Due to the nature of our business, we have heavily invested in backend API development, providing services exclusively through this interface. Similar to how banks and medical industries utilize data from centralized sources, our APIs cannot be exposed directly to the Internet. To safeguard these critical APIs, a robust security solution is essential. 

Check Point CloudGuard WAF fulfills this need by intercepting all incoming internet traffic, categorizing requests as legitimate or malicious, including attack details, and blocking suspicious activity at the initial stage. Only verified, non-malicious requests are permitted to interact with our APIs.

When we activate the WAF, our security signatures and all the latest threat intelligence are immediately updated. Our protection is automatically refreshed every few hours to address emerging threats. For example, if a zero-day attack originates in Europe, Check Point CloudGuard can detect it within minutes and distribute a new signature globally. This ensures that when the attack reaches Australia, it is already blocked by our up-to-date WAF.

Although the WAF still produces false positives because of the signatures, we can apply a rule to exclude them easily.

Automated threat intelligence is crucial because a ransomware attack can compromise a network in minutes. Imagine an attack occurring at 3 AM when staff is unavailable; the damage may already be done when someone investigates. Ransomware can infiltrate and complete its task within just a few sessions. Once inside, attackers can lay dormant for months, covertly sending data using internal IP addresses. These addresses are often whitelisted, making it difficult to detect whether the outbound traffic is authorized or malicious. Automated threat intelligence can rapidly detect and respond to attacks, unlike manual processes that take 15 to 20 minutes, often too late to prevent significant damage like a completed ransomware attack. Systems like OCSP, utilizing best practices from multiple vendors such as Azure, Microsoft, CheckPoint, Palo Alto, and CloudStrike, provide an open platform for sharing and updating threat signatures. This enables organizations to tailor their security measures based on specific application needs and behaviors, effectively mitigating risks without unnecessary restrictions.

Cloud-based WAF solutions, such as Check Point's, offer significant advantages compared to traditional on-premises WAFs like Cisco or Palo Alto. On-premises WAFs require substantial upfront costs for hardware, expensive licenses, and frequent, costly upgrades as technology evolves. Cloud-based alternatives eliminate these expenses by providing the latest features and capabilities without hardware or software management. This flexibility and cost-efficiency make cloud WAFs appealing to many organizations. However, cloud solutions can be more expensive for high-throughput applications like Instagram or Facebook due to data transfer costs. At the same time,  on-premises options might be more economical in these cases. Ultimately, the best choice depends on specific network size, criticality, and application requirements.

Machine learning is a valuable tool for this assessment because it allows for a two-phase approach: secure and non-secure. In the first secure phase, pre-built signatures are used, eliminating the need for a live tracker as the necessary data is readily available. This approach efficiently blocks threats without progressing to the slower, resource-intensive second phase. Unlike competitors who process every request, this method conserves CPU power and prevents application slowdowns.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF's code could be improved. While the GUI allows configuration for application-related features, specific definitions cannot be modified through the code. Ideally, we would prefer consistent configuration across all products to simplify deployment, but in this case, the ISE is incompatible with the two or three different models we've identified. Therefore, we must rely solely on the GUI for configuration.

I have used Check Point CloudGuard WAF for four months.

It was stable in the four months we ran Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. We only reached 80 percent of our CPU capacity.

The technical support is good. We didn't use them much, demonstrating the product's quality.

Positive

At that stage, our primary goal was to select a suitable WAF to replace our existing F5 WAF. While the F5 WAF performed well, we sought to eliminate it due to excessive licensing costs. Given the high expense of our entire WAF solution, we explored alternatives, including Azure WAF, Check Point WAF, and Palo Alto WAF. Although we initially considered Cisco WAF, it was quickly discarded as outdated. After a two-week evaluation, we narrowed our options to Azure, Check Point, and Palo Alto WAFs.

The deployment is straightforward and similar to any standard firewall installation. While the process took four days due to design finalization, deploying directly from code can be completed in less than thirty minutes.

Two people were involved in the deployment, one working on the design and the other on the ISE.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF. I would rate the cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF as eight out of ten, with ten being the most costly.

