Check Point NGFW Reviews

The primary use of Check Point NGFW is as a firewall that gives us the control of allowing in non-threatening traffic in and blocking malicious traffic. It is also a valuable tool that allows us to interconnect our remote sites via IPSEC VPN. 

This, alongside all of the basic blades such as Application Control, allows us to be granular when choosing what applications we allow within our organization and additionally filters based on categories combined with identity awareness. This allows us to be as granular as we would like with specific users/departments within our organization.

Check Point NGFW was one of the top contenders when we were looking to implement a new firewall strategy. 

We have had some issues with VPN tunnels specific to AWS, which were eventually resolved after a lengthy case however, other than that, the features offered are all great, and the firewall has done its job to my expectation. 

It is, however, difficult at times to read the actual documentation for the blades/appliance as it would appear that sometimes the terminology is incorrect or skewed, which leads to a longer implementation time.

As with any firewall, IPSEC VPN is the critical functionality. Not every organization has the budget to implement MPLS or SD-WAN, which makes IPSEC the go-to for site-to-site connectivity. 

Another critical blade/feature is the application control blade in combination with URL filtering. These two security features, tied together with identity awareness, are a game changer and allows an admin to be as granular as possible when blocking specific applications or allowing a specific application to a specific user/department within the organization

Being on R80.40, I am sure a bunch of features have already been implemented that I am not currently taking advantage of. However, one feature I have yet to see implemented is authenticated email support for alerts generated via the GW or SMS. As a security product, it is mind-blowing that this is not a thing today, and it only relies on SMTP un-authenticated to send emails to administrators. However, I'm not sure if that really applies to the firewall itself or if it is more so a topic of discussion for the SMS.

I've used the solution for five years.

We switched from SonicWall back in the day due to the feature sets available at the time.

We also evaluated Palo Alto.

I have used this product in chemicals, insurance, and industrial sector companies.

The primary use case is to secure the inbound and outbound traffic and secure the DMZ servers. We use this solution for Remote access VPN (on smart view event can see reports more granular level) and IPSEC VPN for using the applications hosted on Public cloud and integrate the customer 3rd parties vendors. 

Using threat prevention helps in securing the customer environment from cyber attacks, ransomware, malwares etc. We use the Sandboxing features to protect the network from zero-day attacks

It improved the performance of the network on large scale. 

It's easy to use and configure. We can build the new firewalls with minimum effort. 

It's easy to upgrade the device. 

You can van view the device health on the smart view monitor and smart event monitor at a more granular level. We're achieving great performance using the latest quantum gateways. You can see the real-time logs on the management and also can configure the logging in redundancy mode. 

Using TCPDUMP, a firewall monitor, and firewall zdebug drop, you can troubleshoot the real-time issues.

We like the SecureXL, CoreXL, and Multi-que.  Using these features improved the performance of the gateway at a more granular level.

The Smart View Event monitor is great. You can see the real-time events on the firewall - including remote access VPN usage.

The smart licensing is great. It's easy to generate the license and apply it on the gateways.

The solution offers very good anti-virus and anti-spam capabilities. It's good security on the network.

Threat Prevention and Sandboxing are useful to have. We're protecting the network from zero-day vulnerabilities and securing the network from the latest cyberattacks.

Pricing for the gateways is too high as compared to the other vendors.

Whenever there is any issue comes checkpoint support ask to keep the gateway on the latest hotfix and OS which is difficult to roll out on all the gateways present in the customer environment.

I am using this product for more than five years.

We can achieve great stability using Check Point Quantum Gateways which improves the performance of the network.

We can achieve great scalability using Check Point Quantum Gateways.

We did not use a different solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did not evaluate other options.

Checkpoint Firewall provides advanced security for the organization and its connection to the members/participants. The Check Point FW controls access and traffic to and from the internal and external networks. The Check Point Firewall rule base defines the access control and network performance to help our organization achieve the below security goals:

• Only allows authorized connections and prevents vulnerabilities in a network
• Gives authorized users access to the correct internal networks
• Optimizes network performance and efficiently inspects connections

Check Point Firewall provides advanced security for the organization. The FW controls access and traffic to/from the internal and external networks. The Firewall rule base defines the access control and network performance to help our organization achieve the below security advantages:

• Only allows authorized connections and prevents vulnerabilities in a network
• Gives authorized users access to the correct internal networks
• Optimizes network performance and efficiently inspects connections
• Protection of all assets from internal and external threats

The following features are most valuable: 

• Threat prevention
• Malware prevention
• IPS
• IDS
  

Check Point should improve services related to the cloud-based solution. Due to these challenging times, most organizations seek to move to cloud-based implementation to minimize the cost and for easy deployment, access, and remote support. 

