Check Point CloudGuard WAF Reviews

My main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is defending from SQL injection or DDoS attacks, and a quick specific example would be that it protects our applications and data from these threats.

I don't have anything else to add about my main use case, as there are no stories or examples where it helped my team.

The best features Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers are that it's very easy to use, the automated management is very nice, and the introduction of new AI is very efficient, which I find valuable.

With the introduction of AI in general, Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides very high accuracy on the data, allowing me to avoid a lot of false positives and saving me time in determining if what I'm seeing is a possible attack.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by reducing incidents because I don't have false positives.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved; initially, the setup is very complicated, and there's not a lot of documentation available, plus it didn't have something for anti-bot, but other than that, it is fine.

The documentation issue means that I can't find it online very easily, and while I can always ask support, it's a bit limited. As for anti-bot, I refer to a feature that I can find a better option for on Cloudflare.

I don't have anything more to add about the needed improvements or anything regarding the onboarding.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for one year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is very stable, and I haven't had any issues with downtime or reliability, plus it handles growth easily in my environment.

The customer support is rated eight. I have had to contact them, and my experience was satisfactory.

I did not previously use a different solution before Check Point CloudGuard WAF, so there's no prior comparison.

I don't have metrics, but I see a return on investment in overall efficiency, as it has saved my team time and reduced incidents.

I don't know about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, as I don't manage costs.

Before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF, I did not evaluate other options, as I went straight with it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works very well with all the clouds, such as Azure and AWS, and I shouldn't have any problems adding this feature to my environment.

Regarding the reduction in incidents, I don't have any percentages, but I know I can save a lot of time because I understand that if something is signaled, I need to check it, as it's very not probable that it is a false threat.

My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is that, similar to other Check Point services, it can be intimidating at the start, but you will manage after some time.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

I have a team that manages CloudGuard for me. We have different research centers using various cloud accounts and are trying to consolidate everything into a single landing zone to protect those areas. From a use-case perspective, I have different laboratories or research centers utilizing it for various purposes. We are mostly focused on AI, and some of those requirements cater to the AI segment as well.

From a protection perspective, Check Point is a well-renowned name. We are also using other products from Check Point, such as Harmony, Infinity, and XDR. We have a consolidated view of the overall security posture, which I find quite interesting.

CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. This is crucial for us to maintain application security and stop the threats coming into our environment, keeping our production part secure.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. It is the best. That is why I am paying for it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helps us with overall application and cloud API security. The consolidated view of the security posture that Check Point provides is very useful from an upper management perspective.

CloudGuard WAF has helped reduce our false positive rate by 30%.

From a security perspective, it is quite good. I am not very familiar with the detailed features of it because I have a team that manages it. 

I am pretty happy with the current version. I have not yet used it to its full potential, but there could be improvements as I explore it further. I am content with what I have in terms of features and support, but if I start expanding the usage, I might need more help from them. I already have the best consultants from Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for around seven or eight months now.

I have not observed any stability issues yet. It has been pretty reliable.

The scalability is excellent and is one of its best features.

Customer service is one of the best in the market right now.

Positive

We did not use a similar solution previously. 

We have a hybrid deployment model with AWS as the cloud provider. 

Its deployment was smooth. We did not have any issues. 

We used Check Point for the implementation.

It has been only six or seven months now. I am hoping that by the time I complete one year, I will see the return on investment.

It has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall to a certain extent, but I do not have the numbers.

The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others.

I considered other solutions. I decided on Check Point because of its comprehensive suite of applications and the integration with my tools, providing a consolidated view of my security posture.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten. I believe there is always room for improvement, but there are use cases I have not yet explored. 

I use the solution for almost all of our web servers.

Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again. 

The rate limit feature is the most useful feature of the product.

We don't need to rely on signatures. We are protected when the signature doesn't exist. 

It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies. It blocks items that would affect the company.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate. It took a bit of time, however, not long. We're near zero false positives. 

The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good. More user-friendly features could be added. Perhaps something between CloudGuard management and the virtual appliance on-site could be faster. 

It could be interesting to have an app for smartphones to manage all the cloud environments.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is always good. 

The scalability is always good.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. I am satisfied. It is always good. 

I am currently evaluating a hybrid solution for our infrastructure since some of our services are hosted on-premises while others are processed through the cloud. We have multiple websites, applications, and some non-web-based applications that we need to protect.

The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage. 

The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature. It also supports legacy applications and improves security access. Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions and provides necessary protection between our central office and peripheries through VPN access. 

The solution allows for proactive support and parts replacement.

The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation. The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.

