Check Point NGFW Reviews

We have deployed this software to provide comprehensive security beyond the Next Generation Firewall (NGFW). 

This software provides advanced analytics on any security measures that can have a great impact on our applications. 

It blocks malware attacks that can destroy data and leak confidential information to unauthorized parties. Check Point NGFW has helped the company to set up security policies that enhance the effective transfer of files and secure browsing strategies. There is improved prevention of external threats to data and increased production across the networking infrastructure.

Check Point NGFW has helped the company in the prevention of cyber attacks that could affect operations and slow down production. 

The intelligence reports from the real-time insights have helped members to avoid risks and plan efficiently for the future. 

Security threats that we used to experience before we deployed this product have been reduced, and the networking channels are ever safe. 

Sharing documents under secure infrastructure has increased the confidence of employees and enhanced faster implementation of tasks and projects.

The software provision of uncompromising security models across all the company applications has stimulated increased production. 

It has given the IT team full control and setup authority to scale down and deploy security to the most demanding platforms. 

The solution is safeguarding our financial databases and always has prevented fraud while giving employees peace of mind. 

The software has enabled us to come up with a unified dashboard that can monitor all accounting operations and investigate when there are security loopholes that can lead to data mismanagement.

The current features have a full set of security models that can protect any organization's information from ransomware attacks. 

When installed on Windows, the system with low storage space slows down. It is not compatible with all mobile devices and this may be unfair to some users. The next release can be more compatible with Windows and mobile devices for increased efficiency. 

I have experienced the best environment while working with this platform. All the data across the transactional records is ever secure under Check Point NGFW and I am proud of that great step ahead.

I've used the solution for nine months.

This platform is stable in the prevention of ransomware attacks.

I have been impressed by the performance of this software since we deployed it.

The customer support team has been always been responsive and interactive with our members.

Positive

I have not used a similar solution.

The setup was straightforward.

The deployment was done through the vendor team.

The current ROI is 35%.

The setup cost is good and the solution is affordable.

I evaluated other options. However, the company settled on Check Point NGFW due to its performance.

This is a great solution for many organizations that require stable data security.

We first deployed Check Point for our clients. Our first client wanted to deploy the security appliances in a cluster solution for their network infrastructure solution. The NGTW chosen was the 5800 series and it was deployed as a software solution on clients' servers. Everything is going smoothly and the client seems happy with our proposal.

For our client, it is extremely important to protect the internal network infrastructure from any malicious attempt to break into their critical data. The NFGW cluster has been a step towards greater visibility in regards to their internal operations. The logs give a very detailed panorama of risks.

URL filtering, Application Control, and the Intrusion Prevention System are the features that almost every client wants to be guaranteed by their security appliances. 

Check Point NGFW also generates very helpful reports based on the logs of the activated features, including the features mentioned (URL filtering, Application Control, and the Intrusion Prevention System, as well as anti-bot and anti-spam). 

Sandblast is also a great feature, soon to be added to this solution through endpoints.

The appliances are quite intuitive and easy to be used. The hotfixes are useful and often released with notifications sent to the client.

There have been a few requests/issues about the Identity Awareness feature. The connection to AD, which was a request from the user, required the TAC team's support. 

I've been using the solution for more than 3 years.

This solution is stable and its replacement will not be needed for some time. Security is a need, and as such, it should be a permanent investment.

It seems pretty scalable. Scalability is one of the features that make Check Point different from other vendors. Most of the Quantum series are usable with the Maestro solution, where the client can practically add up other appliances on top of the previous one, without replacing it.

Cases don't always get a resolution immediately, however, the TAC team is supportive and through continuous interactions and suggestions, all cases have been resolved (within 1-2 weeks when they are not urgent).

Positive

For our own infrastructure, Check Point was the first vendor chosen.

The implementation is straightforward. The setup is clear and simple, much like any other software nowadays.

We did an in-house implementation.

The biggest investment is the initial one when you purchase the solution. It needs very little maintenance, and the automation it offers makes it easy to maintain.

The setup is easy and intuitive, and licensing has good coverage to meet the needs for most of the clients. Price is the least favorite element regarding Check Point. Its products aren't the cheapest ones in the market, however, the ratio of value to money is fair.

