Check Point NGFW Reviews

We use the NGFW to give security and protection to our local network and internet user from internet threats like viruses, worms, bots, and intrusion. 

We also use it to control the internet URLs accessed by the user. We subscribe to two internet service providers with total bandwidth available of 450 Mbps and we have more than 700 internet users connected. 

Check Point's firewall does a good job of protecting the user from malicious threats. It is able to run smoothly without being a bottleneck in the network. 

Check Point NGFW helps us to secure our user's computer and our server and therefore helps us to maintain business operations. It has important features like an intrusion prevention system, anti-virus, and anti-bot capabilities. 

It also helps us manage bandwidth efficiently by managing what website is allowed to access by users. 

We're limiting user access to websites with high bandwidth demand like video streaming and social media, of forbidden websites like adult websites. 

We can manage which users have access to certain websites.

The antivirus, antibot, and intrusion prevention systems are great. It's very important due to the fact that to prevent is better than to recover. The features play a critical role in preventing any security incidents from happening and minimalizing them before they become bigger problems. 

Its URL filtering feature is great. We can manage which users are allowed access to which websites at a certain time. We can also manage which application is allowed and forbidden for the users. 

Check Point has a vast list of applications it is able to manage - from torrents to games, social media, etc. 

The product could provide an easier user interface and management, by combining all functions (network and policy configuration) into one single application rather than splitting it into different applications. 

Users will also really appreciate it if Check Point provides a free management and logfile analysis module. In the existing setup, a user must pay an extra subscription fee to have access to the firewall management module. It makes the user without a subscription unable to fully gain insight from the firewall log file so they are unable to fully utilize the device

I've used the solution for four years.

It's stable. The system runs with minimal problems. I said minimal because yes there were problems. In 4 years using checkpoint, we have maybe 2 major problem. One was hardware modul failure, that replaced as soon as possible by support team, and the other was software/configuration problem, that get solved also with the help of support team

It has the ability to scale depending on the product model.

They provide good support, depending on your troubles. For more complicated requests, maybe you will have to pay.

Neutral

Check Point is the company's first NGFW.

The initial setup is simple, however, customizing it could be complex.

We implemented the solution through a vendor team. The score I'd give for their expertise is seven out of ten.

if you pay for the setup cost, make sure you get it set up exactly as you need it to be.

We looked into Sophos, Sangfor, and Palo Alto.

It's a unified policy table that combines threat prevention and segmentation policies. 

Smart Event allows consolidated event management and exporting features is very useful when we need to deal in reports, since, for some time now, everyone has been working from home and on the firewall from Check Point. 

This function is implemented very conveniently and securely. The VPN over this firewall works as well as a standard VPN device. All in all, I'm delighted with their security solution. It is making configuring numerous layers of security policies easy to use and it always has been one of the things I liked most about their firewall solution.

Check Point firewalls are one of the most easy-to-use complete firewall solutions on the market. They protect our LANs against intruders, offer VPN for site-to-site connections, and haven't had a major issue in about 15 years. 

While not being cheap, their pricing models are competitive. 

A better approach to security focuses on prevention, blocking malware and other threats was difficult before they entered the network. By blocking the infection of “patient zero,” an NGFW with real-time prevention eliminates risk, damage, and cost to the organization.

It provides an SSL inspection facility. The SSL/TLS protocol improves the privacy and security of traffic by wrapping network communications in a layer of encryption and applying robust authentication. While this is a major benefit for data security, cyber threat actors also use SSL/TLS to conceal their activities on the network. An NGFW must go beyond signature-based detection to use technologies capable of detecting and remediating novel and zero-day threats.  

Sandboxing (including static, dynamic, and behavioral analysis) is great.

It's nearly impossible to add an exception for threat prevention services - like antivirus and anti-bot. You will be stuck with Indicators of Compromise marked as detect only, caching issues, and random effects. 

There is no clear way to report incorrect classification to support and a business is neither happy nor forgiving when they cannot receive mail from a crucial business partner. 

The KBs article should also be improved as all the global KB articles do not provide all the activity steps related to every issue.