I am happy with their support. They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution. The support rating is about seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Positive

We looked at FortiGate and some open-source solutions, however, they either did not fully meet our requirements or required a dedicated person for administration, making them cost-prohibitive.

We collaborated with our vendor, A1, which also offers parts replacement and support as part of the package.

The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support.

The price is fair for the features offered. For us, it is cost-effective compared to hiring a dedicated person for administration.

Prior to choosing the current solution, we considered FortiGate and other open-source solutions.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our primary use cases include enhancing security for web applications and APIs, optimizing resource utilization to reduce costs, and maximizing efficiency in log management for better insights and savings.

CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by simplifying security management and enhancing our ability to monitor and analyze logs effectively.

The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its rich logging capabilities.

In terms of improvement, I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection.

I have been working with CloudGuard WAF for a month.

CloudGuard WAF impressed us with its stability; it is a powerful tool providing great visibility.

CloudGuard WAF's scalability is excellent, especially as a SaaS, offering significant improvements over on-premises environments and providing consolidated scalability.

The technical support is amazing.

We previously used Cloudflare. Now, we are testing WAF to enhance our log insights.

The initial deployment was straightforward. We transitioned from an on-premises solution to a SaaS model, which was simpler and more useful. Our implementation strategy involved redirecting the site to the new solution and creating policies to ensure smooth operation.

We haven't seen ROI metrics yet, but we expect long-term benefits, especially in budget management and risk reduction.

Before choosing CloudGuard, we evaluated options like Azure and AWS. The main differences lie in policy customization, market size, and preset features. Each has its pros and cons, but CloudGuard stood out for its robust policy options and wide market presence.

By implementing Check Point CloudGuard WAF we aimed to address challenges related to enhancing security for web applications while leveraging powerful logging capabilities.

We check false positives in CloudGuard WAF using logs and the interface, and we have had very few issues, which helps our business.

Using preset policies, the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies without requiring full data.

The solution has cut our web application firewall costs because it is adaptable to our environment.

My advice to new users would be to focus on the benefits of software as a service and ensure clarity in understanding pricing, particularly for DDoS protection.

Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF as a ten out of ten.

We have multiple cloud tenants, such as AWS and Azure, and we wanted to make sure we are secure.

By implementing CloudGuard WAF, we wanted to avoid using the built-in WAF. We wanted to avoid using the WAFs built into our Azure or AWS products. We wanted to make sure that we were using something proven and secure.

It is extremely important to us that CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. We are a financial institution, and we want to make sure that we do not have any type of traffic that infiltrates our cloud environment. We have 90,000 members around the world.

CloudGuard WAF is very good in terms of false positives. I do not see a lot of static noise, which we used to see with other apps that were in place. It is fantastic.

CloudGuard WAF has been fantastic for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. I would rate it a ten out of ten for that. As soon as we see a Zero Day, we get the alerts right away, and we are able to do the patching. This guarantees the use of our services. It is immediate and in real-time.

CloudGuard WAF has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall. It has reduced the overhead of not having people manually look at or review the alerts. It has been more automated.

It is mainly for egress and ingress, just making sure that we are keeping the proper traffic. The integration with Azure ExpressRoute was also key for us.

We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results.

In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better. 

I have been using CloudGuard WAF for two years.

We have had zero issues. Being a financial organization, just like others, our big issue is having any kind of downtime. Any downtime affects our members, and if our members are affected, they will withdraw the money. It has been fantastic. We have had zero events.

There are no real ends. We are a smaller environment compared to what they are used to working with. I have no concerns with being able to scale with them.

It is being used across cross-functional teams for different applications that are involved. We have 335 employees, and at least 300 employees touch this environment at any given time.

We definitely have plans to increase its usage. There are some plans in-house to expand the cloud environment.

They are fantastic. We never had an issue. Whenever we need something, we get a response. 

We also have a managed service provider. We have engineers from the Teneo group, and they are always great if we need any help. 

Positive

We were using the built-in WAF, but that was before my time, and I knew better. 

We did not go with our cloud vendor's web application firewall because it is against the best practices. From everything I have read and studied, I would rather go with something that is proven. There are a lot more vulnerabilities that have been exploited with native WAFs.

It is a public cloud. We have AWS and Azure.

I was involved in the initial deployment only from a high level. I was able to support the team to grab the necessary resources. Outside of that, it was just more of approvals.

Its deployment was straightforward. The deployment was outlined very well. We use one of the resellers and managed service providers for Check Point called Teneo. They explained everything. They told us exactly how it was going to go. They had their folks in place, and it was just very straightforward. It was very easy.

We had the help of Teneo. They were brilliant, and then I was able to help the team with the right pieces to get it accomplished.