Fortinet was considered as an option as well.

The primary use is to protect the organization from any kind of attack. It is able to isolate, secure, and control every device on the network at all times. Solutions should have the ability to block infected devices from accessing corporate data and assets.

It provides access to the Internet for corporate resources in a secure manner. Our resources are used to host applications and services that are accessible to end-users over the Internet.

It is used to provide required/limited access for third parties who want to connect to our corporate network. Access is granted based on application type and should be independent of port or protocol.

It provides next-generation protection including IPS/Web Filtering/SSL decryption and more. 

It offers centralized policy management capabilities for all firewalls.

This solution was able to provide access to our internet-based resources using our application/FQDN.

The license offers different modules for NGTP and SNBT. It provides multiple functionality or blades, which can be enabled on the firewall depending upon organizational requirements.

Other than stateful packet filtering with the NGTP license, it provides blades such as IPS/URL/VPN/Application Control/content awareness/Anti-Bot/Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam. With SNBT, it provides additional security using the SandBlast Threat Emulation and SandBlast Threat Extraction for Zero-day attacks in real-time.

Any file, before it reaches an endpoint, is executed in a virtual environment for analysis. Based on the verdict and configured policy, a decision will be made as to whether it should be delivered to the endpoint or not.

It provides the flexibility to use any module with the NGTP and SNBT license. Depending upon the requirements, the blades/module can be enabled on the firewall security gateway and it can be deployed easily.

In case SSL decryption or IPS need to be enabled on any security gateway, it is simple to do. We can go ahead and enable the module/blade and then create a policy, deploy it, and it will start to work.

It has a default five-user license for Mobile/SSL VPN, so the organization can check the solution any time or can even provide access to critical users on an as-needed basis, without getting the OEM involved, all on the same box.

For smaller organizations with the correct sizing of the appliance, they can use the full security solution on a single box. It will provide financial benefits along with reducing the cost of purchasing additional solutions or appliances. 

For example:

• URL Filtering Module: It can replace the proxy solution for on-premises users with integration of application control and the Identity module. Active Directory access can be provided based on the User ID and the website or application.
• SSL VPN or SSL decryptor, and more. 
  
• Core assignment for each interface, which can be done using the CLI. If the administrator determines that a particular interface requires more compute, he can manually assign additional cores accordingly. This is done by enabling hyperthreading on the firewall. 
• The policy can be copied from any security gateway and pasted onto another one.

This is a zone-based firewall, which differs from other firewall solutions available on the market. It changes the way the admin manages firewall policy. The administrator has to be careful while defining policy because it can lead to configuration errors, allowing unwanted access.

For example, if a user needs to access the internet on the HTTPS port, then the administrator has to create a policy as below, rather than using NAT for assigning the user's machine to a public IP.

Source: User machine
Destination: any
Port: HTTPS
Action: allow (for allowing the user's machine access)

This has to be done along with the below policy:

Source: User machine
Destination: Other Zone created on Firewall
Port: HTTPS
Action: block 

The two policies, together, mean that the user's machine will not be able to communicate with any other L3 Network created on the firewall.

The firewall throughput or performance reduces drastically after enabling each module/blade.

It does not provide for standalone configuration on the security gateway. Instead, you need to have a management server/smart console for managing it. This can be deployed on a dedicated server or can be deployed on the security gateway itself.

I have been using the Check Point NGFW for more than eight years.

This solution is very much stable and does not require frequent changes in architecture. The patch frequency is limited and it does not require frequent maintenance windows in terms of downtime.

This firewall is very much scalable. The introduction of Maestro has changed the concept of hyperscaling.  

The technical support is excellent. The center is located in major cities in India along with the Check Point presales team.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have been using Check Point for a long time.

During the initial setup, support is excellent. It is a well-known OEM and they have people ready to resolve any issue that should arise.

Our in-house team deployed it with support from the OEM.

Cost-wise, it cheaper than industry leaders such as Palo Alto. The licensing is straightforward; there are only three types of licenses that include NGFW, NGTP, and SNBT, so the organization can choose its license according to their requirements.

We have evaluated solutions by Juniper, Cisco, and Palo Alto.

