Check Point NGFW Reviews

Check Point is mainly used for internal communication. Our clients have multiple platforms, and customers use it for internal communications and protection, from the DMZ to the LAN to the DMZ, and also for MPLS connectivity with multiple branches. 

As I've seen, the customers also use it as a gateway for publishing their website. This is only for the perimeter, however.

It is very easy to identify the logs. It is also very well managed because of the threat cloud architecture. 

Another thing is that whenever we make changes on the firewall, we first need to publish them and then install the policies. This allows us to double-check the policies before they are implemented, which is helpful.

We faced many challenges. For example, an issue with the managed view that Check Point has. When clicking on a rule, we are supposed to have a full view of that rule and its log portion. This should show what's passing through the rule, what's coming to the rule, and all of that on a single pane of glass. Currently, the log isn't showing when we click on a particular rule. This might be an issue with an upgrade or something. Because of this, we can't implement anything on the live system; we only have a maintenance window every weekend, and it's hard to troubleshoot within an hour.

Another problem is that when we created around two lakhs of Check Point objects on the firewall, it became very slow.

I have been using it for two months. 

It is not slow. But, we implemented two lakhs of objects on the firewall, and that caused the slowness. It can happen with all firewalls, not only Check Point.

Currently, I work with enterprise customers.

It was good. No issues with that.

Positive

I can recommend Check Point, Fortinet, and even SonicWall. 

I come from a system integrator background, we first understand the customer's requirements before suggesting a firewall. Sometimes we aggressively push SonicWall because the user's requirements are more aligned with SonicWall. That's how we propose solutions.

It is very easy to install, not that complicated.

The complexity and time depend on the customer's requirements.

No maintenance: In the past two months, we haven't faced anything that required replacements on the firewall.

Pricing is good. The price is very reasonable for enterprise customers.

It offers average pricing. Previously, I worked as a system integrator, and we faced some cross-product environments where Check Point was quite costly compared to the product we were working with.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case is for safeguarding against various threats. Our organization utilizes NGFW for secure on-premises computing, particularly for users in sectors like government, banks, and government departments who prefer to maintain their private computing environments.

It performs excellently, primarily focusing on on-premises infrastructure. It's a lightweight solution, requiring minimal storage, resources, and memory to operate effectively. This flexibility makes it easy to deploy on on-premises infrastructure.

One area that they should prioritize is enhancing security gateways for protection against cyberattacks. Currently, these gateways are not fully optimized within the NGFW framework. Originally developed for on-premises infrastructure, they lack features tailored for cloud-based systems.

We have been using it for two years now.

It provides good stability.

Scalability isn't necessary when upgrading infrastructure components such as database servers and application servers, as there's no need to scale the NGFW accordingly. However, if the organization has a limited number of endpoints and users, scalability isn't a priority. The need for scalability typically arises when the company offers cloud-based solutions rather than on-premises solutions.

The customer support is exceptional and their team is well-prepared to address user inquiries, having a deep understanding of the typical questions users may ask. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

We have collaborated with various vendors including VMware, Cisco, Fortinet, and Juniper Networks in the past. However, after attending numerous tech conferences and evaluating different solutions, we decided to switch to Check Point. Upon thoroughly examining their offerings, we concluded that Check Point's solutions best suit our needs.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We secured a significantly lower price for the NGFW as we negotiated during its implementation in our organization. The vendor offered a special promotion at the time, providing us with this solution at a highly discounted rate through the marketplace.

For those still reliant on on-premises infrastructure, NGFW is a trustworthy choice, offering robust security features suitable for various third-party checks and requirements. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

It assists us in filtering files for our internal users, ensuring that our data remains secure and protected. During the pandemic, it has been invaluable in enabling remote connections through VPN for our employees who are working from home, facilitating our COVID-19 response efforts. We established point-to-point VPN connections with approximately thirty clients, which enhances our security, especially at the outermost layer of our network, safeguarding us from external threats.

It includes features like IPS, which keeps us informed about potential threats attempting to breach our infrastructure, adding a crucial layer of security. It is user-friendly and straightforward to manage, which simplifies our overall network security management.

It could greatly improve our customer experience by centralizing management. Currently, we face the issue of having different management interfaces, which require us to switch between them, causing some difficulties and inefficiencies in our workflow. There are instances where the software crashes and this necessitates frequent upgrades from one version to another.

I have been using it for four years now.

I would rate it as highly stable, giving it a solid nine out of ten.

In terms of scalability, we haven't needed to expand significantly as our current setup consists of firewall checkpoints at the main site and another set at the HQ. These devices can seamlessly communicate with one another. We use SmartConsole managing system, which serves as a centralized hub for collecting and managing logs from all our Check Point Firewalls. As far as I know, the limit for management servers is five firewalls, so beyond that, additional licensing may be required to accommodate more devices.

We don't engage directly with its support team. Instead, we work through a reseller who handles our support needs. When we require assistance, we reach out to the reseller, and if necessary, they will liaise with Check Point on our behalf.

