Check Point NGFW Reviews

We currently use Check Point's firewall for our data center. We use Check Point firewall for providing the first layer of security to web application servers and intranet servers. It is robust and easy to upgrade, which makes it less stressful for the administrators. Its failover clustering option also works seamlessly.

The Check Point firewall is used to secure our environments. It also allows us to set up tunnels between our various sites.

We use it for the publication of services, as well as a notification system that reports on user behavior and unusual traffic - both within and outside of the network. 

Over the years, we have experienced various types of attacks on our company, and, without the help of the Next Generation CheckPoint Firewall, we would have lost.

The spoofing feature helps us to prevent various attacks in our organization.

The firewall policy designing and implementation allow for inline policies that make for clearer teaching on the correct use of policies as well as a more readable list. We can also run policies with two or more people simultaneously without problems or the risk of developing the wrong policy.

The initial sizing is not a problem. You can easily add more resources if needed. Reliability is a major factor in any hardware or software solution, and Check Point uses cutting-edge hardware. Their software upgrade process is flexible for different deployment requirements. 

Their threat analysis reporting in their management console is comprehensive and easy to use. The web-based dashboard is well designed and offers a wide variety of out-of-the-box reporting. It offers admins extensive customization.

The list of site-to-site VPN configuration options is long. They can become confusing and communication with other vendors when deploying VPNs is not the strongest. It's totally different from any other VPN vendor I've encountered.

It lists the current threats identified on the appliance's front page. It would be easier to find information by clicking on the threat and clicking the exact logs, rather than all host logs.

The smart console is heavy. It would be better if it was like the web-based consoles that Palo Alto and Fortigate FW offer.

I've been using the solution for more than a year.

I use the solution for VPN mostly, for the IDS and prevention and detection. I use it for security exploits, like HTTPS exploits.

I also use Check Point NGFW as a federation. I use it to connect to my other sites. We have five of them, mostly in cities where we need a high bandwidth.

I use it as well as a VM. We use it a lot because we have all fiber optic connections, so we could use almost all of that. The federation is beautiful because I can transfer all traffic to my main site where I can use just one link to the internet, and I can use it as a proxy as well. It is good to keep control and security.

In terms of what could be improved, we have a cluster with two nodes and usually we have some problems when process gets really high and it has to choose which services it keeps going. I would like to have a better solution here, like if instead of just one we could use both at the same time. It would be good if it could work together. Then when one has a failure or something like that, the other one is there to transfer, to take all the services and keep working. They have an integration between the nodes but I would like to use both of them working together. In the solution they could both be active, instead of active and passive. I would like them to add backup features to Check Point Firewall.

Many companies are going to the cloud. In future releases, it would be nice to have a cloud integration so we could work in a hybrid form for some years, like some services in the cloud and others on-premises. So it would be nice to have some features in this sense.

I've been using Check Point NGFW since 2018. For two years now.

It is stable.

I couldn't tell you about the scalability. I don't know. I know that we can use a federation, but I think it is scalable because we can buy additional licenses. As I mentioned, right now we have five working together, but we can buy until 50 or a 100, so I guess that it is scalable because you can keep increasing.

The initial setup is hard. We came from another Cisco solution and even then it is hard, especially talking about the traffic. So we had to inspect the traffic and sometimes we had to do a lot of configurations. It would be nice if it was easier.

It took about three months to deploy.

It would be nice if it was easier to set up and to maintain.

Right now we keep a contract with a company in Brazil, so we hardly talk to Check Point itself and we don't like it very much. In most cases we have to search and look into the database to really find the solution, so it could be better.

I'd say that Check Point NGFW is a good product but it's hard to set up and keep it going, so we had to invest in some training and we have to keep at least two employees just to keep it working.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Check Point NGFW an eight.

We deploy solutions for customers. We don't engage in buying. 

We are both consultants and implementers.

We have not had any issues with the firewall.

Support is good and it's centralized architecture.

We are also working on load balancers. We don't have the option to work more with load balancers, we would like to see what else can come out of this in terms of security.

Technical support and scalability both require improvement.

I have been working with Check Point NGFW for the last ten years.

Check Point can scale but at times we have experienced some issues.

Palo Alto is better compared to Check Point. I would rate Palo Alto as superior support to Fortinet or Check Point.

We used to work with Fortinet for approximately five years, and the Palo Alto Appliances was some time back.

I believe the Palo Alto support is excellent, and it has more features than Fortinet. Many businesses, in my opinion, are choosing Palo Alto.

Palo Alto support is very good.

Fortinet's main issue is the support. We can't take it to the enterprise level because the Fortinet support is not very good.

Check Point has previously held a large market share, but perhaps not recently. I think that the price point in India is a bit different. Check Point offers options. I don't see that Check Point is very high, but it is geared more towards enterprises.

We have evaluated Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to see what was available, and recently, I researched the Azure VM series to know how it worked.