The Next-Generation Firewall should also be focused on zero-day threats as attacks have improved the past few years. They need to ensure that all connections and nodes are being protected. 

Sandblast technology is also a good tool as it offers enterprise solutions on malware detection and prevention.

I've used the solution for five years.

The solution is stable and can support all OS deployments. It's easy to manage.

We recommend the product as it is excellent and very scalable.

There have been no issues regarding the support from Check Point and the local vendor.

Positive

We previously used Fortinet.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We did the deployment in-house and with a vendor team. The level of expertise was a 10/10.

The solution is easy to deploy. The pricing is lower than other solutions. We've had no issue with licensing.

We looked into Watchguard, Palo Alto, and Sophos.

We need more information on the ability to collaborate enterprise support.

We are using the Check Point firewall for our perimeter security.

The security solution works as well on-premise and in the Azure Cloud. We are using central management to configure the security policy of both gateways.

We are also using a Site2Site VPN for connecting our locations. This VPN is also realized with the same firewall systems.

In order to simplify the process of generation reviews of actual security incidents, we have implemented SmartReport for generating automated and special customized security reports for our documentation department.

Since the security policy of all firewall gateways can be defined centrally on the Check Point firewall management server, it is a lot easier to generate a secure and safe policy for all locations.

Since we can define policy operators for dedicated traffic selections, some of the lower IT staff can easily allow or block services or servers or create their own policy without interfering or compromising the rest of the security policy.

This makes the administration and coordination of the policy a lot easier for us

Since the log files of all services are collected on the management server there is an easy and good view of all actual connections, attacks, or security risks.

In addition, when using the SmartEvent software blade, you get the possibility to have an easy to configure event correlation system, which will automatically fire mail alerts or can even block IP addresses if there are network or security anomalies detected on the firewall system.

This is also possible if the services are allowed - for example, if there are flooding attacks on server systems.

For example, this has prevented our Citrix Netscaler from being taken down during attacks.

Although there is a lot of automation and pattern that can be classified automatically, the IPS systems are sometimes a little bit complicated, and doing the fine-tuning in over 20,000 patterns is hard to do. This has been improved in the last versions, however, it can still be made a little bit better. 

For example, the automatic classification of which pattern should be activated is very simple yet lacks some special configuration options (for example if you want to have more than one classification pattern for the activation).

The HTTPS inspection is very tricky, too. Since there are a lot of applications that are using certificate pinning, most of the SSL traffic (especially to the big cloud provider) must pass without inspection.

Since attackers also use these clouds, there is a problem in getting your security definitions to work.

Of course, this is not a Check Point-specific problem and rather a problem in the HTTPS inspection itself.

There is the need to know which sites are accessed by our staff and to get the visited URLs, to get the internal security policy working. The SSL classification feature of Check Point is a good intention, yet not as good as needed.

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

We do not have any problems with stability.

There is a hardware solution for every type of throughput. It is very good that in the datasheets you get the throughput of the different types of network traffic.

It is better not to choose solutions bigger than needed, or to have some resources left over.

Most of the support calls are answered very quickly. However, if you have a problem and you have to get development involved, the response gets slower.

Most of the time, you will find all necessary information in the Support Center or on the collaboration sites.

Neutral

We were using Cisco firewalls before. We had the need to implement Universal Threat Protection and the configuration of the Firepower system of Cisco was more complicated than the integrated policy configuration of Check Point.

The setup is straightforward. The documentation is very good.

We have implemented it completely in-house.

ROI is really hard to pinpoint. However, if we were using another security solution, our personal efforts to maintain it would double.

It is very hard to compare different firewall solutions and get a comparable price. Check Point tends to be very expansive, however, if you have a deeper look at other vendors, the costs are almost the same.

Due to the good integration and central management, Check Point is easier to maintain than other solutions.

In addition, there are good small office boxes from CheckPoint with a very good price - the features of these boxes are enough for small enterprises or branch offices.

We have evaluated Cisco Firepower and the FortiGate firewall solutions in the past.

We needed stateful inspection, logging, integration with Active Directory, and the ability to monitor devices using standard SNMP for use cases. Now, with the tool's Skyline product and OpenTelemetry, we can monitor it through Prometheus and Grafana. It has all the features we needed when we certified the solution.