Before implementing the security gateway, you need to be sure about the license and modules that you are going to enable. This includes determining the proper size, as it can affect throughput drastically after enabling each module. This is especially true for SSL decryption.

The architecture needs to be studied before finalizing, as the configuration is done remotely using the centralized smart console. All of the security gateways need to be connected to the management server for any policy configuration, and they should be available at all times.

I had 3200 appliances deployed in my company where we had two CMSs. We had multiple VSXs on those appliances due to the main firewall that we had on the VLAN. We also had an external firewall on the VLAN, which were used to monitor and allow the traffic within the network. That is how we were using it.

They have a new R81 in place. Currently, they also have R75 deployed in the environment, but they are planning to upgrade to R80.20 because that particular firewall has very high CPU utilization and there is no more support for R75. 

I like that it first checks the SAM database. If there is any suspicious traffic, then you can block that critical traffic in the SAM database instead of creating a rule on the firewall, then pushing that out, which takes time. 

The Anti-Spoofing has the ability to monitor the interfaces. Suppose any spoofed IP addresses are coming from an external interface, it won't allow them. It will drop that traffic. You have two options with the Anti-Spoofing: prevent or detect. If any kind of spoof traffic is coming through the external interface, we can prevent that. 

I like the Check Point SandBlast, which is also the new technology that I like, because it mitigates the zero-day attacks. I haven't worked on SandBlast, but I did have a chance to do the certification two years back, so I have sound knowledge on SandBlast. We can deploy it as a SandBlast appliance or use it along with the Check Point Firewall to forward the traffic to the SandBlast Cloud.

Working on Check Point for me looks simple. For the user or anyone else who is using Check Point, they are more into the GUI stuff. Check Point has its SmartConsole. On the console, you have to log into the MDS or CMS. Then, from there, you have to go onto that particular firewall and put in the changes. If the management console could be integrated onto the GUI itself, that would be one thing that I would recommend.

The ability for the multiple administrators to not do changes was fixed in R80.

I just changed companies six months back. I have been using Check Point for around two and a half years. I was working on the Check Point technologies in my previous company. I did the implementation of Check Point and was also monitoring the Check Point Firewall in my last company during firewall upgrades.

We had two Check Point Firewalls deploy in the HA. There was one particular change that we did regarding the FQDN objects. However, after deploying this new change, which already had multiple FQDN objects, the behavior of the firewall was changed in terms of the live traffic. Because after deploying the critical chain, the users were facing intermittent Skype and Office 365 issues. We checked the performance of the Check Point, which also decreased due to the FQDN objects that were pushed onto the firewall. Therefore, we had to reverse back the change in order to increase the performance, because it was utilizing 80 or 90 percent of it. Once we reversed that particular change, then it was working fine.

These firewalls are stable. The customer is looking forward to upgrading to the latest version of Check Point.

It is scalable.

The entire company network resides behind these particular firewalls. All of the users, if they wanted to go out onto the Internet, have to go through this firewall.

There are around five to eight people who worked for my team. We monitored the firewall. In case of issues, we would then go a call with the customer and troubleshoot that issue.

Sometimes, I faced issues while troubleshooting. In those cases, I did have to contact Check Point's technical support because some of those issues were complex. 

I would give the technical support a four out of five. They would get on the call and try to resolve that issue as soon as possible. 

Initially, I was working on the Cisco ASA Firewall, then I got an opportunity to work on the Check Point Firewall. The main difference is regarding the architecture. Check Point has three-tier architecture, whereas ASA doesn't have that architecture so you have to deploy every rule on the firewall manually. With Check Point, you have a management server and you can have that policy package pushed onto the other firewall, which is one of the key features of Check Point: You don't have to deploy every tool on the firewall manually. We can just push that particular policy package onto the new firewall based on global rules that we have Check Point. 

Every time, I had to deploy all of the rules and basic connectivity, SSH and SNMP management, on the ASA Firewall. Whereas, in Check Point, I can just go onto the global rules and put that policy onto the Check Point Firewall, then it will have all those global rules required in the company.

Check Point also has the Identity Awareness feature, which is using a captive portal. This is something good which I like. 

