Check Point CloudGuard Network Security Reviews

We primarily use CloudGuard Network Security to deploy cloud firewalls in Azure, safeguarding our applications, and managing them using Terraform.

CloudGuard Network Security streamlines processes by automating tasks, reducing human effort, and enhancing security for cloud deployments.

The most valuable features are the ease of administration with the cloud management extension and the cloud licensing model.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for about four months.

We haven't had any stability issues so far.

Scalability has been great. We utilize scale sets, deploying two gateways per region with settings ranging from two to ten.

The initial deployment using the ARM template in Azure was straightforward, but migrating to Terraform added complexity, although we managed to make it work.

Our existing Check Point discounts make the licensing competitive and budget-friendly.

CloudGuard provides unified security management across hybrid clouds and on-premises environments.

Unified security management simplifies our operations by centralizing logging and integrating seamlessly with our existing solutions, ensuring security teams have a single point of reference without needing additional configurations.

My advice would be to consider the solution as it performs well and seamlessly integrates with existing systems, streamlining processes and proving to be highly beneficial.

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

My customers use the solution for technical and internal Azure resources, including remote access VPN.

Some retail customers find the scale-up and scale-down features valuable, particularly with scale sets. This is useful for handling increased loads on devices and utilizing firewalls, similar to on-premises setups with active standby configurations.

The solution allows customers to migrate workloads securely into the cloud space with a trusted vendor, maintaining everything under a single platform. This ensures visibility into their cloud environments similar to on-premises setups, all managed through a single smart console. 

Unified security management simplifies operations by providing visibility into both cloud and on-premises infrastructure. The skill set required to manage it remains the same for both environments.

The level of confidence in CloudGuard Network Security, both for myself and my customers, is very high. The product operates familiarly, consistent with what customers are used to, and it is a trusted name in the space.

Based on my previous experience, there were improvements, especially in in-place upgrades. Regarding cost, it might be potentially cheaper considering resource utilization in Azure and VM costs, but licensing could be improved, possibly moving towards a simpler model.

I have been using the product for four to five years. 

CloudGuard Network Security has improved its stability. It is a stable platform. 

The tool has improved its scalability over the four years. 

The support experience can be hit or miss. It depends on the expertise of the support representative. Some are highly skilled and knowledgeable, while others require more guidance. There might be room for improvement in this aspect.

Neutral

The tool's deployment is straightforward, whether through the marketplace or templates. It offers flexibility for making amendments before deployment. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the solution an eight. The ease of deployment, the single management function, and the features it provides, especially in terms of scale sets and scaling, contribute to it being a solid platform. Many customers are increasingly interested in using it to protect their assets within Azure and AWS, which are the two main areas of operation.

If a colleague is considering purchasing the solution for its security features and licensing, my advice would be to ensure correct deployment. While the solutions are generally straightforward to deploy, there are nuances, especially in Azure infrastructure, that can make troubleshooting more challenging. It's crucial to either use a knowledgeable partner for deployment or ensure a clear understanding of the process before proceeding, as it may be more complicated than anticipated.

We are using it for perimeter inbound and outbound detection.

It is running in an EC2 instance in AWS.

For the move to the cloud, normally, you adopt a cloud solution, but big companies like ours have to control the roles in place and keep the standards that we have on-prem. We adjust it to the way the cloud works, but we still have the traditional firewall, similar to on-prem. We have the same management capabilities. We have the logins. It is just a central way of managing. 

It saves time for us. We adopted the cloud solution as much as we could, but in terms of security, we wanted to keep the same method that we were using for security, and we wanted to use the knowledge that we already had.

It matches what we have on-prem. We kept the same management and the same functionality that we were having on-prem. It has simplified things for us because there is no new dashboard to touch.

The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there.

There could be more capabilities around the management protocol itself. We deploy the boxes very easily with the software. We want automation. We are already using it to deploy instances in AWS regardless of whether it is Check Point or something else we use. Integration is already there, but there is a possibility to have more functionalities. We are in a good state, but there can be new features.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for two years.

It is tricky to distinguish because we have the software and we have the instance. There is the tricky part of AWS not sharing some information around the instances where the software runs and then saying that it is a software issue and not sharing deeper details. Check Point struggles with having that information directly from AWS. 

So, there is room for improvement if Check Point wants to be a native-use solution in AWS, for example, which is our main provider. It is tricky, and I understand. It is also about how Amazon or AWS manages their data centers. They do not disclose some information. In terms of throughput, performance, etcetera, they do have the numbers, but when it comes to some issues, nobody can explain or when an issue is from a network background, there is no explanation. Finger-pointing is not a solution. 

