Check Point NGFW Reviews

We are using Check Point Next Generation Firewall both as an edge border gateway and as an internal gateway protecting users and servers networks. Using the Virtual System solution we create different network environments and virtual system firewalls in which we have different modules (additional license could be needed) activated depending on the topology of the network where the firewall is protecting the traffic. We are also implementing IPS on several internal firewalls that are inspecting such flows.

Mainly the easy central management with support for virtual systems has helped in the operating and analyzing time of the security department. We know that with other security solutions that don't scale well and don't have a central management system, you lose precious time operating the platform.

Under the same interface, we are using a stack of different security modules, so the learning curve is easier than the need to learn new interfaces for each specific appliance. At the same time, you can check the logs in a homogeneous way.

The management interface is easy to operate and is a standardized way of managing different firewall modules in the same client application. Additionally, it provides up-to-date security options through different license bundles and scalability to match almost any firewall security needs as you can easily add more systems to implement several cluster firewalls, running as a load-sharing whole system or active-standby members. The log explorer is also straightforward to use, and the results are easily exportable.

To provide visibility of the requirements you have to accomplish to perform some of the traffic security mechanisms. Several security modules are based on HTTPS inspection, losing a relevant security capability if you don't implement it in your network. So the product should point out this need clearly so you can fit your expectations in a real-world environment. That said, this is not a limitation of the product itself.

You need to read the requirements to take into consideration both throughput, security modules and storage (logs) needs so you can choose the appliance that best fits your organization.

I've used the solution for more than ten years.

In most environments, this solution is running pretty stable.

It is easy to scale both with virtual systems or by adding additional physical appliances.

Support has a good and fast response to new threats and is proactive with a big community.

Positive

We were using a Cisco firewall solution. It was outdated and the management interface was not unified.

We evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet as well as Check Point

For the technical administration teams. I advise them to take, at least, the basic training so they can manage the solution adequately.

Our customer’s infrastructure is entirely based on Check Point. They are using around 2,000 firewalls worldwide. We resolve the problems in their product as a service provider.

Check Point is a great technology. It doesn't compromise the performance of the users. The tool provides great security. It was the first firewall that provided 3-way handshake. It was the first stateful firewall in the market.

The tool’s architecture could be improved a bit. It should provide Single-Pass Parallel Processing. Check Point’s interface is quite segregated.

I have been using the solution for seven to eight years.

The tool will be stable if the implementation team has done a good job.

The tool is scalable. If a user faces any constraints, we can upgrade the tool. The hardware is scalable. Our customers are enterprise-level businesses.

The technical support team is not excellent. It’s not easy to get people on call on urgent tickets. They join the call, but the support is not as smooth as other vendors like Cisco and Zscaler.

Positive

Palo Alto provides Single-Pass Parallel Processing. Palo Alto and Check Point are not very different.

The product is easy to install. It's an interesting product. Once we get the knowledge of Check Point, it's quite easy to work on. However, for new users, the solution is a bit difficult. For a single gateway, if we are ready with all the necessary software we need while installing, the deployment takes one to two hours.

A single-site deployment, where all gateways and management are taken care of, can be done by one or two people. However, a complete implementation team is required if some things are to be done on the cloud and some in the branch offices. One team will handle the policies, and the other will handle the basic installations. Once the solution is stabilized, maintenance will be easy.

Check Point is a good tool. I would recommend it to others. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It offers a range of models to enhance network security and it can be customized to secure endpoint client machines or user devices by deploying features like malware detection, antivirus, and mail security blades. Its integration with a web application firewall provides added protection.

Check Point's architecture is three-fold, comprising the firewall, management server, and dashboard. The dashboard provides a comprehensive view of the network and security status, enabling identification and isolation of problematic devices, performing tasks like patch updates, and monitoring logs. It provides configured automated alerts via email or notifications on mobile devices, ensuring you're informed of any threats, even during non-business hours. Another vital function is the ability to offer VPN services. This enables end users and mobile or remote workers to securely access the network from anywhere globally.

There is a strong demand for security services that can be effortlessly integrated which would ensure that security measures can seamlessly adapt to the cloud infrastructure.

I have been working with it for eight years.

It is a highly reliable tool. I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a highly scalable solution that can be tailored to the unique needs and infrastructure of each customer. For instance, if a customer needs to secure multiple zones, they can opt for multiple firewalls. They can consolidate their network onto a single firewall by creating virtual interfaces based on VLANs. The firewall's capability to handle network traffic becomes a crucial consideration, especially when dealing with larger user bases and higher traffic volumes. In such cases, deploying multiple firewalls in a high-availability configuration becomes essential.