Integration with Active Directory, IPS, standard VPN, and the firewall itself are the most valuable features for us. We haven't yet certified or aren't using Application Control, anti-bot, or anti-virus features.

Significant improvements have been made in the product. I started working with the R65 code and then upgraded to R74.40. When they transitioned from R77.30 to R80.x, they made major back-end modifications, switching from a flat file system to Solaris and Postgres. This was a big step that neither customers nor their support staff were fully prepared for.

Now, they're adding more features due to the increased flexibility of the new back-end. The main improvement I'd suggest is better preparation when introducing new features. Before releasing, they must train their support staff to troubleshoot these new features. The transition from R77.30 to R80.x was problematic due to a lack of preparation by Check Point, customers, and support.

Sizing is crucial, but we've never had issues with the products we've sized for each environment. The Maestro solution provides a lot of flexibility. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest scalability, I'd rate it a ten.

I use Palo Alto firewalls. Check Point NGFW was the first to invent the stateful inspection firewall. They focus more on security and try to keep their motto of "keep security simple". They don't get bogged down in marketing or complicated terminology when using their products.

Even enabling a firewall blade on Palo Alto requires learning about different sync ports, how sync ports differ between chassis, and navigating through multiple GUI tabs for configuration. It's not as straightforward.

On the other hand, Check Point NGFW has kept things very simple for deployment. You set it up once, and then you can repeat the same process repeatedly.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate the initial setup as ten. The process is straightforward: you rack and stack, configure the management code, create a standard policy, establish SIC, and push the policy. This process has remained consistent over the years.

For deployment, it took us longer than the typical two weeks because we had to design solutions for different scenarios. Check Point offers various options, such as clustering solutions, Maestro solutions, and standalone solutions. We had different use cases—some required standard clusters with ClusterXL, while others needed scalability solutions like Maestro. We also had to factor in sizing considerations.

The certification process took about the same amount of time as other products. We've been using the Maestro solution for a while now, so when new platforms are released, there isn't much change required beyond certifying the new hardware and ensuring backward compatibility with our certified solution.

Initially, it took a little more than two weeks to certify. However, the actual deployment still follows the same standard process and is actually easier now than it was in the past.

We call the team responsible for deploying certified solutions to the service delivery team. It's made up of two groups: build services and service delivery. The build services team works with our networking team to ensure our network and peering devices are set up right to host the firewall.

The service delivery team focuses more on the firewall itself. We need about three or four extra people from build services for firewall deployment. They act as go-betweens with the network team, ensuring our firewall solution works well with the peering devices when we put it in place. The build services team is important because they ensure everything fits together properly when we set up our firewall.

For maintenance, the solution is pretty stable. We have a global team, but a separate team handles regular firewall changes and daily operations. For support, we have about ten people total - three groups of three people each. This team manages around 1200 firewalls, including Check Point and Palo Alto devices.

Check Point NGFW is much cheaper than other platforms, including Palo Alto. Its scalability, especially with the Maestro solution, is a big advantage. If you're looking for good security at a reasonable price with a good return on investment, I believe Check Point NGFW is the way to go.

I've been dealing with Check Point NGFW for my entire career. I started with their Stateful Inspection feature. The term "Next Generation Firewall" is just marketing. Check Point's UTM product was designed from the ground up with next-generation features. They have a feature called Blaze. Besides stateful inspection firewalls and VPNs, they offer IPS, application control, URL filtering, antivirus, and antibot. You can also integrate it with third-party tools like Active Directory for authentication. This combination of features is what's called a next-generation firewall.

Other vendors use terms like app ID or user ID. They focus less on ports and more on ensuring services match their intended use. For example, if port 22 is enabled, it should be for SSH service, not something else. We use both Check Point NGFW and other products. I think if you commit to one vendor's approach, it can be hard to switch late.

My customer is one of the big banks in Bangladesh, and they use the solution to protect themselves from malware.

The solution's most valuable feature is CDR (content disarm and reconstruction). The Infiniti Portal feature helps manage the firewall and get a proper report, which is required for management. Capacity and Maestro are good features that can produce better firewall speed.

I want better (DPI) Deep Packet Inspection in Check Point NGFW. The solution should include some behavioral features to detect the malware smartly.

Check Point NGFW is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability nine and a half out of ten.

Around 20 small and medium businesses are using the solution. The solution's scalability is really good. It has a feature called Maestro, which can increase bandwidth by three terabytes.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution provides good technical support.

