of the virtualization platform vendor as it relies on "Service Insertion" to maintain optimal performance. 

We are frequently in contact with Check Point's Diamond Support, Product Development Managers as well as their sales team, as we look to keep apprised of where the product ius and should be going. Most of our requests have been around our physical assets, the physical UTM devices — Check Point Maestro, as an example — as well as their endpoint systems. There has not been anything at this time where we've said, "We wish CloudGuard did X differently." CloudGuard, in my opinion, having recently talked with them, is continously improving and is incorporating some of their recently acquired capabilities, such as Dome9 cloud compliance. Those are areas I have been evaluating and looking to add to my environment. My preference would be that it be included in my CloudGuard subscription licensing, and not an add-on; But that's the only thing that I could say that would be beneficial to us as an enhancement to the system.

We've been using Check Point CloudGuard IaaS for about three years.

The stability has been great. There has been no concern at all. We have not had any known downtime or issues to speak of.

Scalability was well thought out and designed. I've spoken about this at several Check Point CPX events. Throughout the instances that we have, if a single Check Point CloudGuard instance is overloaded due to event load, it will intelligently redirect that workload to another service on a different host, so that it's not delaying the interrogation of the traffic.

It's being used throughout our environment. We will increase usage only when we augment our cloud offerings.

Users, in this case, are the IT security and networking folks that support it and rely on these controls being effective. They analyze the output of the event interrogation. Right now, I have three resources supporting CloudGuard. I don't have dedicated staff for maintaining the solution. They're shared resources who work on other network and security devices. From an operational standpoint, it's a fraction of an FTE that is required.

Check Point's technical support for this solution, overall, is very good. Check Point has architected this solution well enough that it has similar, if not the same, code base as the physical devices. It doesn't appear to be a big lift and can leverage the same support engineers for CloudGuard as we would have for our physical devices.

We never found a solution we were satisfied with, and which would not affect our overall operational performance.

I was not personally involved in the initial deployment, as I'm the CISO of the organization, but I was closely engaged with my engineers. The CloudGuard portion of our installation and setup was extremely simple, in comparison to the integrated component on the virtualization side of things. Check Point made it extremely easy to deploy and configure, especially because it's done from our consolidated management devices that we're already familiar from our physical unified threat management devices.

The delays in deployment were mostly due to the virtualization side of things. If it was just CloudGuard alone, we probably could have had that done in about six to eight weeks. But there were several starts and stops due to the accompanying VMware component, which has really extended, I hate to say it, over 12 months.

In terms of our implementation strategy, the intent is that every host in our environment that serves up virtual assets and workloads would have an instance of CloudGuard installed on it. And then all respective HTTP/HTTPS traffic would be routed through Check Point for visibility and interrogation, so that if any of its threat controls determined that an asset was rogue or infected due to some malicious insider or outsider, it would automatically quarantine that device. We have tested that and it worked successfully.

We installed it with the help of Check Point-badged engineers. To be honest, we had to ask for a new lead engineer. And once that occurred, the project implementation went very smoothly.

ROI is a very difficult metric in the security space. We've been fortunate that we haven't had an event in which we would say that because of CloudGuard our MTTD and MTTR was low and we quickly identified and stopped a malicious adversary.

However, we are now more confident in our security controls and visibility. CloudGuard plays a significant role in our SOAR (Security Orchestration Automation and Response) initiative. We can now automate the isolation of an infected machine with the help of CloudGuard.  This in itself is the best ROI as it doesn't require manual intervention to detect and respond.

The pricing and licensing of this is much more digestible than that of its hardware equivalent. I've found, in times past, especially on the hardware side of things, that the licensing support and maintenance could be very daunting to understand. If that has scared folks away in the past, CloudGuard is much simpler. 

Licensing is simply by the number of hosts that you are looking to protect within your environment. It makes it much easier to ensure that you are covering your environment.

If you are not already a Check Point customer for the UTM and the SmartEvent, there likely would be an additional cost, beyond the standard CloudGuard licensing, if you wanted the reporting. It's a unique instance where we already had an established infrastructure of Check Point devices on our network, and then we added CloudGuard to it. Had we started with CloudGuard, and only had virtual assets to protect, it is possible that there would be additional cost. I would urge folks to look into what it would cost to add the reporting capabilities and log event management.

We looked at offerings from Cisco (ACI), Illumio and Gigamon. This was about three-and-a-half years ago.