The initial setup was easy. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I have hands-on experience working in various environments, including on-premises, private clouds, hybrid setups that combine both private and public clouds (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud), and purely public cloud deployments. While the technical interfaces and options may differ slightly between these environments, the core concepts, such as Security Event and Management (SEM), remain consistent. For instance, the Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) configurations in Google Cloud are similar to those in AWS. Network components like instances and Access Control Lists (ACLs) share common principles across platforms. The key to successfully implementing it lies in understanding the specific needs of each client's business and aligning our solutions accordingly. We can leverage technology and services to meet their requirements effectively. It's worth emphasizing that the adaptability of our approach is central to achieving our clients' objectives. When starting a project, we typically initiate a POC and conduct thorough pre-checks to assess the network's specific needs. In cases where clients want to transition from legacy firewalls like Cisco ASA or Palo Alto to modern Next-Generation Firewalls like Check Point Firewall, we carefully examine their existing configurations. This allows us to manipulate and adapt the configurations to suit Check Point's requirements. The timeline for these processes can vary. For entirely new environments, which involve documentation, design, and diagram creation, it may take anywhere from 15 days to one month at most.

The pricing falls in the middle, meaning it's neither cheap nor expensive. I would rate it five out of ten.

Before opting for this solution, it is crucial to assess the customer's existing environment, including the number of users, traffic patterns, applications in use, and bandwidth utilization. It is an excellent choice and I would encourage others to consider using it for their security needs. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our business houses just over 100 staff, along with over 200 devices ranging from mobile to tablets, computers, laptops, and Servers. 

We use a Check Point 5100 cluster running R80.40 to protect our business from external threats. 

Our network is also extended to the likes of Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and other 3rd parties utilizing secure VPN tunnels terminating on our Check Point 5100 cluster. 

Our business also offers the ability of hybrid working - which is only possible with our Check Point solution.

Prior to using Check Point, we had a Draytek small business firewall, the Draytek would often hard lock, which resulted in the loss of internet connectivity for the business. The only way around this was to reboot the Draytek device which in turn would lose logging data as to what was causing the issue. 

Moving onto Check Point completely solved this problem. The hardware is much more capable and the logging and alerting functionality means, should anything happen (like it did with the Draytek), we would have visibility on the logs which would give us a direction for troubleshooting and mitigation. 

Check Point offers a secure VPN client. We distribute to our agents via group policy. Our agents can then connect to our network when working from home - which was a game-changer due to the recent pandemic situation. 

Check Point also offers a mobile app capsule connect which, as a system administrator, has proven very useful when a high-priority issue occurs. I am able to connect to my internal network via a phone or tablet - which has proven useful in some scenarios. 

As a system administrator my favourite part of Check Point is the smart view tracker. This alone is a must-have tool for tracking all traffic traversing the Check Point appliance. It makes troubleshooting much easier. This software alone sets Check Point out in front of the competition.

Check Point is very feature-rich. There aren't any features missing or that I am awaiting in a future release. 

The only downside to Check Point, is, due to the vast expanse of configurable options, it does become easily overwhelming - especially if your coming from a small business solution like Draytek. 

Check Point comes with a very steep learning curve. However, they do offer a solid knowledge base. Some issues I have encountered in my five years have only been resolvable via manually editing configuration files and using the CLI. Users need to keep this in mind as not everything can be configured via the web interface or their smart dashboard software. 

I've used the solution for five years.

The solution was not always stable when running the older R77.30 version. Paired with a mid-spec box, we did find some issues with performance on more than one occasion, specifically the network would slow to a halt until a system reboot, there was nothing within the error logging and our external SOC couldnt find anything either. We'd often when updating the firewall policy it would fail to deploy usually taking around three or four policy pushes each taking about 20 minutes. We are now running much faster hardware with the later R80.30 release and those issues have completely disappeared.

Scaling is dependant on the size of your network. Check Point does offer a wide range of lower to high spec appliances depending on your scale set.

I've only had two instances using their support as we have a third party on contract for third-line issues that I cannot resolve. They were prompt yet not shy about pointing out potential issues with third parties and it not being their appliance. 

Positive

We used Draytek. It didn't offer the security features that Check Point does and we were a victim to a successful attack from external sources which Check Point would have caught. We also found the hardware of Draytek was too underpowered to handle the size of our network. 

A third party installed the appliances initially. It is a complex process, as Check Point is vast in features and very configurable. You find yourself using the web interface, their own management software smart dashboard, and a mixture of CLI and config files to get your end result. 