I have been using this product for the last five years.

I have not used any other product.

The setup is very easy with minimal cost for licensing as well.

I have not used any other product.

The Check Point firewall is a reliable perimeter security product. Check Point gives me access to explore various security features in a single box (loaded with all features that an organization needs most). 

I can say I have been using it for one year and getting a grip on it and I will always try to implement it wherever it is required. 

When it comes to Check Point, there are great security features and a marvelous inbuilt design that caters to handling all threats, including zero-day attacks and perimeter security. I really like the user-friendly interface of the Smart Console dashboard and the maximum security is integrated.

The intruder blocking real-time is a great feature that does not even require policy installation or committing to something. This feature enables real-time attack mitigation along with full security access which helps our organization to improve its security factors. 

IPS detection is a big plus for me since it deeply scans the packet. 

URL fileting along with application control gives me the access to manage the least privilege to maximum rights on a single click.

The product provides multiple security layers that build upon each other, from the traditional security policy that is IP and port-based to application security, intrusion prevention, and their latest sandblast cloud-based malware detection. 

Everything is easily managed through their Smart Console dashboard. It's a very easy-to-understand dashboard that provides a detailed view. Check Point helps to resolve a lot of problems, such as showing our organization all known threats. 

It is easy to deploy and manage. 

The product offers a simple Web User Interface.

While not being cheap, their pricing models are competitive. In the pricing structure, however, they need improvement. 

I would love to see an SSL offloading feature that is not there right now. I am following many forums related to Check Point and it seems like they are going to launch it very soon. SSL Offloading will be very helpful for NBFC and for financial institutes.'

The Check Point NGFW OS is a historically grown OS. It has been on the market for a long time and has many releases. It is a very complex system. All features are done in software - no extra hardware chips are installed.

I have been using this solution for almost a year.

This solution is one of the best solutions in terms of stability.

It is highly scalable.

I have been using this solution from the start as it was recommended by my organization.

The pricing is a little bit high, although I have no issue with the licensing or setup. It is easy to use.

I have stuck to this solution as I read reviews before and it was all positive in regards to Check Point NGFW. I did not use a different solution.

We primarily use the solution for central administration and management of a lot of locations worldwide. That's the main task for this solution for our Central IT Team. Central logging and troubleshooting are 2nd level topics that are great to handle with the SmartDashboard and other tools.

We started in the past with base features and checked the NGFW features. Application Control gives us the option to permit applications and not just some IP address lists. Before we had so much manual work for dealing with firewall rules.

For some topics, we've given the Service Desk permissions and it's working great.

We have so many standalone firewalls. The central management of Check Point with different sessions/permissions is great. We can administrate all topics smoothly. The Application Control brings us to the next level of controlling cloud apps and other stuff.

Anti-Bot and the IPS are good features to check/defend our servers and company. We can prevent servers easily for vulnerabilities from/to the public internet and we can see what traffic/actions is active on our lines. 

Our Security Operation Center is very happy about the solutions too due to the fact that they have so much transparency.

QoS, Anti-Bot, IPS, and Application Control are the main features we're using.

The QoS blade is very good for controlling traffic such as Windows patches, mail traffic and other stuff. In the past, sometimes we had no control and couldn't help when too much traffic had occurred.

Anti-Bot is great at preventing our clients and corporate network from calling the central control.

IPS is good in protecting our systems in DMZ zones when patching of servers sometimes can't be done.

Application control for controlling Cloud Apps like MS Teams, M365 Apps, or others, is perfect. Previously, we had only IP Lists for stuff like this.

Administration of the routing and system settings should be moved to the central dashboard. It's not good to go to all GAIA Interfaces to change settings there.

The client for the central tools is very big - maybe using web access in future releases, similar to other vendors should be possible.

The firmware for the Check Point Firewalls is very big. It takes a long time when we are using small lines for data transfers. Other vendors have updates lower than 100MB. For Check Point often we need a minimum of 2GB.

I've used the solution for nine years.

The scalability is great.

We previously used Watchguard. It was not so good with different vendors for some features.