It was pretty easy and straightforward for me to deploy these firewalls.

It took around the 15 days to do the initial deployment and get the basic connectivity to the Check Point Firewalls. We had to send a field engineer to do the cabling and everything, like the data connectivity. It takes time to do all the network, cabling, etc. Once the basic connectivity is established, then we can move ahead with the implementation of the rules on the firewall. The company had an initial set of rules to follow for the setup.

We initially opened a case regarding the upgrade. Check Point's technical support was there on the call because the upgrade was going from version R77 to R81.10. This was a major update for the entire network, and they were there supporting us in case of any issues.

The customer feels more secure because they have two layers of security and comfortable working with this particular Check Point Firewall because they previously used Check Point R75. 

Pricing is fine. 

We had to get separate licenses for the different blades. It would be nice to have a feature where we can get the multiple licenses all-in-one instead. 

The licensing feature is good for the Check Point. It attaches to the management IP address of the central management server. So, you can remove that particular IP and then use that license on another device on some other firewall, if you want.

Compared to the Cisco ASA Firewall, the Check Point Firewall makes your work easier because you're not deploying the firewall, then pushing the policy, which takes time. Initially, when I was working with the ASA Firewall, we used to implement the firewall, then we used to hand it over to operations for the maintenance. So, I had to manually implement all of these rules, etc. 

When I learned about Check Point and had basic training for it, I got to know the architecture was different for the Check Point Firewall. You can just have a policy package and deploy that policy package on any of the firewalls that you want. It already has that particular set of rules, which makes your life easier while implementing the rules on the firewall, e.g., if there are multiple firewalls on the network that should have the same policy.

Anyone who is new to Check Point Firewalls should have the basic understanding and training so it becomes easy to deploy and implement. You can go onto YouTube and find various training videos regarding Check Point, where you can get a basic understanding of the Check Point Firewall.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

It is a typical firewall that has been implemented in most of our regions. We use it for normal firewall policies and VPNs.

We are mainly using Check Point firewalls. We also have a few Check Point cloud security programs.

Everything can be managed from a single dashboard nowadays.

Since we upgraded to R.80 from our previous R.77 version, the activity of my team has improved a lot. We don't have to open multiple consoles or go to multiple nodes. Even though we are managing multiple solutions of Check Point, they feel similar to us now.

The most valuable feature is the Check Point Management Server, especially version R.80 onward. We can manage everything. We have endpoint security, cloud security, and email security. Everything can be managed from a single management server, making this a very unique and easy solution to use in the market now.

From a technical perspective, it is an easy solution to use. Everything seems perfect. We are not using all of its features, like sandboxing. 

The main thing for a normal operations guy who is creating tools and firewalls, it is quite difficult to manage. It requires an expert level of knowledge in Check Point products to manage these scalable platform appliances and the virtual firewall that comes with it. We have to educate our guys and give them training on a regular basis to work on these products. Otherwise, it's fine.

About five years.

It is pretty stable. It hasn't caused many issues over the years, unlike normal network issues. They do release bug fixes at least once a month. We keep very good track of that and update the patches regularly, but we haven't run into bigger issues so far. So, I'd say it is quite stable. 

The firewall is very easy to use and hasn't caused much trouble for us over the years.

From a scalability perspective, they have a solutions like Check Point Maestro. Therefore, it is easy to upscale nowadays.

We have over 200,000 end users.

They should improve the support a bit. Though they have expert engineers in tech, sometimes the amount of time to get back a solution for an issue is more than what is acceptable, even though it is a high priority.

During a scheduled activity or an implementation, they find their highest level of support. During an implementation, I never faced an issue with the support. I would rate them a nine out of ten for this.

The company has been using Check Point firewalls for the past 10 years. Before that, they used Cisco ASA.

Mostly, I have worked on Check Point products. Therefore, the initial setup was straightforward. It was not that complicated. 

I can spin up a firewall and put it in production within an hour. If it's a migration from a different solution or upgrading an existing management solution, it might take some time because of the planning. There are a lot of things that have to be a part of the implementation or migration activities.

We do it ourselves most of the time. We only take help when it comes to scalable platforms, like big chassis firewalls, which are little complicated. Then, we get outside help.