Positive

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is not a cheap solution. Customers often need to pay a premium for its services.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Check Point NGFW is a good firewall. You can mount it into your firewall in every country and have the report. You can find out how good it is. Customers can change this firewall or determine the efficiency of other firewalls, including Check Point. After 15 days, they can see the report, which is a good feature.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is segmentation in many different areas of the company network. We had a few critical use cases: there was a need for an internal firewall, and also an edge firewall. Apart from having simple segmentation, we had a requirement for additional features like the possibility to decrypt traffic, the possibility to inspect URLs or the intrusion prevention system feature. 

A very important thing for us was also to have a very good quality of vendor support. Definitely, this is something we can get here. 

With Check Point we have achieved our primary goal - segmentation. We were able to limit North-South and East-West traffic which had a very impressive impact on improving security posture. 

We also have the possibility to control Internet traffic, we can use the URL filtering feature together with traffic decryption to be able to allow only safe communication. A very important thing for us is also having the possibility to use identity awareness and be able to implement policy based on user IDs (user ad groups).

I like the Next-Generation Firewall. This is the primary feature and use case for this solution. It's a very important thing for us to have a solution that provides ease of use and an intuitive interface.

We are also using other security blades that are included in the package like URL filtering, identity awareness, IPS, antibot, and threat detection.

The most valuable thing for us is to have the possibility to use all the security blades and all security products and have a consistent policy among different security features. Reporting and integration with external solutions are great.

Check Point could improve the time for delivering requested features from customers. It could be delivered much faster. Also, communication and status reporting for such requests have a lot of room for improvement. After the request, we do not get any information on the status or progress until it is implemented.

Looking at the trend in the market which aims for vendor consolidation, the strategy to deliver one vendor SASE could be beneficial for Check Point and its customers. 

I've been familiar with the product since 2003. At my current company, CheckPoint appeared three years ago.

The stability is good.

The range of platforms is huge. It can fit every traffic requirement.

Overall I have had a positive experience with support. Sometimes it takes too long to resolve issues, however.

Positive

I have been using Cisco ASA. The switch was done based on the intuitive management interface and ease of use of Check Point.

The setup is straightforward, even if the policies are big and complex.

We have used help from a third-party company.

I'd advise users to prepare their requirements before choosing the product and model.

I also evaluated Palo Alto.

It is a really good solution. You should be happy with it if you choose it.

The primary distinction between an NG Firewall and a traditional firewall lies in their configuration flexibility and scalability. Regarding options and features, the spoofing functionality in Check Point has been instrumental in enhancing security in our critical environment. It plays a crucial role in securing our internet connectivity.

Its functionality is highly satisfactory. In the newer Check Point version, there are additional features in VPN and IP security that enhance tunnel security. This flexibility extends to the Check Point MDM platform, allowing for streamlined management across different domains. In my current client's complex infrastructure, there's often a need to replicate rules from one firewall to another within the same room. With Check Point, it's a straightforward process of creating the rules in one policy and then easily copying and pasting them into other policies.

The log management process in MDS consumes a significant amount of storage, so it would be highly beneficial if there's an opportunity to optimize these logs and save storage space. While it does enhance network security, it tends to consume substantial resources, including CPU, memory, and storage. It could be an exceptionally useful and efficient solution if there were outgoing or AI-driven algorithms to streamline log management and periodically delay the logs.

I have been working with it for almost four years.

Regarding stability, I would rate it seven out of ten. While there have been occasional issues like false positives and blocking misreads in my NGFW, overall, it's a good product.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it seven out of ten.

The level of support provided depends on the specific contract. With a premium contract, it gets you treated as a top-priority customer, and they respond promptly, making every effort to find solutions. If you have a standard support contract, your experience might be more like that of an ordinary customer. In general, I've found them to be helpful, and I would rate their support six out of ten.

Neutral

I was working with Palo Alto for a couple of years, and I found their data protection functionality to be particularly interesting. I believe this feature is quite innovative and that other vendors should consider taking inspiration from it.

When it comes to the setup process, I've noticed that publishing and informing policies in different steps can be a bit complex. The typical sequence of publishing policies, configuring them, and then deploying them to the firewall can feel suboptimal at times. There are situations where an immediate policy installation is needed and it would be beneficial if there were options to install policies directly before the publishing step. Overall, the setup process is not overly complex, but it's not as straightforward.

When it comes to the quality-price ratio, I've found that Check Point offers a competitive balance in the market. I would rate it four out of ten.

I would rate it six out of ten.