We use Check Point Next Generation Firewalls as a perimeter firewall for all sites, including the DMZ, disaster recovery center, and branch offices. We also use IPS, Anti-Bot, Antivirus, Identity Awareness, Application Control, and URL Filtering blades at all gateways. At our main site, these blades provide additional security controls to our existing security solutions. For our branch offices, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls work as unified security products and we do not need to implement additional security solutions.

In addition to legacy firewall features, by using Check Point Next Generation Firewalls blade technology, you can improve your security. 

By using the smart console, you can control tens of gateways from a single point. The smart console also allows you to control all the blades from the same GUI. These features decrease our manpower needs. 

The identity awareness feature makes it easier to implement and manage firewall rules. 

The ease of configuring VPNs can be very useful especially for companies with lots of remote locations.

Check Point Next Generation Firewalls have numerous blade options such as Anti-bot, IPS, and URL filtering. In most cases, one box could be sufficient to use all these blades. You can manage all these blades from a single console. This feature lowers your administrative workload. 

If you have comparatively small branch offices, in addition to administrative workload, instead of spending money for security products such as proxy or IPS, Check Point Next Generation Firewalls could meet your requirements. 

If you have a long ruleset, you may experience performance issues on the GUI, and installing rule changes on gateways can take a comparatively long time. 

If you use Check Point firewalls for a long time, it is inevitable to have long rulesets over the years. The need for using different GUI applications for different versions can be confusing. A backward compatibility feature for smart console versions could be useful - especially if you are an enterprise customer, you probably need to use different versions at the same time. 

We have used the solution for 9+ years.

I support multiple clients within the UK, the EMEA region, the US, and now in Asia Pacific as well. I specialize in Check Point firewalls. I design and secure their data centers, their on-premises solutions, or their businesses security.

The firewalls are mostly on-premise because most of our clients are financial organizations and they have strict compliance requirements. They feel more secure and have more control when things are on-premise in the data center. However, there are use cases where I have helped them to deploy Check Point solutions in the cloud: AWS, Azure, and in Google as well. But cloud deployments are very much in the early stages for these clients, on a development or testing basis. Most of the production workloads are still on-premise in data centers.

Most of my customers are still using R77.30, and they are on track to upgrade from that to R80, which is the current proposed version by Check Point.

One of our customers has just recently been attacked by malware and internal DoS attacks, and they have a multi-vendor, multi-layer firewall approach. The internal firewalls are Check Point. The great thing about Check Point is that because of its central architecture, you can very quickly pinpoint where the attacks are coming from. It gives you comprehensive reporting when the attacks start and when they've stopped, so you can see the complete, end-to-end picture: where the point of attack is, at what time, and what host. They can track all of that.

However, in parallel, that customer is using other firewalls which have no visibility. One of the main advantages of having Check Point firewall is definitely that it gives you absolute in-depth visibility.

Among the valuable features are antivirus, URL inspection, and anti-malware protection. These are all advanced features.

One of the great advantages of having Check Point as a firewall is that all of these are software blades, so you can buy a license or subscription and enable them and get the security up and running. With other firewalls, it's a completely different agenda, meaning some of them require hardware modules, and some of them have a complex way of adding the licensing, etc. Check Point definitely has a great architecture, where you can just enable the software blades and deploy a secure service. Overall, it provides ease of deployment and ease of use.

The area it needs improvement is the SandBlast Agent. It receives a file, or if it detects a Zero-day attack, it takes the file and analyzes it, either on-premise or in the Check Point Cloud, and then it reports back whether the file is secure or non-secure, or is unknown. That particular area definitely needs a bit more improvement, because there is a delay. That's one of the main complaints for most of our customers. Or if it is quick, then it's very complex. For example, if they have received a file which is "unknown" or has Zero-day attack malware, sometimes it doesn't get analyzed properly or it's locked into the cloud. So there are various small issues with the product that need possible improvement.

The SandBlast product on its own is a very good concept, and it works absolutely brilliantly. However, when you integrate it with existing firewalls, it just doesn't play very well.

