Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)

My main use case for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is web application API protection in cloud-native, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments, where it provides automated AI-driven threat prevention, comprehensive API security, zero-day and OWASP Top 10 protection, as well as bot protection and DDoS mitigation.

As a scenario, I can describe a broken object level authorization attack where an enterprise is running a containerized microservice application deployed via Terraform or Docker. The front end communicates with the back-end service through a REST API, and user authentication is handled by a central identity and access management provider such as OAuth2. The attack vector involved an attacker logging in with valid, low-privilege user credentials, which led them to probe the application's back-end endpoint. After requesting their own authorized record, they deployed a script to iterate through other IDs to scrape sensitive data from other tenants. Since the API calls are perfectly formatted and authenticated, a legacy signature-based WAF would typically allow this traffic through. However, the mitigation flow includes automatic schema enforcement, behavioral baseline, IAM context awareness, and surgical blocking. By applying these techniques, we can shift from static rule maintenance to dynamic, context-aware analysis, which is where Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) applies.

The best feature Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) offers is API security.

The features that stand out to me within Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) include the contextual AI threat engine, which I find to be a very useful tool, as well as automated API discovery. Additionally, I appreciate the unified multi-cloud management that allows for the management of policies, logs, and analytics across hybrid and multi-cloud environments through a single control plane.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has positively impacted my organization by reducing rule maintenance, leading to less or near-zero false positives, and enabling frictionless DevSecOps alignment. Regarding Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI capabilities, it possesses local logging control, PII reduction, log suppression, tenant isolation, and deterministic threat scoring. The granular rule-based access list and auditability are also crucial, as they allow for enforcing strict rule-based access control and maintaining immutable audit logs for all admin actions and support access requests.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities have helped my organization by providing more precise detection and response. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs by automatically mapping undocumented API endpoints, ingesting OpenAPI specifications, and enforcing strict schema validation to prevent parameter tampering and logic abuse. This is achieved through automated API discovery and protection. In terms of AI, it evaluates requests against learned behavioral baselines rather than static RegEx signatures, effectively stopping zero-day exploits while drastically minimizing false positives.

There should be more tutorials and documentation about the usage of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) online so more users and tenants can use these security services daily, as it is not as well-documented as other tools, such as the F5 WAF.

I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for three years.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is stable.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) scalability is impressive as it prevents the bottleneck common in traditional centralized WAF appliances and ensures the security throughput grows proportionally alongside application workloads. I do not see any bottlenecks, as it scales through a stateless micro-agent architecture that decouples traffic handling from control plane management.

I purchased Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) through the AWS Marketplace.

The deployment and ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) were easy.

I have not seen a return on investment, as I still have the same number of employees and the same amount of effort and time in hours.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is a bit expensive.

Nothing would make Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) closer to a 10 for me since a 10 would mean preventing against all attacks, which is why it cannot receive that rating; nothing can prevent every attack.

I would advise others looking into using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to take an evaluation license and try it first to understand how it works, and then try it again to form a final opinion about whether they are going to purchase it. This way, they can see if it fits within their current setup. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

What do you like best about the product?

The WAF from Check Point works very well. In the dashboard, I can see an overview of all the requests it has blocked, with specific logs and mainly the origin behind them.

What do you dislike about the product?

I don't find it very user-friendly and it requires more knowledge of underlying systems than I had expected. The high purchase price is a downside for me. Calculating capacity and additional options makes it difficult for me to budget effectively.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Check Point WAF to secure our domains, but it is sometimes not user-friendly and expensive. It offers good protection, shows blocked requests and their origin in a convenient dashboard.

What do you like best about the product?

What I like most about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is how it combines strong security capabilities with a relatively straightforward management experience. The UI is clean and well organized, which makes it easier to monitor traffic, review security events, and manage policies without adding unnecessary complexity.

Its integration capabilities are another plus, especially when connecting the WAF to existing cloud environments and established security workflows. Performance has been reliable as well, providing solid protection without a noticeable impact on application responsiveness. From an ROI standpoint, centralized security management and the reduced effort needed for ongoing monitoring and policy administration make it a worthwhile investment for organizations that require consistent web application protection.

Onboarding and support have also been helpful, particularly when I’ve had configuration or troubleshooting questions. I also appreciate the intelligence built into the platform, which helps identify suspicious activity and potential threats more efficiently than relying entirely on manual analysis. Overall, it strikes a strong balance between security, usability, performance, and operational efficiency.

What do you dislike about the product?

One area that could be improved is the overall complexity of configuration and policy management. Although the interface is generally well organized, some advanced settings take time to understand, especially for new users or teams that aren’t already familiar with web application security concepts. Because of this learning curve, initial setup and troubleshooting can end up being more time-consuming than expected.

Pricing can also be a factor for smaller organizations, particularly when additional capabilities or higher levels of protection are needed. Reporting and analytics could be more intuitive as well; clearer insights and more streamlined dashboards would help users identify trends faster and prioritize security events more effectively. Overall, the product is powerful, but simplifying advanced workflows and making the platform feel more transparent and accessible would significantly improve the user experience.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Check Point WAF helps our organization tackle the challenge of protecting web applications and APIs from evolving security threats, while still keeping security management manageable for our teams. It provides greater visibility into application traffic and helps us identify and block malicious activity before it can affect our applications, users, or business operations.

From my perspective, one of the biggest advantages is the reduction in manual effort needed to monitor and respond to web application security issues. Centralized visibility and policy management make it easier for our security and IT teams to work together, investigate incidents, and maintain consistent protection across our environments.

At the organizational level, it also helps lower security risk, improve operational efficiency, and support broader security and compliance requirements. Rather than relying on multiple disconnected tools and manual processes, we can take a more structured approach to protecting our applications. This enables our teams to spend more time on strategic security initiatives, while still maintaining a strong level of protection for critical business services.

What do you like best about the product?

What I like best about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is its strong balance of security, visibility, and ease of management. It provides effective protection against common web application threats while giving security teams centralized visibility and control. I also like that it integrates well with the broader Check Point security ecosystem, which can simplify monitoring and policy management for organizations already using Check Point products.

What do you dislike about the product?

The main thing I dislike about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it can feel complex to configure and manage, especially for teams that are new to the platform. Fine-tuning security policies and rules can require some time and expertise, and the overall cost can also be a consideration for smaller organizations. The user interface and documentation could be more intuitive in some areas to make troubleshooting and day-to-day administration easier.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Check Point WAF helps us protect our web applications and APIs from threats such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and other malicious traffic. It reduces the risk of application-level attacks while providing visibility into traffic and security events. This benefits us by improving our overall security posture, reducing the amount of manual monitoring required, and giving the team greater confidence that our internet-facing applications are protected without significantly impacting legitimate users.

What do you like best about the product?

I like Check Point WAF's strong security capabilities combined with ease of management. The policy management is flexible, which is really helpful. Plus, the initial setup is relatively straightforward, making the transition smoother.

What do you dislike about the product?

I find the initial deployment and policy tuning can take time.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Check Point WAF to protect our public-facing application from cyber threats like SQL injections, XSS, and OWASP vulnerabilities. Its strong security capabilities and ease of management, like flexible policy management, are key benefits.