We recently did an integration with Azure ExpressRoute. We are bringing it in so that we have a safer way for the egress and ingress with our vendors. I wanted to make sure that we involved the infrastructure team. We had a cloud architect and our cybersecurity team involved. We also ran it through our change advisory board and the architectural review board. We wanted to cover all bases to make sure that all aspects are covered.

We have definitely seen an ROI. There has been a consolidation with not just the cloud stack, but Check Point in general. It has been nice to eliminate products. We have already eliminated close to $250,000 annually in different tools by consolidation.

This is where I have a different opinion. If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale.

We did not evaluate other solutions only because we have Check Point in-house, and I was able to talk to our rep. We were able to get a nice solution from them, so we did not have to evaluate any other solution.

To those evaluating CloudGuard WAF, I would advise that for integration, make sure they have a trusted partner that is going to help them with the integration plan or they have the in-house skills to develop that plan. 

I would rate CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten.

We primarily use Check Point CloudGuard WAF for web application security. It protects applications from various threats and vulnerabilities like SQL injections, cross-site scripting issues, and cross-site request forgery. We ensure proper security policies and logs are maintained.

CloudGuard WAF helps by providing advanced protection for web applications and APIs, defending against the OWASP top ten scenarios, and offering comprehensive AI-driven behavior analysis. This assistance in data protection is vital for financial domains such as banks.

One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard. It's easy for beginners in security to understand and set policies. The solution's easy access and AI-driven behavior analysis for real-time threat detection are also highly valuable.

Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability. Although they provide 24/7 support, there are sometimes delays in delivering solutions. Advanced bot protection has recently been improved, which has helped a lot.

I have been using the solution for over four to five years, working as a project manager and handling implementation projects. We are primarily focused on Check Point CloudGuard implementations.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten. The solution is quite stable.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The solution is highly scalable.

Customer service is satisfactory yet requires some improvement. I would rate support as an eight out of ten, as there is room for enhancement.

Positive

I have experience with other WAF vendors such as Imperva and Imperva WAF, which are leading products in India and have a significant presence in the US and UK.

The initial setup is generally straightforward, yet it can vary depending on the client's platform and whether deployment occurs on-site or remotely.

We have a team of around 25 engineers; 50% handle project implementation, while the other 50% provide post-deployment support.

Return on investment is seen when data is properly organized, and the ability to show reports to top management ensures that their expectations are met.

Pricing is average—not too expensive, yet not cheap either. CloudGuard offers bundled packages, which may reduce costs compared to paying for individual features as opposed to other providers.

I have evaluated solutions like Empower and EmpowerVac, which are leading WAF products in India and other countries.

I would definitely recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF to other users due to its availability, scalability, and support. These aspects contribute significantly to receiving new contracts and maintaining client referrals.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Currently, I am working in a DNB environment. Since we have on-premises to Azure traffic, we utilize the Azure subnet. From the Azure subnet, we have different tags and servers hosted over the Azure side. When our internal traffic moves from the DNB to the Azure site, we use the CloudGuard firewall. Multiple tags are created in that firewall, each containing multiple servers. Users connect through the Azure site, utilizing an ExpressRoute link from on-premises to Azure. The CloudGuard firewall at our premises helps secure traffic to the Azure site.

The CloudGuard firewall's multiple features like web access filter, HTTPS inspection, and authentication are very useful in our environment. It provides secure and flexible connectivity between the user and the Azure subnet.

The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities. In CloudGuard, we create tags with servers, which makes connections secure and flexible. Features like web access filters, HTTPS inspection, and authentication are very important for our environment.

The user interface, SmartConsole, sometimes malfunctions and requires a restart. This part of the interface needs improvement.

I rate the stability as seven or eight out of ten. We sometimes experience lagging, crashing, and downtime.

The scalability of CloudGuard is very good. I would rate it as nine.

Whenever we observe any issues at the firewall level or require assistance, we contact tech support. We open cases, especially during upgrades, and they provide standby support. I would rate their support as eight out of ten.

Positive

When I joined the project, most of the deployment had started, so I was not aware of previous solutions used by the company. Personally, I have worked with Check Point on-premises firewalls but not on the Azure site before joining this company.

Some deployments were already in progress when I joined, and I participated in about half of the deployment process. It was easy with third-party vendor assistance, if required.

The deployment was handled in-house with occasional vendor support related to specific components such as blades.

Pricing is a bit high, but it is justified considering the features and support provided by Check Point.

I recommend CloudGuard for its extensive security features. It not only provides security but also detects threats and inspects traffic thoroughly. It is especially useful for securing connections between users and Azure subnets.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.