The cloud solution is quite straightforward because it seems the SandBlast solution was designed, initially, for cloud deployments, where you've got multiple clouds or multiple vendors, and you are receiving files from different points. And on the cloud edge, for example in AWS, if you have Check Point sitting there, it works very well if you're running a virtual firewall. However, if it's on-premise and it's a dedicated appliance, then the performance is slightly different and the way it works is very different. So where it needs improvement is where it's an appliance-based solution rather than a software or cloud-based solution.

If I am using SandBlast on a virtual appliance — for example, I've got Check Point virtual appliances in AWS, and Azure as well, for a customer — those virtual appliances work absolutely fine as a service, as does SandBlast as a service. However, if it's an appliance, if it's a dedicated firewall on-premise in a data center and you add SandBlast as a software service, the integration is not that straightforward, so the experience is very different. 

It seems like they were possibly built by different teams, independent of each other.

I've been using Check Point firewalls for about 16 years. I am the main network or security lead and I have four other engineers who report to me. They also do design and deployment.

I work with approximately 40 companies that utilize Check Point.

Check Point firewalls are very stable. One good thing about Check Point is that they do rigorous testing internally before releasing updates, which is something I have not found with any other firewall products. With most of the other firewall products, when they release something, it's like the customer becomes the guinea pig for that particular version, whether a minor or a major update. However, with Check Point, you can see all the white papers and what ways they have tested a minor or major upgrade of the software version, and what the performance was like. What are their known issues and is somebody working on them or not?

So the software releases are very stable and you have visibility into how they operate and what the known issues are, so you know whether you should go ahead with them or not. And in case there is a problem, the support is excellent. You can reach out to Check Point and say, "Look, I've done the software upgrade and I'm experiencing these problems. How can I deal with them?" They are there to help you out.

There are times when we have problems in terms of software or hardware defects. We have sustained downtime, but most of the architecture I design is resilient, so if one device is down, the other one is working fine. Then in the background, I or my support team will deal with Check Point directly, to get a replacement. They're definitely quick to respond and very efficient. 

In the past, we had a lot of problems with licensing, specifically, but Check Point has redone the whole way they do licensing. It's very quick now, and very efficient.

Check Point firewalls are extremely scalable. Recently, I deployed Check Point in an AWS cloud solution for one of my clients, and it's been absolutely excellent in handling growth. They've grown from 10,000 users to a million users. The way Check Point has advertised the product, it is supposed to be highly scalable, which means it grows as your demand grows, and that has been the case. 

Recently we have set up a test case where we are moving over management servers from on-premise to a Check Point-provided Infinity cloud solution. We are still at the testing phase but, overall, it's been a great experience so far.

The teams we deal with within Check Point are extremely knowledgeable. They know how to understand the background of the problem, and they're very good about articulating how we deal with the issue, whether it's a minor software upgrade issue or it's a major failure of the hardware itself. They know where to look for the right stuff. The key point is they're very knowledgeable and very technical. And if somebody doesn't have the technical capability, they will definitely help you out to make sure you get to the bottom of the problem.

In the past, most of the customers I've worked with have used different firewall vendors, such as Cisco, Palo Alto, and Juniper.

I've recently seen deployments where customers have tried to move from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and the deployment has gone horribly wrong because the product has not been tested by Cisco very well and is not a mature product. I've gone in and reviewed their business requirements and technical requirements and, based on that, I've recommended Check Point and done the design and deployment. They've absolutely been happy with the solution, how secure and how capable it is.

We use Check Point across multiple types of customers, such as financials, retail, and various other public and private sector organizations. I review their security architecture, which is firewall specific and, based on that, I have recommended Check Point. In most cases, I've managed to convince them to go ahead with Check Point firewalls as a preferred secure firewall solution.

The main reason is that Check Point is far ahead in the game. They're definitely the market leader. They are visionaries when it comes to security. Another reason is that a lot of firewall architecture starts from the firewall itself, which is the local firewall. It can easily be hacked and manipulated. However, the Check Point architecture, out-of-the-box, is very secure. They have a central Management Server and all of the firewalls are managed through that one central point. So in case somebody breaks into your firewall, the firewall is encrypted; they will delete the database. The architecture is secure by default. The good thing is that other firewall vendors have realized this and they've started to copy the same system that Check Point has used for the past 20 years now.