We implemented it through a vendor team. Their level of expertise ranged as we moved through three separate technicians during our installation which was problematic. I wouldn't use this particular vendor again. That said, this was nothing against Check Point. 

You cannot put a price on security. Check Point is a field leader. However, it comes at a high price. 

If you have no experience with Check Point and you are on a deadline, it's essential you find a company certified to help with the deployment and configuration. The feature set is rich however, it's not always user-friendly. 

Pricing, including licensing, is very expensive compared to alternate products such as Sophos, Barracuda, or FortiGate

We evaluated Fortigate, Sophos XG, and Barracuda. However, ultimately the decision boiled down to our parent company already using Check Point. 

We primarily use the solution on all branch sites and now in DCs as well. We have more than 500 sites using Check Point NGFW in our organization. 

Earlier, we were using Cisco ASA and now it looks much better in many aspects, including upgrading/managing. I had only experience with Cisco ASA before, but after implementing this in my branch location it became quite easy to manage the firewalls remotely.

A few of our engineers use APIs to upgrade or push global changes for all regional locations which was tough to do. Now, with Check Point on board, it has eased our job as network engineers. 

Central management saves so much time. We were spending so much time with ASAs. I only had experience with Cisco ASA before, however, after implementing this in branch location it became quite easy to manage the firewalls remotely. 

As mentioned, a few of our engineers use APIs to upgrade or push global changes for all regional locations which were tough to manage. Now, it has eased our job as network engineers. It was a good decision by our organization.

The logging and central policy management are the most valuable aspects for us as we were not having success earlier with the ASA in terms of upgrading/managing. We are still exploring more features like IPS and IDS. We hope that these aspects will be a great experience for us as well. 

The smart consoles could be improved. Many times we have seen that smart console lags or has issues during the change. It also closes sometimes. Otherwise, the overall experience was great until now. 

As we are still exploring more features, we need more time to provide more reviews in the future. I would like to explore more with Check Point and would like to provide improvement review as we go into using the MDMS. It will be in our organization here by year-end. 

I've been using the solution for three years.

It looks very stable as compared to others.

The scalability looks great.

A few times I reached out to support help and in no time I was able to get experts who helped me through any issue I was having. 

Positive

We used Cisco ASA, however, we wanted a product that was more stable with central management. 

It was not easy to set up initially, however, we got some support from external vendors. 

We had help through a vendor and the experience was great. 

The stability makes it all worthwhile. 

It looks great the cost-wise for our organization. I've also suggested this product to other ex-colleagues for their companies. 

We did check out FortiGate and Palo Alto as well. 

We have had a great experience so far. 

We have around 500 firewalls all around the world with a global team to manage them. We are using Check Point NGFW for Internet traffic, IPS, and UTM devices.

Atos provides this solution, including network design and advice.

• Antivirus
• IPS
  
• They got the logs into one site, which is wonderful.
• There is a secure action line code that you can announce your products in.
• If you have a number of sites, like a hundred sites around the world, you can deploy multiple VSX testing. 
• All over the world, you can have DMZs in data centers, e.g., in the USA, Dubai, and London. 
• It is easy to deploy and upgrade. 
• Easy to manage, e.g., if there is a new engineer onsite, they can easily manage it.

In a VPN setup, we have Internet connection via Check Point. The connectivity is not turnkey like competing devices. We have not yet terminated our site-to-site VPN because things are fluctuating right now and Check Point needs to be upgraded. Also, their troubleshooting needs to be improved for this. 

I have been using it for five years.

I haven't seen any stability issues, though I have seen some issues with the management of the gateway. Stability-wise, it is good (a nine out of 10).

We have 74 locations. We can have 10,000 users maximum via an Internet gateway. We have four data center across the world: two in USA, one in London, and one in Dubai. Passing through Check Point per location: in the USA - 5000 users, in London - 2000 users, and in Dubai - 10,000 users.

There are 12 network security engineers/consultants managing Check Point and the legacy firewall, SonicWall.

Right now, we cannot go directly to Check Point because of vendor dependency. We have to first initiate with our vendor.

We migrated SonicWall to Check Point about two years back. That took one year to set up in our organization. 

We switched away from SonicWall because it is a legacy firewall at end of life. SonicWall was missing features that Check Point has, like UTM, IDS, IPS, antivirus, etc. Check Point is better for protection and performance-wise.

It is easy to deploy or upgrade. There is no need to do this manually with commands. This solution can be set up online.

