Check Point NGFW Reviews

The solution protects our internal network (traffic between VLANS) and also is used as a perimeter firewall in our on-premise and cloud environments. Also, we use functionalities such as IPS, ABOT, AV, VPN, and mobile access.

We have about 200 small branches distributed all over the world protected with 1,430 devices and connected via VPN to AWS Cloud Guard and Check Point firewall.

We also have endpoint protection in about 500 devices with firewalls, antimalware, antibot, anti-ransomware, threat emulation and prevention enabled, and also port control.

We have NGTX blades so that we have protection against known and unknown attacks (zero-day). In terms of protection, we passed from none to one of the most advanced protections in the market. 

Regarding endpoints, we can see a lot of prevented attacks and phishing attempts every day. We can see the whole solution running in our environment correctly.

We gained a lot of visibility of traffic patterns, destinations, and use of network (internal and external) resources due to the logs and views within the Smartconsole.

The centrally managed firewalls are great. We can save a lot of configuration time in configuration tasks. We have deployed about 200 devices in record time due to the fact that we use a unique policy for almost all of them.

Logs, Views and Reports are the most detailed compared to other vendors (FortiGate, etc.) We can see a lot of detail in the logs and also we can configure any report we need without any problem and in two clicks.

We can see that, for IPS signatures, we have updates every day, sometimes twice a day, so we see a lot of effort from the vendor. They really try to protect our environment from known attacks and vulnerabilities.

We try to not depend of the SMS application and leave it as a web application. Sometimes it takes a long time to authenticate and open correctly. It's a windows application, so you need a machine to install the application on.

If you have the standard support level, sometimes they take a long time to understand or even give you a solution or good workaround to a problematic situation. We had a problem in the past with a VPN blade that lead some devices to flap the VPN up and down. That case lasted 6 months as we were jumping between Check Point's internal departments in order to find a solution on our problem.

I've used the solution for eight years.

We are very happy regarding the stability. In last year, we only have had three problems regarding software bugs or stability problems.

They have a solution called Maestro where you can add devices in 10 minutes to scale the solution without doing a lot of configuration.

In our environment, we have a classic deployment so it's not as easy to scale; you need to do some configuration and have a maintenance window in which to do it. 

We have the standard support service. I can't say anything too bad and nothing too good. It's normal. Regarding customer service at the local office, I can say that it is very good. They have helped us a lot in deploying some complex characteristics without cost.

Neutral

We have Cisco, however, that's for networking and not security. 

The installation was done by a partner, however, it was very straightforward.

The product was implemented by a partner and their expertise was very good.

There are a lot of licenses for almost every feature, therefore, it's possible to buy only the licenses needed and not a bundle that would have unused features. That leads to savings in costs.

We have evaluated FortiGate, and we saw that it was more user-friendly, however, some characteristics we needed in regards to complex VPN deployments were only available from Check Point.

We use our Check Point NGFW firewall mainly for perimeter security. Those firewalls are placed at many sites distributed over Europe. We love the firewall management and think it's still the golden standard for creating a rule base and we go more and more in the direction of identity bases user access to secure our environment.

The other firewall blades, such as Anti-Bot, Application and URL-Filtering, and IPS, are used on all sites. It's easy to deploy, as the firewall is able, with the latest version, to learn from the traffic and adapt the IPS policy.

Check Point NGFW has improved our organization with more security and easier deployments. There is a smaller amount of workload in the supporting area. We find a lot of documentation for the products and benefit from a big community. The Check Point support is much better than what we have seen from other vendors. The firewall policy is easy to deploy and we can do a more granular separation of specific user groups. We feel much more secure with this product - especially the API support - and possible automation has saved us a lot of time in our team and organization.

The most valuable features are the identity-based access and high-quality intrusion prevention functionalities. 

One of the most valuable aspects is the central management, which includes a large wide range of API calls. With the central management, we can define a reasonable security policy for many sites and not only for network segments but for user and AD groups. This gives us a bit more "Zero Trust" in our network.

It's enabled us to move away from basic LAN to LAN segmentation to a more powerful user separation approach.

One area which is still lacking is the site-to-site VPN solution. This is still an area that could be improved, although the features have gotten much broader and I really have seen an improvement over the last 10 years of working with the product. The separation from encryption domains between the tunnels came recently as a new feature to the product. This really helps a lot. Yet, we are still seeing a lack of compatibility with other devices, even though this is the case with many vendors. Especially with IKEv2, we are struggling with many vendors to set up perfectly running tunnels.