There should be more sharing of information between them directly, not involving the customer. In the end, we were able to sort things out. We had to read between the lines. They were not disclosing exactly what was the problem. Check Point did not see any issues with the software, and in the end, it was about how the instances in a shared environment inside the AWS run and how they control the resources on each virtual machine that the customer runs. That is their way of doing business. AWS wanted to run it on a bigger box. In the end, I was able to overcome all the issues with a different instance type that was never proposed to us. It was a matter of the CPU generation that was being used on the instance. It was not the fact that the machine was not able to cope with it.

That goes back to how the AWS services run because the software runs in any virtual box. It is exactly the same software that you can use in a physical box. We never had a need to use Autoscale so far. We have tested Autoscale. We have seen it working, but we never had the need. We are in a stable environment, and we foresee when it is needed ahead of time to avoid any bottleneck. It has been running without issues.

We have 12 active AWS versions worldwide. Three of them are the main data centers that we use. In every data center where we have AWS, we have at least different architectures of products, so our environment is quite big.

The management is standardized between all regions. They run exactly the same way with exactly the same purpose. It is standardized. We define the architecture and when there is a need, we have the solution already available.

Over the last three years, I rarely used them. We did not face issues that needed support from Check Point. We were able to fix all the issues we had because there was either an upgrade available or a knowledge article available showing how to fix it. All our support cases are more around RMA.

Positive

The added value is not the software itself. The added value is the way we can easily change the capacity of a virtual box that we run the software on. Keeping the same software, we can change the VM capacity to higher or lower depending on the needs. The return on investment is the simplicity of being flexible in that way.

It is the most expensive part of the product. There is a lot of room for improvement. Security comes with a price, but it is still a big chunk just for the service.

We tested the native solution of AWS, but we decided to go ahead with our own existing solution on-prem being reflected in the cloud environment. We already had the knowledge and expertise internally. The central management platform and logging were already there. A multitude of features that we were already using were common.

In terms of ease of use, everything in the cloud is new, so there is a learning curve. They are adjusting the layer features in AWS native tools, but Check Point has the advantage of knowledge. We already had familiarity with it, and Check Point itself has a good knowledge of the market. They are experienced in security solutions.

We have not been that exposed to AWS. We are very happy with the availability of Check Point and so forth. So far, when the biggest threats came, Check Point always reacted faster than any other.

There is no real issue with the software itself. It does the job. It does what it was designed for. I can rate it a ten out of ten because it is exactly like the on-prem software physical appliance. There is no difference for us.

We use it to protect cloud infrastructure, workloads, and applications from advanced threats and attacks.

For our operations team, CloudGuard proved to be the ideal solution. Troubleshooting became much simpler as all traffic—allowed or blocked—could be found in a single point, the SmartConsole. Integrating CloudGuard with VMware was straightforward; we established a connection between Check Point Management and VMware, allowing for the automated deployment of CloudGuard in NSX as a service. This automation made deployment and management a breeze, allowing us to easily specify the number of CloudGuard instances needed, which would then be deployed automatically.

CloudGuard's integration with the SmartConsole ensured continuity for our administrators, who could continue using familiar tools and methods. The ability to manage everything within the virtual environment provided speed and flexibility. With CloudGuard, we could define rules to control traffic with precision, redirecting or blocking as needed. 

Check Point's approach of preventing threats at the outset aligns with this perspective, eliminating the need to constantly battle against incoming threats. This proactive stance instills a strong sense of security, as it significantly reduces the likelihood of breaches. Given our positive experiences and lack of any negative encounters with the product, we feel extremely confident in its ability to safeguard our environment effectively.

One of the most crucial and beneficial aspects of Check Point is its ability to consolidate and present logs in a clear and easily accessible manner. This centralized approach offers immense value, as it allows users to access all network security information from a single point, eliminating the need to navigate through multiple tools and sources. With Check Point, users can conveniently find and manage all security-related data in one centralized location.

Its centralized control, ease of use, and flexibility are the most valuable for our data center security.

The licensing structure is unclear, so a transparent and flexible licensing structure would be preferable.

We have been working with it for five years.

In terms of stability and reliability, the virtual machine running CloudGuard functions seamlessly and as anticipated, demonstrating no issues or disruptions.

Regarding scalability, you have the flexibility to deploy as many instances as necessary. If additional instances are required, you can easily add them to production by obtaining the necessary licenses.

