Check Point NGFW Reviews

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.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

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. 

On-premises

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.

Hybrid Cloud

It's our main firewall and the first line of protection from the outside! We use it to interconnect our remote locations (that use different vendors and equipment) and let the employees work remotely.

We're a small site with 300 users and this equipment is more than enough for us. We use almost all the blades and the equipment has run smoothly for years.

This NGFW monitors all the traffic outside of the main network, prevents malicious activities, and lets us easily manage network policies to shape our connections.

Stability and security are the best way to describe this solution. The attacks from the outside still exist, but now we're better protected. We can view everything that goes in and out of our network with all the information in one place. The drill-down is very helpful and easy to use. Currently, we can troubleshoot connection problems live and solve them in a couple of minutes. This is an improvement on the 1-2 hours with the old solution.

In 4 years we've only had one problem with the equipment (due to a malfunctioning UPS). That corrupted the boot of the equipment, but was easily solved with an fsck.

We basically use almost all the blades, since the IPS, Threat Emulation, Spam, etc., are essential for our work. However, currently, Mobile Access is the most valuable. The stability of the solution and the security it gives when working remotely is great. It lets our employees work from everywhere, anytime!

The AntiSpam/Mail blade was also one of the main reasons we went with this product since we hosted our email server locally. This was an extra layer of protection on top of the existing solution.

Threat and Application control are also very important to us.

I do prefer to manage everything from only one point of entry/one application. Some things can only be configured from the smart console and others from the smart dashboard. This is the only handicap in this solution. It would be ideal to manage everything from one central place.

Instead of using a windows application to manage the equipment, it would be better to use a web app to configure the solution from a browser.  I know that it's not as powerful (you can't do everything from there), but then we could manage the solution and troubleshoot from any device.

It's faster to see the event logs on a webpage than it is to see them in the smart console.

I've used the solution for 4 years.

It's very stable. It's also the main reason I love the solution.

During this time i never had to manually restart the equipment because of connectivity problems or because of CPU/memory degradation performance. Sometimes these values get high, but i never lose Throughtput, the equipment continues to run smoothly. We used to restart our older firewall at least 2 times per month.

In the beginning, because we use the spam blade, the memory usage was always high, and the administration was a little bit slow. But Checkpoint provided us an extra memory upgrade and after that we never had administration problems. If we don't have internet connection it's allways the ISP, it was never because of the firewall.

Although I only have one unit, I know that it scales perfectly.

We only had one problem with this equipment. That was because it couldn't boot properly due to disk corruption (malfunction UPS), however, searching the technical Check Point forums it was easy to find a solution to the problem at hand.

We managed to solve the problem without contacting customer service at all.

We used to have Zyxel products, but they were aging and couldn't let us connect at faster speeds.

The setup was easy. It didn't take long to have it up and running.

The only concern for us was the remote sites - since it was different vendors. However, we had everything documented and prepared and due to that, it went flawlessly.

It was also easy to create access policies.

The implementation was through a vendor, and the installation went really well. The consultant was Check Point certified and explained everything in detail.

Later on, we added new remote sites to the configuration (in-house) without any problem. We didn't need to check with the vendor.

It's not easy to calculate, however, given the stability and security of the solution, it's elevated. There are no bulletproof solutions. That said, now we can rest a bit more because our assets are more protected than they were a couple of years ago.

The setup cost, pricing, and licensing can be a bit expensive, but, I promise, it's completely worth the cost.

I evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

It simply works like a charm. The stability and trust in the vendor are also very important to us.

On-premises

We use this solution for permissions regarding access ports and services. We also use Check Point Remote Access VPN as an endpoint VPN. We use it for site-to-site configuration. 

All of the traffic that comes through our sites passes through our firewall. Basically, everyone, including our staff and clients, passes through our firewall. In other words, we have thousands of users using this solution.

The NGFW has helped our compliance to regulations authorities such as PCIDSS. It has has helped the bank create secure connections to vendors and third party service providers as well as remain stay protected from attacks and intrusion attempts.

The management of services, including forming access lists with the services we have, connecting servers to servers, permissions between servers and users — this is all great. In addition, Check Point has a really cool GUI.

The end-user VPN could be improved. It could benefit from some modification. 

The VPN timeout feature needs to be improved. When we try to connect to the VPN, it times out before we can even enter our user name and password. If you can't prove you are who you say you are within seven to ten seconds, it just kicks you out.

1 year +

Check Point has actually failed twice within the last year. The first failure was a disk failure. Check Point offers a software solution, they don't actually offer hardware. They will only provide you with the software and licenses. Because of this, when our disk failed, we had to wait for them to ship in some new hardware for us to fix the issue.

Aside from the disk failure issue, a month ago, our Check Point device froze. We don't exactly know what caused it to happen. It caused the entire organization to go down for about two to three hours until we found out that Check Point was not allowing anything to pass through. Our Check Point is clustered, so primarily it's supposed to have a failover feature. For some reason, the failover feature didn't work. When the primary gateway went down, it affected everyone.

We've not tried to expand Check Point. We have two sites. We have a primary site and a secondary site that is off-prem. For this reason, we planned big. We planned for a high amount of availability for our two sites. We use clusters of four gateways: two gateways are in one cluster, and another two gateways are in another cluster. If one goes down, it switches to the other. If the second goes down, it switches to the other DR site. We've got backups of everything. 

The technical support is very responsive. We have a vendor that acts as a buffer between us and Check Point. In our country, these companies all have a local vendor that pushes their product.

When we contacted our vendor, our vendor called Check Point and as they were talking, Check Point shipped the hard disk, to fix the issue I mentioned earlier. They just placed the order immediately, while we were still talking. We think that they knew that delivery was going to take about five days — it was actually very fast.

The initial setup and deployment were straightforward. We deployed it with RADIUS servers;  it was not complex at all.

From scratch to finish, deployment took about a month. It took this long because we had to convert all of our existing configurations from Cisco Firewall to Check Point. We had to get help from our vendor to do this. He had to manually convert each and every command from our existing Cisco device to Check Point — that took a while. This was the main reason that deployment took so much time.

The end-user VPN didn't take much time to deploy. Neither did the site-connecting with the VPN — that took a day or two to deploy.

I think our licensing is on a yearly basis, but it could be every three years. Either way, it's not more than three years — that I am certain of.  

The pricing was actually what made us go for Check Point. Palo Alto was much more expensive. Check Point offers the same applications and features as Palo Alto for roughly a third of the price.

We evaluated Palo Alto, Cisco (which we were using), and we also evaluated Check Point — which we ended up with.

I would recommend Check Point to others. We are still learning as we're just about a year into using it, but so far, the support and the solution in general has been good. I'd recommend Check Point, especially to users that are looking for an affordable solution. 

Check Point also has a great community. They have this community where users can go to share ideas. They also have great networks. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. Cisco dominated the African market until Check Point came along. 

On-premises