I'm working with Check Point for 10 years.

If you go by best practice recommendations from Check Point the stability is very good.

Scalability is really good. Check Point has the Maestro solution, where you can really scale easily without wasting resources.

They are really anxious to solve issues as fast as possible. They also try to get in actual contact with you via phone or chat to fully understand the issue.

Positive

In some areas we were using Cisco, however, we changed to Check Point to centralize things.

The setup is pretty straightforward, at least for the basic setup. Even with more complicated configurations, you have good support and experts at Check Point in the background that can help.

We did it ourselves.

Check Point is definitely not the cheapest solution, but the better security makes it worth the price. The licensing model is pretty easy, especially when it comes to the extension for many environments.

We looked at Cisco, Barracuda, and Fortinet.

I'd advise teams to give it a try!

We use it to protect our network from the outside world and unsecured networks. We also use it to provide a safe, secure network to the internal users of our organization.

I am using various versions on the model, like R80.10 and R80.30.

• Antivirus
• Threat Prevention
• The central management

These are vital, advanced firewall features for the market. They protect the environment more than the usual firewalls. 

Check Point's study materials should be provided by the company directly and be of very good quality. This is not provided right now and something that the company can improve. 

A disadvantage about Check Point is people in the market are not too familiar about its usage and people lack training on it.

I have been using it for the last six years (since 2014).

Check Point Firewalls are very stable. Check Point is one of the oldest company in firewalls with a very stable product. They provide good, stable updates.

It scales well. Recently, during COVID-19, we did the scalability process, and it was easy.

Currently, this is used only for our inbound networks to provide security to our internal network. Around 6,000 people are taking advantage of this technology directly and indirectly in our organization.

We have certainly increased number of firewalls in our organization. In the future, if is required, then we will definitely use more.

I have used the technical support very frequently. I would give them around a nine out of 10. They have very good support. In critical scenarios, they provide us very quick solutions, are very well-trained, and have a good knowledge about the product. That is what we expect from them. I am deducting one mark to allow room for improvement. 

Previously, we were using the Cisco ASA Firewalls, which are one of the most demanded firewall in the market. We switched to Check Point because their firewall is more advanced than Cisco ASA. They are also providing us the extra benefit of features, like their central management system, Antivirus, and Threat Prevention, which were not provided by Cisco ASA. 

It was straightforward; it was not too complex. It was simple to install and use the features, as we were already trained. Our company used their trainers before installing it. Getting all the knowledge of the firewall's features beforehand worked very well for installing/deploying the solution in our environment.

We were using different firewalls that we had to replace. For that replacement, we required two years for the transition to Check Point to get it to work.

For our implementation strategy, we used three-tier architecture strategy in which we have a console, three-tier management Gateway, and the firewall.

We have around 20 people on the team, because it is a large company. So, I deployed it with the help of 19 members. The team of 20 people work on different shifts and we manage all the organization's firewalls. We are all network engineers, though some of us have different designations.

It has a good return in terms of usage and the security that it provides. We are very happy with the security capabilities that this firewall has.

Check Point Firewall costs more compared to the other firewalls in the markets, as pricing is little high. However, it is easy to take the license and use it in the firewall.

We did an evaluation between Cisco ASA and Check Point. We had options to extend Cisco ASA or switch to Check Point, but we switched to Check Point Firewall.

Be knowledgeable before implementing this firewall because it has many advanced features compared to the normal firewalls in the market. If you want to use it in a better way, then you need to be trained on it. 

There were a few members who joined our organization who were familiar with Check Point, but they do not know about every feature which could be used and taken advantage of to better secure our network. I recommend getting proper training before using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10 because I am a very happy customer of Check Point. I have had a good experience with this firewall. I like is the way it is improving a lot with the times.

The reason we have the Check Point Next Generation Firewall is that it's our main perimeter firewall in all our branches around the world. It secures the IT infrastructure in all of our environments and our subsidiaries. We also use it to set up tunnels between all our sites.

We have multiple versions from the legacy R77 to the latest R80.40.

In today's world, there are a lot of risks related to infrastructure security, malware and more. The Check Point has multiple blades in the same product, which improve security in IPS, application control, and URL filtering. You don't need to buy multiple, separate products to achieve the best security.