While we haven't encountered significant issues necessitating support, we did face occasional challenges with perimeter gateways rather than CloudGuard itself.

Before this project, we collaborated with a sister company that utilized Cisco ACI, but it didn't prove to be the right fit. Considering our longstanding partnership with Check Point as our security provider, particularly for network and cloud traffic, choosing CloudGuard for East-West traffic inspection seemed like a natural extension. Additionally, observing our sister company's positive experience with CloudGuard on Cisco ACI further reinforced our confidence in the product as the best solution for our needs.

Initially, we sought the help of a partner for deployment, but for upgrades and migrations, we largely handled them ourselves. Fortunately, these processes weren't overly complex, and we found helpful documentation on the Check Point website to guide us through them.

When we initially adopted CloudGuard, we operated under a different licensing model based on the number of hosts. The licensing model has since transitioned to a cluster-based variant.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

For any private cloud data center leveraging software-defined networking through VMware or Cisco ACI, CloudGuard stands out as the optimal choice. It offers unparalleled flexibility and ease of management, making it the ideal solution for customers already utilizing Check Point in conjunction with virtual networks within their data centers.

The solution helps protect network security by offering threat prevention, addressing vulnerabilities, and utilizing blades. 

We use it for the protection of our internal services. We're a Telco company, our internal users are on the machines. We also have some external services that we protect. We protect our customers and our public cloud with it.

VMware is our public cloud provider. 

Threat prevention is the biggest benefit we see from it. 

The network security is the most valuable aspect of CloudGuard. I am a network engineer so it's the most relevant feature to me.

CloudGuard Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid-clouds and on-prem. We manage all of those environments through this one solution. 

It's user-friendly. It's a multi-domain solution. CloudGuard is really, really good. 

I have experience with FortiGate and Cisco. I worked with them at previous jobs. FortiGate is easy and user-friendly when it comes to the configuration, but it is unstable in some countries and the routing tables have problems. The configuration of the network is in the same management platform, which might be better for some.

In comparison, CloudGaurd is very stable.

Cisco is hard to use, FortiGate is easy and CloudGuard is somewhere in the middle when it comes to ease of use. 

When it comes to identifying security threats, CloudGuard is really good compared to its competition.

I am confident that CloudGuard's Network Security can protect us. It enables me to sleep very well at night.

We utilize logging systems, and geolocation is crucial for us as some applications must only be accessible from our country. However, there have been occasional issues with this feature. It drops requests. It's not always precise. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

My team has been using it for five to six years. 

CloudGuard Network Security is very stable. 

We have 28 licenses. We have 800 servers on our private cloud. 

Their support is fast. They answer quickly.

Positive

We integrate with NSX. The setup wasn't hard.

We have seen ROI. It saves us time because it's stable. It's easily administered. We have time to do other tasks. It is easy. 

Licensing is complicated. When a license expires, we have to renew it and the process is complicated. They should make the process easier.

Using CloudGuard Network Security saves time due to its stability and ease of administration. The solution is not complex, allowing administrators to focus on other tasks. The configuration process is straightforward. It can integrate with NSX. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We manage a total of 800 servers that host a variety of components, including our infrastructure, customer applications, databases, application sites, and disaster recovery systems

We use the product as an internal firewall between Azure, on-premises, and the internet. 

The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours. 

It eliminates the need to manually import hundreds of IP addresses into firewalls and architecture objects. This process now happens automatically. 

The tool helps us to automate processes. Operating it is relatively easy, especially for standard tasks like implementing firewall rules for source, destination, port, or URL. Our team can handle these tasks. 

We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations.

I have been using the product since 2016. 

The product is stable. 

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is easy. 

The tool's first response is usually prompt, and issues are generally resolved. Additionally, the support team proactively follows up, reminding us to provide necessary details when we might be on a high workload.

Positive

The deployment experience varies depending on the structure of your environment. In our case, we invested significant time in designing our network and aligning it with our existing Check Point environment. Once the overall design was complete, the actual deployment was straightforward. We have automated most of the process, enabling us to set up the environment within a few hours. Additional nodes can be added in just 20-30 minutes.

We had evaluated Barracuda before CloudGuard Network Security. We chose CloudGuard Network Security since Check Point knowledge was available in-house. 

Invest time in analyzing the templates provided by Check Point and tailor them to your specific requirements. Understanding the deployment process is crucial, as it allows you to benefit from it in later stages. You can optimize it later based on the needs. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

The architecture proposed is based on Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework enterprise-scale landing zone architecture. Enterprise-scale is an architectural approach and a reference implementation that enables effective construction and operationalization of landing zones on Azure at scale.