I manage the operations team and have also been involved as a consultant.

We have some best practices in place that we follow.

There are four security engineers who deploy and maintain this solution.

Comparatively, Check Point pricing is a little high. However, if you have that budget, I would recommend anybody to go with Check Point.

For cloud security purposes, we looked at FortiGate. In the end, we decided to go with Check Point. Primarily, we went with Check Point because of the fee. We also already had expertise on Check Point and the team is comfortable around it. We like that Check Point has a single dashboard. Feedback from peers suggests that the support in India for NGFWs is not as good with other vendors as it is at Check Point.

Get a team who has expertise on this product and educate your team. Give them training. If Check Point is using a new version, make sure your team is aware of that. If there are any changes, let them know and make them comfortable working around this product because we have had some issues due to lack of expertise.

If you don't have an expert in-house team for implementation, I would strongly recommend getting help of the Check Point professional services team. There are a few third-party operational services, but I would go with Check Point professional services.

We are planning to increase our usage of the solution. Every project that we take on has Check Point security products as part of the solution.

I would give this solution an eight out of 10 because of the support. They take too much time when they should give you a result.

The product is an excellent perimeter firewall solution. But compared to Palo Alto, the management console is critical. It's difficult to let customers understand the dashboard of the firewall because there are three distinct dashboards. The three dashboards include smart connect, Check Point Firewall dashboard and more. 

The solution is used by our organization for security purposes across small and medium banks in our country, who happen to be customers of our company. 

The architecture of the solution is extraordinary because when a Check Point Firewall protects a customer or organization, a DDoS attack can hardly occur. Another valuable feature is the real-time zero-day protection.  

The user interface needs to improve and should be user-friendly. The customer of this solution also needs to undergo training to use the solution dashboards, unlike products like Palo Alto. 

In the next release, Check Point can try to add the DDoS or web application firewall within the overall firewall. If Check Point is able to implement the aforementioned integration within the firewall module, then people don't need to buy each firewall separately. The comprehensive firewall addition will increase the sales volume of any next generation firewall because TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) will be low. 

I have been using Check Point NGFW for five years. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

If you have the Maestro version, scalability is the best among all competitors. For large organizations that have ten thousand users, they don't need to bother about the extra cost of the Maestro version. For organizations with one or two thousand users, the Maestro version can be a luxury for them. 

The tech support is very helpful for Check Point NGFW. The support team even asks for remote access to resolve the problem immediately. But sometimes, it takes between eight to twelve hours to connect with a level three engineer to get the support. The response time needs to improve. I would rate the tech support a six out of ten. 

A firewall is a critical asset, and when there is a problem with the perimeter firewall, an individual cannot communicate outside the organization, so support is required immediately. 

Neutral

Our company's usual deployment model for the solution is on-premises because cross-border data transmission is prohibited. The installation of Check Point NGFW takes between seven to ten days (working five hours a day). For the banks who are customers of our company, we could only work for deployment after the usual banking hours, so it took longer. 

I can conclude that deployment and running the User Accessibility Test (UAT) can take a maximum of forty hours. Two engineers are needed to deploy Check Point NGFW. 

I have evaluated SentinelOne and CrowdStrike. The rollback feature of ransomware attacks in SentinelOne cannot be found in competitors. 

I would recommend Check Point NGFW over Palo Alto and Cisco as a complex security solution for a complex environment. I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use the solution to configure sandboxing features for enterprises. We also use it for policy-level configurations and VPNs.

Sandboxing is the most valuable feature. A majority of the configurations are very accurate. We can find what an organization's user is downloading from the internet.

The support team should be faster.

I have been using the solution since 2016.

All products have some bugs. However, we had a minimum bug experience with Check Point. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

The product is scalable. Everyone in our company uses the product. We are 100 users. We have an on-premise firewall. We use it every day.

I have contacted the support team. I have had good conversations with the engineers. Sometimes, it takes a little bit of time to solve some issues. If it's a complex issue, we need to start from scratch and escalate to a bigger tier of support.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy.

The product is not that expensive for what it is offering, but it could be cheaper. Nowadays, all the vendors are increasing their prices. Suggesting the product to the customers will be easier if it is a little cheaper. The tool offers good attributes.