The basic most valuable feature is the firewall itself.

The management platform, dashboard, graphical user interface, are one of the best, if not the best, in the business. It's the most intuitive and it's really user-friendly in day-to-day operations.

The VPN means you can communicate in an encrypted manner between sites. 

The application control and URL filtering are also very beneficial. They enable you to tighten security and decide which applications or websites you want to grant access to. In our company, we don't allow anyone to freely access the internet to surf all websites. Some sites may be sensitive and some of them may be inappropriate. It allows us to control the traffic.

Their management features are the best, from one point of view, but they are too heavy. For example, if you are looking at a configuration file, you can't just browse through it and see all the configurations like you can with other vendors, like Cisco and Fortigate. With those solutions you can just go over the configuration file and read all the objects and the policies, etc. 

Because of the Check Point architecture, the data file itself is huge if you're comparing it to the data files of other vendors. The difference is something like 3 Mb to 1 Gb. It's not so straightforward. 

The data process is also not so simple. You don't just load a text file which has all the configuration. It's a more complex process to restore it from a backup, when it comes to Check Point.

I have been using Check Point's NGFW for approximately 10 years.

One of my issues with Check Point is the stability. There have been too many bugs, over the years, when I compare them with other vendors. Their QA team should do better work before releasing their GA versions.

If you're looking for scalability and you need to add more power and performance and to scale up, they have a new solution, but I haven't used it yet.

In terms of the extent of our use, it's our main firewall. Everything flows through it.

We currently have four direct users and all of them are security engineers. I'm doing most of the deployment and the others are responsible for the day-to-day operations. In the overall company there are more than 10,000 users, and the traffic throughput is around 10 Gb.

They have a very extensive Knowledge Base on their website, which is very helpful. But if you contact their technical support, not all of them have all the skills. If you open a ticket it may take a while to be resolved. It can take more than a month until they finally escalate it several times internally and then, finally, find a solution. But the first tier is not too technical.

The previous solution, Contivity, was before my time in this company and I don't think it even exists anymore. The Contivity was only a firewall and our company wanted more features and benefits. It didn't have next-generation firewall options, like URL filtering, user identity, and IPS. As risks evolved in the data security field, our company needed to adapt.

The complexity of the setup depends on which branch we're setting it up for. If it's a new branch, we can spin up a new firewall in less than an hour or so, do all the configuration, and it's ready for production. But if we're replacing an existing solution, the migration process may take some time and the people involved need more extensive knowledge, compared to spinning up a new firewall.

If it's a complex environment and you're migrating from one solution to another one, or even from an older version to a new version within the Check Point platform, I would recommend not to do it by yourself. In those cases you should use a third-party partner or Check Point Professional Services.

I did most of my deployments by myself, but in our headquarters, where there was an older version of a Check Point version, and they wanted to migrate to a new one, I used a partner. The partner I used was SafeWay, a company in Israel. They have quite extensive knowledge and they are very professional.

It's hard to measure ROI in financial terms, but our productivity has gone up with the new version of the R80 because we don't need to wait for one administrator to log out of the management system for another to be able to log in. Multiple administrators can now work simultaneously on the platform. That productivity increase can be seen as a form of ROI.

Use the basic sizing tool to do the correct sizing so you don't waste too much money, because it's not a very cheap solution when compared to other vendors. There are other vendors that are more affordable.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees, except maintenance.

We have not evaluated any other options.

My best advice would be, if you are not as skilled, that while you don't really need to use the Check Point Professional Services, you should use a partner that has good knowledge of the device. If it's just a straightforward deployment without all the features, it may look simple but there are too many options. Eventually, you may use 30 percent of them. I don't think you will use 100 percent of all the features that are available.

Overall, I'm a little bit disappointed because of the numerous bugs that there are.

I would rate it at seven out of ten because their management platform and the dashboard. It's the most intuitive and user-friendly in day-to-day operations, as long as you're not dealing with the bugs.

We are using the solution for the perimeter. It's used as a core firewall, with almost all transactions passing through the firewall. For instance, in a cellular phone company, all transactional authorizations pass through the firewall, while in a bank, authorizations for branches and ATMs go through the firewall. The main customers are in the BFSI, telcos, industry manufacturing, and other large enterprise sectors.