We have two devices. Right now, we are deploying and upgrading a new setup, where you can do management, management plus gateway on the device, or virtually you can install your management device on VMware or Hyper-V. With the Hyper-V and the Management Server, you can access all the gateways. For the Management Server and gateways, we have an activation key.

We are an IBM OEM company who received installation support from that vendor. They provided all the network connectivity.

For our implementation, we:

1. Started with an initial diagram of the configurations and what we want to see after the installation.
2. Segregated the SonicWall and Check Point tools for the migration since we used automation.
3. Checked the mode of installation. We went with transparent mode.
4. Collected the IPs for the firewall. It required multiple IPs because with we have cluster nodes.
5. Assessed the feasibility of Check Point in our environment.

For our strategy, we looked at:

• How many users are in all our offices? For example, is it a small office, mid-size office, or data center?
• Using high-end versus lower-end devices, e.g., lower-end devices means a smaller price tag.

A smaller office of less than 500 people would get a 4000 Series. Whereas, a larger office would get a 5600 or 7000 Series. We have to be focused on the natural topology.

We have had some vulnerabilities when we upgraded the R80.30 Management Server. We have some gateways right now in our R77.30 version, and this means if we go without license in R80.30, then it will prompt a bad connection and terminate. We have had some license difficulties with the connection going from R70 to R80. However, these don't largely impact performance.

We looked at Fortinet and Palo Alto. We did not feel FortiGate was capable of what we required. Palo Alto is somehow not as good as Check Point, budget-wise and performance-wise. Palo Alto is more costly than Check Point.

If you need a good support or something that is good budget-wise, then I recommend going with Check Point compared to Cisco or Palo Alto.

It is a good firewall. It has returned good performance. We are happy with the product. I would rate the product as a nine out of 10.

Generally speaking, it's like any other NGFW. It's quite a versatile solution for many aspects. It's not like a separate solution for firewalling, but a separate solution for web access. It's just very convenient to have everything in one box. On the other hand, when you need something, like a very top-rank solution for very specific things, like network intrusion prevention or network intrusion detection as a component of NGFW, I would say it looks weaker compared to the well-designed solution for its purpose. It has the same issue as many other versatile or unified solutions, so it's really convenient.

From our point of view, including me and my colleagues, I would say it's really good that they have a lot of integrations with third-party companies. Integrations with third-party companies are really convenient. API offers many convenient ways to integrate with open-source solutions. It's very, very good when you have everything in one package and one bundle.

If you check each and every point from this part, you will find some flow in an area, or you will discover another flow in another area. It's unfortunate, and not a usual situation and it is not just for NGFW but for any other tool, making it a disadvantage where improvements are required.

For the next release, I would prefer the tool to be more flexible in terms of general deployments because some additional companies must be deployed as a basic one. For those who have been working with their solutions for a relatively short amount of time, it would be better for the tool to offer an adequate knowledge base, not just very superficial information, or maybe not too much in that spot, something like average stuff. The tool should be more flexible in terms of deployment, and a more adequate knowledge base should be available.

About the UI, it is hard to comment because it has been more or less the same for many years. Professionals have already been using the tool's interface for many years. From a contemporary angle, the tool's interface looks a bit outdated from a UI point of view. The UI has been more or less static in terms of changes for the last couple of years. People can get to the UI and work with it in a couple of months, but compared to any other solutions on the market, which are more flexible and more rapidly evolving, I would say that UI should be considered for improvement.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two to two and a half years. My company is a partner and reseller of the solution.

For stability in high-load networks, I rate the solution a six to seven out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the tool an eight to nine out of ten.

There could be some performance issues under the heavy deployments and heavy load, but generally, if you are talking about the general scalability, it is quite good.

The tool is suitable for large and very large enterprise businesses. From our company's practice, I would say it is meant for banks and financial institutions. It is also quite popular in heavy industries. I would say it has a more or less wide list. It is more or less very popular in banking.

The tool can be scaled up, but even despite high scalability, it requires a lot of extra companies to bear a high-load environment and high-load networks, making it a bit unfair, especially when comparing some of the numbers with the real-world statistics it likes too far from reality.

The solution's technical support is fine. I rate the technical support a nine to ten out of ten.

Positive

If ten means easy, I rate the product's initial setup phase a six to seven out of ten. It is not a plug-and-play solution. It requires much more skill and effort for the specialist to set it up properly. Even if there are any PoCs, you can easily discover the difference between the easy setup process and the more difficult setup phases, and I would say that Check Point falls under the latter category as it takes much more time and effort. Sometimes, it could be buggy, and you just need to fix some other firmware or software update.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model for large and very large enterprises.