When working with the Check Point team on deployment, they're really helpful and very talented people. When you speak to other firewall vendors, they just think about the firewall from their point of view. The good thing about Check Point engineers, or technical staff, or even management staff, is that they understand what the requirements of business are and how they can improve or align the proposed solution. Overall, Check Point staff are very knowledgeable, they understand different industries, and they understand the product very well. That's definitely a competitive edge compared to other firewalls.

Once the design is done, for something simple the deployment can take half a day, whereas for a complex deployment in a data center it can take about five days.

Our implementation plan is divided into different phases. Phase One might be the physical cabling of the firewall device itself. Phase Two would be the logical setup, which means defining the interfaces and the virtual setup of the firewall itself. The final phase would be to bring it online in parallel with production, in a non-prod service, and test it to ensure it works as per the design.

A customer I'm working with right now was running with Check Point and they wanted to move to Fortinet firewalls. However, when I worked with them on the design to upgrade the existing Check Point firewalls, what we worked out was that even though the Fortinet might have seemed like a cheaper option, it didn't have the security capabilities that Check Point is offering. On that basis, the customer signed off on a project for upgrading their existing firewalls, on-premise and cloud, from R77.30 to R80.10.

It can be expensive, but it's value for money. What you pay for is what you get. You can go down in price and buy some cheap firewalls, but you're not going to get great support and you're not going to get the level of protection you need. With Check Point you get all of that.

With Juniper, one of the biggest downsides is support. The support portal is slow and I won't say the staff is competent in terms of understanding. They're very disconnected internally. What I mean is that the team working on the software development of the firewall has no interface with the support teams that are handling day-to-day TAC cases. They definitely struggle when it comes to understanding challenges, problems, and incidents with the firewalls.

In the past, Juniper firewalls were good, but recently the security offering has just not been there. They don't have anything like SandBlast from Check Point. They don't have up-to-date Zero-day attacks control. They're still running a very old architecture. They can do things like antivirus and URL proxy, but those are very simple features. They have none of the advanced feature set that Check Point has.

Palo Alto is very competitive with Check Point when it comes to security. However, one of the challenges with Palo Alto is that, overall, the solution can be extremely complex and expensive. That is one thing I've heard from customers again and again. Either they have existing Palo Altos or they plan to go to Palo Alto, but when they do a comparison with Check Point, what they find is that the overall value with Check Point is much greater than with Palo Alto firewalls.

If you're looking to implement Check Point as a security solution, definitely do your homework. Do some research, not just in terms of firewalls, but overall security architecture. Which ones are the leaders in the field? Which ones are there to deliver what they promise? And overall, how does the architecture work? Is it secure or not? And does it come from a team that understands how to support the solution itself? Are they consistent? Look at their track record for the past 10 or 15 years, or are they a new player? If they are, you don't know whether they're going to stay in the game or not. A good thing about Check Point is that its core product is security. They've been doing it day in and day out. You know they're there to stay in the game. You can trust them.

Check Point is a proven solution. A lot of customers and clients already rely on it. And for the Next Generation Firewalls, they're coming up with new features as security threats become known.

If somebody wants a secure and stable environment, Check Point is definitely the leader to go to; definitely the number-one choice. It's not only what it says on the box. In reality, I've worked with hundreds of banks and they're happy with the product because it works; in practice, it works. That's the main thing.

The product is an excellent perimeter firewall solution. But compared to Palo Alto, the management console is critical. It's difficult to let customers understand the dashboard of the firewall because there are three distinct dashboards. The three dashboards include smart connect, Check Point Firewall dashboard and more. 

The solution is used by our organization for security purposes across small and medium banks in our country, who happen to be customers of our company. 

The architecture of the solution is extraordinary because when a Check Point Firewall protects a customer or organization, a DDoS attack can hardly occur. Another valuable feature is the real-time zero-day protection.  

The user interface needs to improve and should be user-friendly. The customer of this solution also needs to undergo training to use the solution dashboards, unlike products like Palo Alto. 

