Check Point CloudGuard WAF Reviews

Due to the nature of our business, we have heavily invested in backend API development, providing services exclusively through this interface. Similar to how banks and medical industries utilize data from centralized sources, our APIs cannot be exposed directly to the Internet. To safeguard these critical APIs, a robust security solution is essential. 

Check Point CloudGuard WAF fulfills this need by intercepting all incoming internet traffic, categorizing requests as legitimate or malicious, including attack details, and blocking suspicious activity at the initial stage. Only verified, non-malicious requests are permitted to interact with our APIs.

When we activate the WAF, our security signatures and all the latest threat intelligence are immediately updated. Our protection is automatically refreshed every few hours to address emerging threats. For example, if a zero-day attack originates in Europe, Check Point CloudGuard can detect it within minutes and distribute a new signature globally. This ensures that when the attack reaches Australia, it is already blocked by our up-to-date WAF.

Although the WAF still produces false positives because of the signatures, we can apply a rule to exclude them easily.

Automated threat intelligence is crucial because a ransomware attack can compromise a network in minutes. Imagine an attack occurring at 3 AM when staff is unavailable; the damage may already be done when someone investigates. Ransomware can infiltrate and complete its task within just a few sessions. Once inside, attackers can lay dormant for months, covertly sending data using internal IP addresses. These addresses are often whitelisted, making it difficult to detect whether the outbound traffic is authorized or malicious. Automated threat intelligence can rapidly detect and respond to attacks, unlike manual processes that take 15 to 20 minutes, often too late to prevent significant damage like a completed ransomware attack. Systems like OCSP, utilizing best practices from multiple vendors such as Azure, Microsoft, CheckPoint, Palo Alto, and CloudStrike, provide an open platform for sharing and updating threat signatures. This enables organizations to tailor their security measures based on specific application needs and behaviors, effectively mitigating risks without unnecessary restrictions.

Cloud-based WAF solutions, such as Check Point's, offer significant advantages compared to traditional on-premises WAFs like Cisco or Palo Alto. On-premises WAFs require substantial upfront costs for hardware, expensive licenses, and frequent, costly upgrades as technology evolves. Cloud-based alternatives eliminate these expenses by providing the latest features and capabilities without hardware or software management. This flexibility and cost-efficiency make cloud WAFs appealing to many organizations. However, cloud solutions can be more expensive for high-throughput applications like Instagram or Facebook due to data transfer costs. At the same time,  on-premises options might be more economical in these cases. Ultimately, the best choice depends on specific network size, criticality, and application requirements.

Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure. In the first secure phase, pre-built signatures are used, eliminating the need for a live tracker as the necessary data is readily available. This approach efficiently blocks threats without progressing to the slower, resource-intensive second phase. Unlike competitors who process every request, this method conserves CPU power and prevents application slowdowns.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's code could be improved. While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code. Ideally, we would prefer consistent configuration across all products to simplify deployment, but in this case, the ISE is incompatible with the two or three different models we've identified. Therefore, we must rely solely on the GUI for configuration.

I have used Check Point CloudGuard WAF for four months.

It was stable in the four months we ran Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. We only reached 80 percent of our CPU capacity.

The technical support is good. We didn't use them much, demonstrating the product's quality.

Positive

At that stage, our primary goal was to select a suitable WAF to replace our existing F5 WAF. While the F5 WAF performed well, we sought to eliminate it due to excessive licensing costs. Given the high expense of our entire WAF solution, we explored alternatives, including Azure WAF, Check Point WAF, and Palo Alto WAF. Although we initially considered Cisco WAF, it was quickly discarded as outdated. After a two-week evaluation, we narrowed our options to Azure, Check Point, and Palo Alto WAFs.

The deployment is straightforward and similar to any standard firewall installation. While the process took four days due to design finalization, deploying directly from code can be completed in less than thirty minutes.

Two people were involved in the deployment, one working on the design and the other on the ISE.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF. I would rate the cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF as eight out of ten, with ten being the most costly.

We evaluated Cisco WAF, but it is outdated and no longer competitive. Since we utilize Azure Cloud, we opted for Azure WAF due to our preference for cloud-based solutions. Azure WAF has performed well and is seamlessly integrated behind the scenes. We also evaluated Palo Alto, but configuration challenges through ISE led us to discontinue its use seven months ago. Check Point CloudGuard WAF was abandoned for similar reasons. Azure WAF's integration with ISE, including built-in Bicep modules for CLI configuration and deployment, is a significant advantage. Currently, we manage approximately 35 IP addresses and require two distinct stages for WAF settings and module deployment. Consistent signature stem definition across different environments is essential. ISE was crucial in our decision-making process, ultimately replacing Check Point due to the latter's lack of ISE integration, a critical requirement. While Check Point offered several strengths, the absence of ISE was a deal-breaker. Overall, Azure WAF has met our expectations.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

We have six environments in multiple locations and eight products that use 20 APIs.

We have a team of four working with the WAF.

I would recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF if it fully meets the organization's needs, the cost is reasonable, and they desire AI and ML integration in the future. However, since we do not require AI or ML and prioritize ISE for our management approach, this solution did not align with our requirements.

The primary use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is for protecting web applications and APIs. We use it for web apps and APIs we want to protect.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by providing protection against web application attacks such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and bot threats. Its automated threat prevention and real-time traffic analysis reduced manual intervention and response time. Integration with our cloud infrastructure enabled seamless deployment and scalability, while centralized visibility helped enforce consistent security policies across all environments.

The most valuable feature is the AI/ML engine, which does the job for us and mainly reduces the number of false positives and adapts accordingly. It significantly impacts workflow efficiency, allowing us to focus more on other fields. After implementing it, we have better results in vulnerability and penetration testing and scanning.

CloudGuard WAF could improve UI simplicity, reduce false positives, and enhance policy management. Future releases should include better bot mitigation, behavioral anomaly detection, compliance templates, advanced threat intel integration, and streamlined multi-cloud support to boost protection and usability.

I have been using the solution for one year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is very stable.

Its scalability is inherent to its SaaS solution.

The customer support is great.

Positive

We did not have any other solution before using Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

The initial setup was positive, and we did not face any problems.

There is potential money-saving regarding some successful attacks if we did not have Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

Our experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was positive. We did not have any issues.

Before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF, we did not evaluate other options.

I recommend implementing it easily, onboarding services quickly, and utilizing its policy blocking. It is very useful and efficient. I rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten. The AI/ML engine, which greatly reduces false positives so that we do not have to manage them manually, stands out the most.

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.