The main differentiator, and the reason we selected Check Point, is how it integrated with our virtualization platforms. It lived there natively. It had the least amount of overhead to interrogate the traffic within our environment. It also aligned well with our consolidated reporting and management solutions that we have come to rely on from our Check Point physical UTM devices.

Intently know and understand the integration points within your environment. It is a great security solution, but understand how integrated it is with, and what level of partnership there is between, Check Point and the virtualization platform that you're looking to add it on top of.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that the Check Point CloudGuard features, although good, are only as good as the accompanying virtual platform and its level of integration. I have to be honest: Overall, this is the ideal solution for us and our organization, but it is slightly more complex. There are newer competitive products that take a different stance, that are agent-based. We did not want — and this is another key distinction — a solution that wasn't agent-based in which we had to deploy a piece of software on each and every virtual endpoint. Having this done at the hypervisor level definitely was the right strategy for us. However, the lesson learned, with this type of solution, is that it is very important to understand the nuances of your virtualization platform and what is required on that side to enable the Check Point CloudGuard.

You're relying heavily on the partnership and the capabilities of that virtualization platform. Going in, understand the degree of that partnership and the respective road maps of each, because the CloudGuard solution is only as good as the capabilities it has with the virtualization platform. That's especially true for large enterprises that want to constantly move workloads around and have their rule set follow in an event where they're having to ensure that systems are always alive and always protected.

We use this solution as our perimeter firewall. 

The most valuable feature for us is the cluster support. We have been using this for a long time, so it is not a feature from the latest version.

We would like to be able to scale out such that we can increase performance within a cluster with more active nodes.

Our biggest complaint concerns the high resource usage for IDS/IPS, as we cannot turn on all of the features even with a recent hardware upgrade.

A great enhancement for this solution would be an active-active or multi-active scalability.

As we need to fulfill higher bandwidth demands due to increased cloud usage and research-driven data exchange, we might need to look for other vendors with more competitive pricing.

This is a stable solution.

Six months ago, we updated our version to the most recent one.

The scalability of this solution is limited, which is why we have started looking for alternatives. Currently, we have about twenty-thousand users.

Technical support for this solution is good. They have a quick response and the solution was available within a short period.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

This initial setup of this solution is complex.

The preparation for deployment took two days, and the deployment itself took about two hours.

We have three staff who are responsible for maintaining the firewall, although there are more tasks that they handle, in addition to it.

We enlisted the help of a service provider to assist us with the implementation. 

The price of this solution could be improved. We pay approximately ‎€150,000 ($166,000 USD) per year. We receive four days of support every year from our service provider before we have to contact Check Point. 

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution, although we are currently considering alternative solutions from Forcepoint and Fortinet.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to start by identifying high-bandwidth use cases. If you have any, and you have a high-security requirement, then I suggest considering other options.

This is a secure and reliable solution for us, although we are a bit disappointed with the limited scalability and resource consumption.  

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are able to use the solution for cloud protection and in parallel with or just for network protection. In our scenario, we use it as a border network firewall, which is based on a virtual environment and we're using it for the border protection of our network. 

We find Check Point valuable because they are 100% focused on security. It totally closes the potential vulnerability channel. We can check our mail and our attachments and we can scan everything easily. We get an immediate report about the situation of the attachments. We can discover if the target's security attack was started from phishing, etc. We also enjoy using the additional features that protect our internal customer from targeted attacks.

The stability of the solution could be improved, but this is the problem of all the solutions in the market. This isn't just a problem specific to Check Point.

The stability is good. It's really good compared with Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco, most of all. But it definitely can be better.

The scalability of the solution is good. Right now, the solution protects about 400 customers.

The solution's technical support is good. If we have problems, we can speak directly to Check Point, or we can speak to one of their partners or a local partner. The solution has a great community that surrounds it.

The initial setup was complex because we were using a complex networking architecture. It took us about two days to implement the solution. For administration of all of this infrastructure, we need two people. For deployment and maintenance, we need just one person.

We used the implementation guide provided by the company to assist with deployment.

Our licensing is yearly at a fixed cost.

The solution has a very flexible pricing model. It can provide the same level of security and performance, but in parallel, can be subscription-based.

The solution is the on-premises deployment model which we use in our server environment.

We are an integration company, and although we deal with other solutions, we mainly focus on Check Point.

The solution is a great mix of user experience, flexibility, security features, and cost. After five years, I believe the total cost ownership will be much cheaper than any competitor.

The advice I would give to others interested in implementing is that this solution does have security problems. Not Check Point, per se, but in the network environment. The security recommendation from the Check Point and from us is to use the VSX in the internal network. It should not protect your border because there are some issues around bugs, etc. It could cause vulnerabilities if it's used this way. 