Palo Alto is also a good vendor. We chose to go with Check Point as well for our enterprise solution as distributors, and we suggest it to our customers.

I was an engineer for AT&T. I helped customers with configurations. The vendor is taking care of the user side of security with Check Point Harmony. It is a very good product. Check Point Harmony must provide administrators the ability to manage external programs remotely. Some customers want such features, and other vendors provide them. I would recommend the solution to others. The vendor has been investing a lot of money and effort to prevent zero-day attacks. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

I have been using this solution as a perimeter firewall. 

Our organization has ISP-based DDoS protection on the outer attack surface. Then, we have Check Point Next Generation Firewall with an IPS module as a second layer of protection. And then, we have Check Point Access Control, Application, and URL filtering, anti-virus, and anti-bot modules enabled. We also have the cloud-based Check Point Threat Emulation solution and different segmentations on Check Point Firewall as a DMZ zone, internal zone, and external zone. Our internal zones have different segments to improve our security level. We apply it by dividing our network into different VLANs by using the Check Point solution.

Check Point is the first vendor in which we found the stateful firewall terminology. It is always on the top of the list of best firewall solutions. 

Financially, the benefit of Check Point is very high when I compare it with an average firewall solution. At the end of the day, the benefits it provides are already higher than I paid. 

Our business performance is already doubled by the help of Check Point. If we need to talk about efficiency of administrators while managing a security  solution, I consider it as one of the most important item. 

Thanks to Check Point, our security team can easily handle different problems in time.

Check Point gateway and management installation are very easy. After the console-based installation steps, you can continue on the web GUI interface. This is very valuable. It doesn't let you make a simple mistake, which might be a reason to install all the systems from the beginning. It has been designed to give you flexibility as much as needed; not more, not less. It prevents human mistakes, basically.

If I have to say just one thing as the most valuable; I will say it is the most reliable firewall solution in the world. It is easy to prove that when I compare the number of CVEs which are published in a year among firewall vendors.

The routing rules and some more network settings should be listed on the Check Point Smart Console instead of GAIA Web GUI. It might be a little bit confusing when an administrator remembers the location of the settings. Also, it is hard to manage the settings by always jumping from GAIA Web-based graphical user interface to Java based Smart Console dashboard. Also, Check Point Next Generation Firewall has a very detailed and well-organized CP view on the console on both CLISH and expert (/bin/bash) shells; which gives an administrator a real-time monitoring option on the console.

I have been using it for more than six years.

On a heavy load, I haven't experienced packet loss or inconsistent behaviors.

In the beginning, I would consider Check Point solution as not scalable enough. However, after Maestro architecture, it is extremely scalable now. The organizations does not have to pay a lot of money to plan for the next 2-3 years. They are flexible enough to allow for the extension of their systems by adding another module like a blade.

The customer service and support team respond in minutes. If it is a critical issue, you can reach them in seconds via chat.

Positive

I used Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls before. From Fortinet to Palo Alto it was a big change. 

Fortinet was not a good enough solution as compared to PA. Then, due to finances and some other reasons, I switched to the Check Point and it was one of the best decisions in my life.

The initial setup is straightforward. You just need to define disk allocation for logs and system files and backup files as an amount. Then you can continue with Web GUI to set up network, DNS, etc. settings. Then you complete your setup by installing the Smart Console interface.

The Check Point support team is one of the best. When I need them, they can escalate the ticket to an appropriate level of engineer to fix the problem.

As a security solution in this kind of market, prestige and being reliable cannot be measured with money. It costs more than a million dollars to have a defacement attack. The costs to prevent this kind of attack cannot be measured with money, in my opinion.

I'd advise others to worry about changing their firewall habits from any vendor to Check Point. It will be one of the best decisions of their life. If you have time and money to take care of other vendors, go ahead. However, if you are smart enough to manage your money and time, don't be afraid to give a chance to Check Point solution.

I did get some PoCs from other vendors such as Sophos and some other firewall vendors which are focused on small-size organizations mostly.

I recommend to all system managers and security administrators to try all the enterprise firewall solutions. Then, most likely the final decision will be to use the Check Point Next Generation firewall.