In the next release, Check Point can try to add the DDoS or web application firewall within the overall firewall. If Check Point is able to implement the aforementioned integration within the firewall module, then people don't need to buy each firewall separately. The comprehensive firewall addition will increase the sales volume of any next generation firewall because TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) will be low. 

I have been using Check Point NGFW for five years. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

If you have the Maestro version, scalability is the best among all competitors. For large organizations that have ten thousand users, they don't need to bother about the extra cost of the Maestro version. For organizations with one or two thousand users, the Maestro version can be a luxury for them. 

The tech support is very helpful for Check Point NGFW. The support team even asks for remote access to resolve the problem immediately. But sometimes, it takes between eight to twelve hours to connect with a level three engineer to get the support. The response time needs to improve. I would rate the tech support a six out of ten. 

A firewall is a critical asset, and when there is a problem with the perimeter firewall, an individual cannot communicate outside the organization, so support is required immediately. 

Neutral

Our company's usual deployment model for the solution is on-premises because cross-border data transmission is prohibited. The installation of Check Point NGFW takes between seven to ten days (working five hours a day). For the banks who are customers of our company, we could only work for deployment after the usual banking hours, so it took longer. 

I can conclude that deployment and running the User Accessibility Test (UAT) can take a maximum of forty hours. Two engineers are needed to deploy Check Point NGFW. 

I have evaluated SentinelOne and CrowdStrike. The rollback feature of ransomware attacks in SentinelOne cannot be found in competitors. 

I would recommend Check Point NGFW over Palo Alto and Cisco as a complex security solution for a complex environment. I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

Our customers primarily use it to safeguard their organization's network against malicious activities and closely monitor user internet usage. The key objectives include implementing controls on web and application usage to restrict unwanted activities among users.

The primary advantage stems from the precision of the application engines. Customers can rest assured that unwanted infiltrations into their organizations are unlikely due to the advanced nature of the IAV engines. The algorithms employed are notably stringent, and while they may not be publicly disclosed, they play a crucial role in thoroughly scanning all incoming network traffic. Leveraging this technology, customers can swiftly and effectively protect their LAN network with Check Point.

Its most significant strength lies in its superior threat detection engines.

I would highlight the need for enhancements in technical support services.

I have been working with it for four months.

I found it to be reliable and stable.

It provides good scalability. In total, we are responsible for around three hundred and fifty endpoints.

Our experience with their customer support is not very satisfactory. We've encountered an incident at one of our customer sites, and despite reaching out for support and raising the issue with them, we haven't received a satisfactory solution from the support team in the past three months. I would rate it three out of ten.

Negative

Compared to other vendors such as FortiGate and Kaspersky, Check Point's protection engines stand out for their intuitiveness. However, the drawback lies in the pricing.

In our deployment process, there are two methods available: standard and distributed. The predominant choice in our country is the standard deployment, utilized by approximately ninety-two to ninety-five percent of our customers. In the standard deployment approach, a separate server is configured with three ports, situated between the firewall and the switch. Configurations are not directly applied to the firewall; instead, they are made on the server. After completing the configurations on the server, the changes, such as creating new firewall rules, are not immediately connected to the firewall. Instead, they go through the server, where calculations are performed, and the configured rules are loaded. If a misconfiguration is detected, the server notifies us, highlighting any inaccuracies in the rules or policies. This preventive measure helps avoid applying flawed configurations directly to the firewall. Regarding the ISMP modules, I believe a single individual is sufficient. Given some time for research, this person should be able to deploy it efficiently for me. The deployment time varies depending on the configurations. Maintenance primarily involves updating the firmware; aside from that, there are no additional requirements.

The greatest value is evident when an immediate threat targets your organization. Check Point firewalls excel in preventing such attacks, thanks to their highly advanced protection engines.

It is a notably expensive product in our country compared to FortiGate and other servers. The support services, licenses, and the additional requirement for another license to avail 24/7 support from Check Point contribute to its overall higher cost.

My recommendation is to allocate time for thorough research when working with it. Relying solely on their support may not be sufficient. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.