Check Point's solutions allow organizations to operate securely with a reliable core firewall in place, ensuring that transactions proceed smoothly.

The Check Point firewall is used as a core firewall offering high reliability with at least two synchronized data centers, creating a fault-tolerant configuration. It is considered a very stable platform with minimal bugs.

Technically, there is no need for improvement. That said, they need to be more aggressive and protect more of the channels on the commercial side. Additionally, the user interface could be more user-friendly.

We have been using Check Point solutions for over twenty-five years, since the very beginning.

The firewall is highly stable, being described as one of the most reliable, with a stable platform and few bugs.

Using the Maestro technology, the firewall has good scalability. It allows for flexibility and growth by stacking clippings without needing to change the chassis.

Customer service is generally good. With Diamond or Diamond Plus service for banks, the support level meets customer expectations. The internal team of Check experts also ensures issues are resolved efficiently.

Positive

We are familiar with and have supported other solutions like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco yet primarily do business with Check Point.

Initial setup can be complex, especially in large or redundant deployments. Expertise is required to manage configurations, especially with complex operations and a high volume of users and VPNs.

The implementation team has around 20 people, with a total group including maintenance and support numbering 60.

Monetizing the risk is complex, and despite having software for calculating ROI in security, traditional calculations like the FAIR methodology do not apply efficiently in Latin America.

Check Point and Palo Alto solutions are among the more expensive options, but once a platform is adopted, switching is difficult. Clients tend to stay with the same brand for extended periods.

We have evaluated solutions from Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco, however, the main offering is Check Point.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

My primary use case of Check Point's firewalls is to provide in-depth network filtering with advanced threat prevention, which can be set up simply using autonomous threat prevention where the firewall learns about the environment and then actions threat prevention based upon that. The threat prevention can also be custom-built for your environment. 

I also use the Check Point Always On VPN for remote endpoints, which allows users to authenticate and connect to the VPN pre-login without any input from the users.

It has improved my organization due to the in-depth security it provides. Check Point has a lot of security-focused features that provide a great level of network security. It has improved the security posture of the organization due to the granularity that can be set in the policies, such as using access roles to set user-based access, and time-based rules to only apply a specific firewall rule at a specific time. It has also improved my organization because of the in-depth troubleshooting steps that are made available to the end user, meaning we can troubleshoot issues easily, and troubleshooting steps can get very advanced.

I have found the VPN and the application control/URL filtering the most valuable features. The main reason for this is that the VPN blade allows easy VPN setup between two VPN gateways, allowing for not only site-to-site VPNs but also for remote users to connect to the Check Point gateways. This feature is easy to set up. Also, users can troubleshoot the VPNs very in-depth.

The application control and URL filtering features are valuable since they allow very granular control of what is coming in and out of a network. Instead of just allowing certain Layer 4 ports in/out of the network, specific applications can be allowed, which not only can tighten a security posture. It makes administering the product easier as, when a new app is rolled out, it can simply be added to the policy.

One feature that could be improved is the internet object in the application control/URL filtering blade. In most deployments, this works as it says it will. However, the object is based on topology, not internet IP ranges. This means that in certain scenarios (and likely a non-standard deployment), the internet object can not refer to the internet. This can be bypassed by creating a networking group containing class A, B & C networks and using this in the policy, right-clicking the group and ticking 'negate.' 

Another improvement would be to improve the simplicity of deploying SAML as an authentication option when connecting using a remote access VPN. Check Point's deployment guide is very in-depth. However, the process could be simpler.

I've used the solution for three years.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is good.

Support is very good from Check Point.

Positive

The initial setup can be straightforward or complex depending on the complexity of the environment. Usually, it is fairly straightforward.

We implemented the solution in-house.

I am currently working with Check Point Firewall because most of your customers have it deployed in their networks. Recently, we were involved in a significant firewall micro-implementation for one of our customers. We created configuration templates, specifically for routing and setting up bond interfaces within CheckPoint. These interfaces are similar to Cisco's port channels, where multiple physical interfaces are bound into one. 

I primarily work on the network side, so my expertise lies in configuring and working with firewalls. I have experience in firewall policies and know how to configure them within Check Point, including blocking URLs and specific website categories. However, I acknowledge that there's room for improvement, particularly in areas related to application-level control within the firewall. While I can't pinpoint a specific area for improvement, I am trying to enhance my skills and knowledge in various aspects of firewall management.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for the last 12 months.