The time to deploy the solution depends on the stage because you can talk about the initial deployment or you can talk about the deployment, including the integrations. I would say that the integrations would be really time-consuming. For the initial deployment, I would say it is a couple of days if it is not really a large installation and a couple of weeks are needed for the initial deployment.

ROI is like an artificial point in connection to a solution like Check Point NGFW, and its numbers are quite questionable.

Suppose the company has too many different solutions from different vendors. In that case, it becomes a greater burden in terms of support and everything, especially in terms of management of these solutions. I would say that Check Point would be a good choice if they are planning to migrate. If it is something like a choice between one NGFW from a vendor and you want to move into the Check Point NGFW, it becomes a bit more tricky. It becomes really hard to say about the ROI because it is just like a different approach. If you are moving between a lot of different solutions from different companies, then ROI will be really good and attractive.

The tool's price is reasonable in case you are not using it in a high-load environment. If you are not expecting significant increases or peak increases in loading, it should be fine. If it is a really highly loaded VLE environment, and if you try to rely on the tool's official numbers, I would say you can put your environment and network in jeopardy because it becomes really unstable. For the last couple of years, the situation has changed, and it has become really tricky to understand why the tool's official numbers aren't aligned with real-world numbers, which is a big problem for the VLE customers because when they are just trying to consider their official stats and official scalability numbers, it might be tricky. VLE customers should have, like, a 20 to 30 percent extra, or else, at this point, it becomes much more expensive.

The tool's prices don't make any sense because we are not talking about MSRP prices for VLE. We are talking about the discounted prices, which could be a really, really huge gap between the MSRP and the discounted price. I don't think these numbers will highlight any beneficial aspect of the price for you.

There needs to be accuracy in terms of scalability. It should be well-designed, and if the customer does not have enough resources or their own resources, it is better to involve an adequate number of SIs. The system integrator will do the trick, and if a person is experienced, then everything can be really good in terms of the certifications, the statistics, and everything else. The system integrator should do everything properly, but it will be quite expensive, especially if we are talking about large and very large enterprises. For mid-sized businesses, it should be fine because it is less tricky, and even the normal specialized person on the customer side should be fine with using it, as it can be quite easy. In any case, scalability is a bottleneck here.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I used Check Point NGFW to secure the data centers of medium to large enterprise companies. In many cases, it serves as a perimeter firewall, though its use can vary based on specific needs. Primarily, it functions as a defensive firewall.

The GUI is not very user-friendly, and configuring it can be challenging. The management console often has issues, sometimes requiring high CPU usage on your FTP or Windows system to open or manage sessions. It can be resource-intensive. Additionally, when viewing or monitoring logs, they sometimes do not appear immediately and may be outdated or missing.

I have been using Check Point NGFW for two years.

It is a stable device.

They support a range of enterprises, from small to large. Their solutions can accommodate environments with as few as 50 users to those with thousands or more. So, handling a large number of users is not an issue.

Support is very good.

Positive

The initial setup is not straightforward and can be more complex than that of other devices like Palo Alto or Fortinet firewalls. The setup for the CMA and management center requires careful implementation. Additionally, integrating components such as MDM and other security devices, including sandboxes, can be challenging to achieve a cohesive and secure environment.

The time required for deployment depends on the amount of configuration needed. Typically, it might take a full day, but with sufficient time, a basic configuration can often be completed in about eight to ten hours.

I have worked with both on-premises and VM versions. The CMA is typically deployed as a VM on a server, while the firewall is a physical device. 

I have already deployed many times by myself, so there is no need for many people.

It is a cheaper device than what other vendors offe.

For security features, I typically use the templates or standards provided by the vendor. Based on my experience over the past three years, I haven’t encountered any significant complaints from customers about attacks or major issues while using the firewall to protect their data centers.

Google has a premium partnership with Check Point, involving extensive verification processes for major customers. This strong partnership indicates a significant level of collaboration between the two companies.

I haven’t handled any maintenance, but the support center has been very helpful. They provided excellent support and demonstrated strong knowledge whenever I reached out for assistance. They are proficient in various languages and have a good grasp of Linux, which is essential for effective support.

They provide good step-by-step implementation guides, similar to what is available for Fortinet's FortiGate. However, I find the implementation process for other vendors to be easier. Pricing varies among the three vendors, so there are differences in cost. Palo Alto offers the best options for sizing, though I haven’t worked operationally.

I recommend it, but you should know Linux and its commands to work effectively with this device.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.