We're using CloudGuard solution in a NorthBound - SouthBound design to protect and filter both incoming and outgoing traffic.

Also, we are using a VMSS solution deployed in Azure, with a minimum of two instances

The design is based on a "Hub & Spoke" model in which the environment is set up as a system of connections arranged as a kind of bicycle wheel where the spokes are connected to a central point in the hub, and all traffic to and from the spokes passes through this hub.

The NorthBound/SouthBound design solution allows traffic to be scanned and filtered both when entering (NB) and exiting (SB) the organization.

This design is also extremely suitable for segmenting a network. Network segmentation is usually done to reduce the attack surface of the network and limit the ability of a malicious threat to spread freely across the network.

Also, CloudGuard came with a new benefit in terms of scalability, with the VMSS solution capable of auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include:

• Easy to administer and also to deploy, thanks to automated setup with pre-configured templates. On top of that, security comes first.
• The proactive threat detection results in huge risk reduction.
• It has a user-friendly interface; it's best in the market for policy management and log monitoring.
• There are multiple options to deploy (clustering, standalone, VMSS and single management solution, SMS or MDS, and even better: Infinity Portal).
• It has a really strong user community, which seems to compensate for the very poor vendor support.
• The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great.

Vendor support might be the weakest point of the CloudGuard solution. You really struggle to find a CloudGuard specialist, even for simple tasks. As mentioned before, you can find better answers to the user community (which is actually a downside of the product).

There are lots of limitations and discrepancies across different Cloud provider deployments.

Documentation might become too complex or too spread out, especially for newcomers.

As in the past, with traditional Check Point firewalls, it sometimes seems to be moving too fast with software releases and upgrade cycles, which are difficult to keep up with.

I have been using Check Point for more than ten years - and CloudGuard for almost a year.

The solution is a core operating system, and we use it for threat intelligence.

CloudGuard has a better catch rate with respect to any attack which is happening. We once faced an attack in a customer's environment on one of our data centers, and Check Point Firewall blocked that attack. The solution's performance is on the higher side.

The feature most valuable to me is the NDTX blade that Check Point provides, and I like how the solution is not vulnerable. We haven't had any vulnerabilities in Check Point in the last six months, which is a plus point because the OS Check Point provides is hardened enough that it's not vulnerable to the newer issues, so the network security solution is given in a proper way. These features are an advantage for our customers.

The solution is easy to use once deployed if the administrators have a basic understanding of firewalling. Administrators just have to check the traffic passing through the solution, which will log the traffic properly. And if anything gets dropped, the solution will showcase that to you. The management server Check Point uses is a gold standard.

Check Point CloudGuard is not a feature-centric product because Check Point concentrates on security. For example, if a customer asks for reporting, it might not be available, like a bandwidth report. At most, the reports are given with respect to security, not infrastructure.

I've used CloudGuard for the last three years.

We have more than 50 customers.

Customer support needs to think about what the customer is talking about. They need to improve on that.

CloudGuard is not a plug-and-play product and requires proper technical knowledge to deploy it. You need the help of a proper professional to deploy it. Deployment hardly takes four hours, but that's only if you know what you're doing. You need to plan the deployment with respect to AWS. You have to know what exactly the customers have deployed in AWS or Azure, or any cloud solution, and based on the review, you need to do their architecture before you can start the deployment. The first step, then, is to understand the customer's data because everything is on a template when it comes to the cloud. You should understand which template you need to use on any cloud. It is impossible to deploy if you're not aware of the customer's environment and how the cloud infrastructure is made. After selecting the proper template, you have to do the implementation. The implementation will go smoothly if you understand the customer's requirements and infrastructure.

I would not say Check Point is very expensive, but when customers compare it with Sophos or any other products, the price is on the higher side.

In terms of features, FortiGate has more features in terms of routing.

Our customers use Check Point solutions both on-premise and on the cloud.

Check Point's research and development happening in terms of threat intelligence is better than its competitors, and Check Point's vulnerabilities are fewer. Check Point CloudGuard Network Security has proper security in place with respect to the vulnerabilities. They do not have any vulnerabilities right now. And the research and development happening on Check Point is on the higher side. Most zero-day attacks are protected against. Customers should go for Check Point because of these two points.

If a customer wants FortiGate instead, it's all about whether they can map the budget with Check Point or any other security solution. I cannot compare Check Point and FortiGate, though, because each has its own market.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Network Security a nine out of ten.