I'm leaning toward the now cloud. The appliance base has now been removed. We are now concentrating our efforts on the Azure Cloud, AWS, and other similar platforms. I believe that people must mature in order to work on it. That's where things stand. As a result, we must learn how this is implemented on cloud platforms.

I would rate Check Point a seven out of ten but NGFW a six out of ten.

I'm at a university in Queretaro, Mexico and it's used to protect our infrastructure: wireless, LAN, PCs.  Since the solution prevents attacks, we have the checkpoint in all our equipment, from the critical infrastructure to the directors' and employees' cell phones.

This is the best enterprise solution. Almost every university in Mexico has Fortinet or VXN, but our mission is to have the best cybersecurity protection for our information and our users. We're a private university and our clients and information are the priority. This is the reason why I chose Check Point NGFW.   

The solution interface is good. It has three different ones: the NGFW, the Endpoint, and Harmony Mobile.

I've been using this solution for five years.

It is very stable.

The scalability of this solution is good.

Because my employees work in other departments, we used the deployment consultant. The service was very good.

The setup was simple because we had the checkpoint expert support. The time it took was standard and once the installation was complete, there was no problem at all.

The setup was simple because we had our partner and checkpoint expert support.  The time it took was standard and once the installation was complete, there was no problem at all.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. This is a very good solution. It's complex because it's not too easy to use, but the brand and our partner help us with NG Firewall configuration issues or other solutions like Harmony.

The university is growing every year and with that, I purchase more endpoint licenses and Harmony Endpoint because the firewall works well on the dimension and capacity. Next year, we plan to integrate Harmony Email and Office. The solution also prevents threats to Office 365.

We use the product to secure our network, using all Check Point has to offer, including multi-domain servers, centralized log servers, gateways on-premise, and VSX. It has improved a lot with the last versions making day-to-day operations very user-friendly. 

I have used almost all the blades Check Point has and it's incredible what a Next-Generation firewall is capable of, including VPN, IPS, monitoring, mobile access, compliance, and more. The reports of the Smart Event console are also very useful. It's good to have a view of what's going on in our network. 

Since Check Point has Linux working on them, it gives us plenty of tools to adapt to any specific need we have.

In actuality, Firewalls are a must in any organization. Check Point's ability to adapt to any environment is their strength. The interface is very easy to understand, and the Smart Console can be configured to fit almost anything you need to.

When an issue appears, the logs are very easy to read, and that helps to identify the reason for the problem and solves it faster. The issues are not so annoying. 

The support Check Point gives is key. As the Firewall vendor, I recommend them. It's always great to work with them. For this reason, I am very satisfied with Check Point. Every doubt I had they were pleased to help with and we ab;e to provide a resolution. The technical services always replied in a very fast and effective way. The live chat is great as well. There is always someone willing to help. This makes working with Check Point a good experience.

Check Point expert mode is basically Linux, so working with that allows us to implement a variety of scripts.

In earlier versions, it was a bit hard to do migrations of Multi-Domain Servers/CMAs, nowadays, with +R80.30 it has gotten much easier. I cannot really think of many things to improve. 

One thing that could be useful is to have a website to analyze CP Infos. This way, it would be much faster to debug problems or check configurations. 

Another thing not very annoying but enough to comment on is when preparing a bootable UBS with the ISOMorphic (Check Point's bootable USB tool), it gives the option to attach a Hotfix. However, this usually causes corrupted ISO installations.

One thing to improve is the VSX gateway. It is quite complex to work with VSX and they are quite easy to break if you aren't familiar with them.

I've used the solution for three years.

With other products, I have used quite a lot of RMAs, usually for not the most important component, however, enough to need an RMA, such as FANs or PSUs.

With Check Point it's quite easy, if it's needed, to replace. You just install the correct version and hotfix and load a backup from the old device. After that, the new device is ready to go.

The scalability of Check Point is great. With the usage of Multi-Domain Servers, you can integrate all the devices into one console. You also always have the chance to expand creating new domains. Also, this distribution helps to have a very structured and organized management. It is always a very good thing when things don't go as expected and you need to solve any problem. Finding where the issue is in your organization is key.

The technical cases are replied to in a very fast and effective way. The live chat means there is always someone willing to help. This makes working with Check Point a good experience.

Positive

The most I have used are Forcepoint, Cisco, F5, FortiGate, and Palo Alto.

The initial setup is very straightforward and very guided. 

With the few replacements we need to do, there is very little downtime. It is worth the investment. The great support team behind Check Point is also worth the cost.

Check Point is not the cheapest manufacturer, however, it's worth the price.

I have been always on the side of Check Point, however, Palo Alto was another option we considered.

Having the option to use a UNIX-based shell instead of being forced to use GAIA, in this case, is great. It makes Check Point very customizable.

Check Point Security Gateway GAIA R80.30 is used as our secure gateway firewall. We have configured two gateways as active-passive in cluster mode. 