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

I use CloudGuard Network Security to enhance our cloud exchange points' security. Our customers can seamlessly connect across multiple clouds within the region, and CloudGuard provides next-generation firewall services to ensure their data and applications are protected.

CloudGuard Network Security has significantly improved our organization by helping us tap into the Check Point customer market.

The VPN features in CloudGuard Network Security have been the most valuable for us. It allows us to scale securely within our infrastructure, providing both strong security and VPN capabilities.

In the next release, including VRF support would be highly beneficial. Many customers have been requesting this feature, as it is currently lacking in Check Point's offerings, which can make architectural designs more cumbersome compared to competitors.

I have been working with CloudGuard Network Security for two and a half years.

As for scalability, it could be even better with VRF support, as it would allow for more efficient scaling without the need to deploy separate firewalls for different workloads.

CloudGuard Network Security has been quite stable.

I would rate technical support for CloudGuard as an eight out of ten.To make it a ten, I would expect more proactive assistance and smoother transitions between support levels.

Positive

When comparing CloudGuard Network Security to other solutions like Fortinet and Palo Alto Firewalls, they are similar in terms of identifying security threats. They all offer robust features such as antivirus, deep packet inspection, and IPS. Some of our customers have transitioned from Palo Alto to Check Point. While I don't have specific reasons, it could be related to factors like pricing.

We deployed it across multiple locations, utilizing AWS for SMS management. The environment was designed to ensure security and privacy, with all deployments being private despite being in the public cloud. Our implementation strategy was flexible, depending on the customer's needs, focusing on workload security first and then gradually migrating workloads. The initial deployment was straightforward.

One significant difference between CloudGuard Network Security and other solutions is the lack of VRF support. This means that when dealing with customers who have multiple segments and exchange points, deploying new firewalls becomes necessary. Competitors' solutions typically include VRF support, making scaling much easier and eliminating the need for additional firewall purchases.

We chose CloudGuard over other vendors because it allows us to provide unified security across multiple cloud providers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Unlike native cloud firewalls, CloudGuard offers scalability and the ability to expand across different platforms, meeting our customers' needs for consistent security across diverse cloud environments.

We implemented CloudGuard Network Security to meet our customers' demands for enhanced security features and centralized management. They specifically requested Check Point CloudGuard for its robust capabilities, including SMS and MDS for global management.

Using CloudGuard Duo Security has provided us with the ability to manage globally through MDS, which has been a valuable capability. It is convenient to have multiple pockets of global management from UniFi OS.

We realized the benefits of CloudGuard Duo Security quickly after deployment. Understanding the architecture, especially the MDS setup for higher-level organization control, allowed us to establish multiple pockets of management efficiently.

Unified security management allows us to streamline our security operations significantly. With centralized management through SMS and MDS, we can efficiently oversee not only the firewalls within our cloud exchange points but also on-premises devices, enabling a cohesive and unified security architecture across all environments.

I'm very confident in CloudGuard Network Security because it helps us secure our global network. With CloudGuard, we can set up rules to protect against risks from on-premises traffic and ensure security through various measures like single sign-on integration and VPN restrictions.

CloudGuard Network Security is a great product that fulfills firewall needs effectively and provides detailed insights. However, in multi-segment environments requiring multiple VRFs, it can be cumbersome and costly due to the need for separate firewalls.

The best lesson I have learned from using CloudGuard Network Security is to carefully consider the scalability requirements of each environment. While Check Point offers robust features, the lack of VRF support can lead to increased costs and complexity, especially in multi-segment setups where separate firewalls are needed for each segment.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard Network Security as an eight out of ten.

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.

What could be improved in this product is its architecture. Its user interface also needs improvement.

The user experience, particularly in the implementation, management, and operations of this product, also needs to be improved.

Operations management is difficult in Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security.

I've been using Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security for seven years.

I find this product stable. It's a good product.

Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security has good scalability.

I'm giving technical support for this product a five out of ten.

My advice to people looking into implementing Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security is that they should have technical expertise before deploying it.

I'm giving Check Point CloudGuard Cloud Network Security an eight out of ten.

The security features of Check Point CloudGuard Network Security are very good.

The solution could improve to have a DLP feature.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Network Security for approximately three years.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is stable.

The scalability is good.

The initial deployment is easy. However, the implementation can be complex.

My advice to others is to evaluate the products first and then proceed.

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

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.