We were previously using Cisco ASA, Cisco X-ray, and FortiGate. However, the technologies we had, particularly the Cisco ASA, were outdated, and there was a clear need to upgrade to a next-generation appliance. When considering our options, we received a proposal from a local vendor in Angola, and after reviewing it, we decided to move forward with Check Point as it is widely recognized as one of the top solutions in the market.

The initial setup is straightforward. I would rate it nine out of ten.

We've had positive experiences with the deployments, and we've recommended it in several instances. Currently, we have implemented four Check Point Firewalls. Our initial deployment at the primary site took approximately a week to set up. After fine-tuning and making necessary adjustments, the total time for implementation was roughly two weeks. The main office at our headquarters had a similar timeline, as the tuning process does require a significant amount of time and effort.

The technology itself is impressive, but I find the pricing a bit on the higher side. This is partly due to the complexities we face with exchange rates in our country, as obtaining foreign currency can be challenging.

Having worked with products from various providers, I've found the experience and functionality of Check Point to be quite impressive and I strongly recommend it, provided they invest in essential training, which is a critical component. Its user-friendly management interface simplifies the process, and it offers a wealth of features. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The solution is our main firewall. It protects our perimeter.

The tool has solid firmware with very few vulnerabilities. We don't need to upgrade it for vulnerabilities. It is rare when compared to the competitors. The product’s performance is good. My organization chose the product because it is stable and provides a very good Software Blade.

The tool must improve its support. The support provided by partners gets expensive.

I have been using the solution for around six years.

The product is stable.

The solution protects the entire perimeter. Every user passes through the firewall. It is used daily. We have around eight administrators. The solution requires very little maintenance.

The initial setup was easy.

The solution is expensive. A medium data center would cost around $17,000 per year for a medium enterprise.

Except for Palo Alto, Check Point is good compared to its competitors. Cisco ASA lacks features.

It is a good product. There are other competitors. Check Point NGFW is easy to deploy, manage, implement, and troubleshoot. The operation is pretty simple. Even a few operations people can run it very well. It is pretty much stable. We need to safeguard the data of our organization very well. Check Point NGFW is a leading solution provider. Security products must not have many vulnerabilities. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The solution is used for edge and interior firewalls. We use large-scale Check Points for our edge and have them set up in an active/passive cluster. For our internal firewalls at the remote sites, we use a virtual firewall for the OT DMZ, and then behind this virtual firewall, we have a physical appliance for the actual OT network. This allows us to fully secure the critical network yet still allow access via jump hosts or other remote management that we have approved. It also gives us excellent control over any north/south traffic.

Check Points is probably not the easiest or cheapest solution to use, however, we have never had any issues with their security and the technical issues we have had with them are few and far between. 

Most support calls for us are centered around how to best deploy a feature or why something is being blocked by a certain blade. This is one of the main reasons we continue to use them as they provide proven security for my company and the built-in blades generally always provide a benefit for us.

The central management and logging are frankly one of the top selling points. 

The actual management is perhaps a little confusing for a newcomer to Check Point - however, does not take very long to learn the basic ins and outs of. 

The logging capability of Check Point is excellent and very rarely have we wanted more. The logging is very fast and easy to use, and this makes finding items across all 80+ firewalls very easy. 

It is also easy to export all logs to our MSP since it is from a central point. The other built-in features are also helpful as it eliminates the need for some extra security appliances.

Lately, Check Point seems to be pushing new products too early. We have evaluated a few we thought may be useful to us yet were just not ready for enterprise use. Every company goes through this so hopefully, they will slow down and get the products up to speed and working better before trying to bring them to market. 

The current products that have been around for more than a few years generally do not suffer from this issue, however, their documentation does lag severely when a command changes or says the way to configure it changes. Support generally is up to date, but the KB articles are not always this way.

I've used the solution for 18 years at my current company, and another four at my previous company.

The stability is excellent.

Scalability is excellent, especially the newer products.

The technical support is mostly good. Their Tier 2 and higher engineers are excellent. Like any call center, however, their Tier 1 can be hit or miss. We use a third party for front line support so mostly never encounter anything less than Tier 3 since the only issues that get directed to actual Check Point support are already vetted out.

Positive

We used SonicWall. We switched due to wanting a more enterprise-quality product and previous experience.

The setup is complex, however, we knew this from the start so it was not unexpected.

We set up the solution mostly in-house. However, we were experienced with Check Point installs.

I have no visibility on ROI.

If new to Check Point, get pro services to help deploy it - especially if it is an advanced config. This will save huge amounts of time and grief. Once you have experience, pro services are generally not needed unless, again, you have no experience in that area.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We use Check Point firewalls to prevent attacks against the data center servers by adding more layers of security, such as IPS, Data Leak Prevention. We have also used Check Point to implement security policies in layer 7 and applications as well as to configure the VPN for internal users of the organization.