We also use R80.30 as our security management server to configure the policies on the firewall. We use it primarily to control traffic and secure our network perimeter against unknown attacks. The rules and policies for the SSL VPN connections are configured on the mobile access blade. We use the policies to segregate and filter the traffic flow.

This is for a bank environment.

A traditional firewall provides a stable inspection of network traffic. It allows or blocks traffic based on state, port, and protocol, and filters traffic based on administrator-defined rules.

A next-generation firewall (NGFW) does this, and so much more. In addition to access control, NGFWs can block modern threats such as advanced malware and application-layer attacks. According to Gartner's definition, a next-generation firewall must include:

• Standard firewall capabilities like stateful inspection
• Integrated intrusion prevention
• Application awareness and control to see and block risky apps
• Threat intelligence sources
• Techniques to address evolving security threats

Check Point Endpoint anti-malware benefits include:

• Improves user productivity and frees up system resources
• The industry’s fastest malware and anti-virus scan and boot time
• The smallest memory and disk footprints
• A single-console centralized management
• Prevention of malware from accessing endpoints with a single scan
• Malware identified using signatures, behavior blockers, heuristic analysis
  
• Protection automatically updated with optional Program Advisor Service
• A knowledge base of more than one million trusted or suspicious programs
• Integrated into Check Point Software Blade Architecture
• Flexible licensing options—annual or perpetual
• Centrally managed and deployed
• Activate anti-malware and application control on any Check Point security gateway

Almost all organizations are using cloud computing, and the vast majority are using a hybrid cloud deployment. Private and public cloud deployments have different security requirements, and it is necessary for an organization to be able to enforce consistent security policies across cloud-based environments hosted by multiple vendors. 

The firewall should be easily deployable and scalable in any major cloud environment and enable an organization’s security team to manage all of its security settings from a single console.

I've used the solution for five years.

Check Point is a very stable solution.

It is good in terms of scalability.

From the start, we have been using Check Point.

We would adivse users to install Check Point NGFW. The setup cost is simple and it is not too much. The license fits most budgets.

We also evaluated Cisco and Fortinet.

We use Check Point firewalls as perimeter firewalls which are restricting the organization's incoming and outgoing traffic and taking advantage of the redundancy capacity of internet providers, which provides fault tolerance when an internet provider has a fault. 

In addition, we use it for the publication of services and with an event viewer that allows us to view alerts about behavior and unusual traffic inside and outside the network. URL filtering and application control are perfect complements to the packet filtering that it offers as a firewall solution.

Check Point offers a reliable firewall solution with VPN options that have allowed us to establish secure and stable connections with other companies and users in a very simple way.

Simple and centralized administration has allowed us to manage all the firewall nodes from a single console, facilitating the deployment of firewalls through the network, since a large part of the configurations and access rules, as well as the protection controls, are managed from a single console and via centralized maintenance.

Check Point is a robust and reliable security solution, whose architecture and design allow centralized administration with a graphical interface that facilitates its management. 

The way in which it manages the nodes within a cluster architecture is excellent, offering fault tolerance which is, in my experience, practically imperceptible when one of the nodes fails. This is thanks to the fact that it maintains a table of shared connections between the nodes and the large number of variables that it takes into consideration to validate the health of the nodes.

As a firewall, Check Point is a great solution and in my experience, there is little that I could indicate how to improve.

That said, a point where it could improve is in the redundancy of the ISP. It should allow more than two internet providers in its configuration of "ISP Redundancy". This redundancy could be managed from variables such as the automatic calculation of the load level between internet lines or load distribution between internet lines in periods of pre-established hours, etc. All could be handled from the same graphical interface.

I have been using Check Point for more than 11 years.

Its stability is one of the selling points. It allows us to have great confidence in Check Point solutions.

The performance is excellent in the new appliances. The solution is very scalable and easy to integrate.

They have a good response time and their personnel have a good technical mastery.

I was using ASA, however, we switched to Check Point as it offered a centralized interface for managing all nodes in addition to having an excellent graphical interface that facilitates day-to-day operational activities.

The initial configuration is very simple and intuitive. Check Point offers a graphical configuration interface that makes the process simple and it is complete in just a few steps.

The provider we have used has highly qualified staff and offers excellent and professional services.

It has an acceptable cost considering the stability and the benefits that Check Point solutions offer.

We did not really look at other options. We are very confident with Check Point solutions and we take the stability it offers very seriously.

You must consider Check Point as your first NGFW option. 

I am using Check Point Next Generation.

The solution boasts a host of features that we like. 

Tech support should be improved. There are times when the technical team fails to understand things at the ground-level. 

The dashboard can stand improvement. 

The solution is overly expensive. 

The initial setup is a bit complex. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support could be better, as the tech team at times does not manage to understand ground-level issues. 

The setup is somewhat on the easy side, but certain things are complex. While the solution is a little easier to manage than Palo Alto, I was forced to make comparisons between the two products. 

The price is too high. 

The solution is geared towards organizations hosting more than 50,000 employees.