During a project where I was working with a customer deploying Maestro in their network, we encountered an issue related to multicast traffic. Check Point's expert team suggested that we install a package called Jumbo Hotfix inside the Check Point, which resolved the problem. Overall, despite this issue, Check Point NGFW is a stable product with minimal encountered bugs.

Check Point is a stable product, but when compared to other vendors like Palo Alto and Fortinet, I'd recommend going with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is a more stable and robust firewall solution than Check Point.

The deployment of Check Point was straightforward. In the Azure cloud environment, it took approximately thirteen minutes to complete the deployment, while on-premises, the initial setup was relatively easy and not complicated. I have deployed Check Point both on-premises and in the Azure cloud. The deployment in Azure took place around four months ago for a customer's proof of concept (POC). The primary reason for this deployment was to address the customer's VPN subnet limitations with Azure VPN. I suggested that moving to a cloud-based CheckPoint solution would provide better VPN connections without IP subnet limitations. In the Azure deployment, I created a hub and VPN and deployed two CheckPoint instances, not just one. To manage these instances, I used a load balancer within the Azure network.

Regarding firewalls, my role primarily involves designing and deploying them, then handing over the management to the operations team. While I find the deployment process relatively easy, the issues the operations team faces later on can impact my perspective. I'd rate Check Point a 7 out of 10. The ease of deployment is a plus, but we've encountered some problems with Check Point, particularly related to documentation. Compared to vendors like Cisco and Juniper, the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation could be improved.

The implementation of Check Point firewalls has been a transformative experience for our organization. It has significantly improved our cybersecurity posture, enabling us to detect and prevent threats more effectively, streamline management, and stay agile in the face of evolving security challenges. 

With Check Point, we are not just securing our data, we are also protecting our brand and reputation. The value they bring to our organization is immeasurable, making them an essential component of our overall cybersecurity strategy.

In today's ever-evolving digital landscape, cybersecurity is paramount for any organization. For our company, the implementation of Check Point firewalls has proven to be a pivotal moment in our ongoing quest to bolster our cybersecurity defenses. These firewalls have not only improved our security measures but have also positively impacted our overall business operations.

In our industry, adhering to stringent compliance regulations is paramount. Check Point firewalls help us ensure compliance with industry-specific regulations and standards, such as HIPAA, GDPR, or PCI DSS. This compliance assurance has eased the audit process and instilled trust among our clients.

Check Point firewalls have significantly improved our ability to detect and prevent threats. The robust threat intelligence capabilities, coupled with real-time monitoring, have allowed us to swiftly respond to potential security breaches. As a result, we have experienced a noticeable decrease in security incidents and data breaches, which ultimately translates into cost savings and a bolstered reputation.

As our organization grows, so does the volume of data we need to protect. Check Point firewalls have proved scalable and can handle increased traffic and the addition of new services without compromising performance. This scalability ensures that our security measures are always aligned with our business growth.

One of the standout features of Check Point firewalls is their user-friendly management interface. This intuitive platform has streamlined firewall management, making it accessible to both our in-house IT team and non-technical staff. This has resulted in a more efficient use of resources and time, allowing our IT personnel to focus on other critical tasks.

The product needs comprehensive reporting and analytics capabilities to help organizations gain insights into their security posture and demonstrate compliance to stakeholders.

It requires enhanced automation tools for regulatory compliance to ease the burden of compliance reporting and auditing.

The solution needs to tighten security by facilitating easy integration with MFA solutions to enhance user authentication.

It needs to integrate automation and orchestration capabilities to streamline incident response and automate routine security tasks, reducing the workload on security teams.

As containerization and microservices become more prevalent, it needs to provide security solutions that protect these modern application architectures effectively. Features like runtime protection and security scanning for containers can be beneficial.

I've used the solution for almost five years now.

Check Point firewalls are quite robust and resilient.

Check Point firewalls have proved scalable and can handle increased traffic and the addition of new services without compromising performance.

The technical support is recommended. I'd give them an A++++.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed the solution using Check Point's PS Support. Their team is highly experienced and professional.

It's worth the cost.

Initially, the cost of the investment might seem high compared to other vendors. However, in the long run, it might prove to be economical and cost-efficient.

I also evaluated Fortinet and Cisco ASA.