Check Point's firewall security solution is a complete solution that allows you to prevent attacks against your data center servers and avoid the transmission of viruses to end-users via ransomware, phishing, or forgery of URLs.

Check Point has a centralized console that makes it possible to manage all the deployed equipment. It also has a built-in VPN service that lets users connect through VPN to our organization, which facilitates teleworking while cutting off unauthorized access to the organization's internal network.

The predefined reports are limited and should provide more information. Check Point should provide a greater number of defined reports and produce reports for each division of the organization. Also, historical statistics cannot be obtained from the central console, the data or logs must be exported to another machine and processed from there to obtain this historical information. The number of available physical ports could be increased and Check Point could add support for higher speeds.

We have been using Check Point firewalls for more than 10 years.

Check Point is a company that has been producing firewalls for many years. It is a leader in today's market, and its products are very stable. They are always updating and improving their products to stay at the top of the market. 

Check Point NGFW allows easy and fast scalability.

Our experience with Check Point technical support was very positive. They always resolved questions or incidents quickly and professionally.

We have always had Check Point solutions.

The initial configuration was simple. The previous team was also using Check Point, we only had to export and update the rules. Only a couple of things had to be corrected and changed.

It was implemented through a CheckPoint partner who demonstrated great experience in migration.

When implementing, I would suggest you define in a real way what you want to allow —applications, content, destinations, etc. — and drop the rest of the traffic. It is important to review the groups, objects, and networks created to efficiently define the security policies that you finally want to implement.

Before making the last purchase, we evaluated other solutions, such as Palo Alto or Fortinet.

I would rate Check Point NGFW 10 out of 10.

We are a financial institution and we use Check Point as a firewall that is positioned for external connections, like the Internet, leased lines, and site-to-site VPNs for other companies. Check Point protects our mobile applications connected to the internet, as well as the main company website. Some firewalls are positioned on some of our HQs.

We're on version R80.40 (some minor firewalls are on R80.30) and we use 13000, 23000, and 26000 series appliances. We use Application Control, Identity Awareness, IPS, URL Filtering, Anti-bot, Antivirus, Threat extraction, and Threat emulation blades.

I've been in the same company for 11 years, and Check Point has been running in a stable manner for our company's main internet connection (and 7 years before that).

It has protected our main applications successfully without any performance drops, and with its flawless logging capabilities, we were able to pinpoint any issues every time.

The management is also the best among any other firewall, with the convenience to create the objects and rules on the same page. This has helped us save time on operations. We can use APIs to create objects and rules to easily finish some projects.

The best features are the stability and the performance of the firewall and its software blades, simplicity to write the firewall rules on its GUI, and its logging capabilities.

The firewalls are working stably, without any interruptions. As we planned our capacity well, we've never had any performance issues.

The firewall rule writing and object creation are the best and simplest I've seen on a firewall (I've looked at 6 different vendors). I often wonder why the other vendors don't do it Check Point's way.

To see the logs, we can search like a search engine, and we can combine different search strings to pinpoint the interesting traffic.

The product can be improved with fewer hotfixes, and if more generally available jumbo hotfixes were used.

We don't often hit bugs. It's perfectly normal for an NGFW device as other vendors are always fixing bugs too. However, when we hit a bug, the support team recommends some hotfix, and if we upgrade to that, we have to uninstall it before we apply some newer jumbo hotfix. If those fixes were included in a fast manner in the jumbo hotfix (as jumbo hotfixes are tested thoroughly for general availability), it would be ideal.

I've used the solution for 11 years.

I do not use them, I just sell them, but customers are using them to protect on the edge and at the core.

It brings value to their clients as everybody is concerned with security. Firewalls are the first line of defense. Check Point's support is probably the best of the major players in that space. Check Point is more complex than the other players, but it is also more powerful.

A lot of the other players have a more robust best-of-suite offering versus the best-of-breed offering. Check Point's capabilities are limited from a firewall perspective. Other players are acquiring companies and offering add-ons like CASB or VPN-type capabilities.

I have had experience with Check Point Next Generation Firewall for seven or eight years.

Their code is a little bit finicky as of late, but that's just because they just released this product line.

It depends on what you're deploying. Maestro is more scalable than standalone firewalls.

The support depends on what support model you buy. Customers that have dedicated support teams get more attention than the traditional support, however, a lot of other companies are offshoring their support.

Positive

Cisco is not a true security company, but Check Point is where they grew up, so I think they are a little more mature.

The initial setup depends on the environment and can take weeks. It is not different than the rest of the players in terms of maintenance.

It's basic engineers, usually one to two people.

It is pretty difficult to determine ROI with firewalls because they are more of an insurance policy. However, it helps with security. The cost of a breach versus having some of these measures in place is the real comparison.

There is a lot of price parity between all the players. Everybody is within plus or minus ten percent. Check Point is probably more expensive than some of the other players out there, but it is incremental.

I evaluated Palo Alto and Fortinet.

I would recommend Check Point Next Generation Firewall to others. I would put them in the upper echelon.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.