We evaluated Cisco WAF, but it is outdated and no longer competitive. Since we utilize Azure Cloud, we opted for Azure WAF due to our preference for cloud-based solutions. Azure WAF has performed well and is seamlessly integrated behind the scenes. We also evaluated Palo Alto, but configuration challenges through ISE led us to discontinue its use seven months ago. Check Point CloudGuard WAF was abandoned for similar reasons. Azure WAF's integration with ISE, including built-in Bicep modules for CLI configuration and deployment, is a significant advantage. Currently, we manage approximately 35 IP addresses and require two distinct stages for WAF settings and module deployment. Consistent signature stem definition across different environments is essential. ISE was crucial in our decision-making process, ultimately replacing Check Point due to the latter's lack of ISE integration, a critical requirement. While Check Point offered several strengths, the absence of ISE was a deal-breaker. Overall, Azure WAF has met our expectations.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

We have six environments in multiple locations and eight products that use 20 APIs.

We have a team of four working with the WAF.

I would recommend Check Point CloudGuard WAF if it fully meets the organization's needs, the cost is reasonable, and they desire AI and ML integration in the future. However, since we do not require AI or ML and prioritize ISE for our management approach, this solution did not align with our requirements.

With CloudGuard WAF, I can deploy a cloud-based network protection solution that secures my applications, endpoints, and data.

The features I have found most valuable are the comprehensive threat prevention capabilities, automated policy management, and seamless integration with cloud environments.

For the next release, I would suggest considering features like enhanced threat intelligence integration.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for about two years.

The stability of the product has been good so far.

Check Point's technical support is helpful and knowledgeable overall, but there can be delays in response, especially regarding licensing issues.

The main reasons I chose this vendor for web application security were their ability to consolidate management facilities, their comprehensive features, and their flexibility in addressing different security needs.

We have seen ROI from using CloudGuard WAF.

I believe that the pricing or licensing of CloudGuard WAF could be more competitive.

Implementing CloudGuard WAF allowed me to address the challenges of securing my applications and data in a rapidly evolving cloud environment.

Using CloudGuard WAF has brought significant benefits, including improved threat protection, streamlined policy management, and enhanced usability. I noticed these advantages shortly after the first deployment.

It is extremely important to me that CloudGuard optimizes security to protect my applications without solely relying on signatures.

To access the false positive rate, I typically review assessment reports available on platforms like AWS or Azure. By evaluating how effectively the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and minimizes false positives, I can reduce the total cost of ownership for my web application security.

The solution's privacy features, user-friendly web console, virtual deployment options, and physical appliance capabilities have all contributed to reducing my total cost of ownership.

Overall, I would rate CloudGuard WAF as an eight out of ten.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be used in various scenarios, including on-premises and cloud deployments. It integrates well with other platforms like Fortinet and can be managed through a centralized console. It is suitable for multi-cloud environments, including Google Cloud Platform and Azure. Additionally, Check Point AppSec can be used alongside CloudGuard WAF for comprehensive application security.

The most effective CloudGuard feature for threat prevention is its web app protection.

CloudGuard could improve in areas such as ease of integration with Fortinet and reducing costs associated with deployment in cloud environments like Azure. Simplifying the implementation process and offering more cost-effective solutions could make it more competitive and easier for clients to adopt.

I have been working with Check Point CloudGuard WAF for two years.

CloudGuard is stable, with minimal interruptions to service. In the event of interruptions, there is a data center alternative within CloudGuard. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate its stability as a solid nine out of ten.

It is easy to scale up CloudGuard as needed, and the licensing is based on traffic rather than the number of URLs. This means that clients only need to license the solution based on their traffic requirements, regardless of the number of applications they have deployed. I would rate the scalability as an eight out of ten.

Check Point offers strong customer service and technical support. While I interact with account managers for negotiations and collaborate with Check Point engineers during projects, the dedicated customer service team ensures a positive experience. Overall, I would rate the support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of CloudGuard is somewhat straightforward, but it involves creating virtual machines, which can add complexity and cost, especially in cloud environments like Azure. Clients should carefully consider recommendations and costs associated with CloudGuard and compare them with alternatives like Fortinet to make informed decisions.

Deployment of Check Point CloudGuard typically requires a small team, often consisting of around two to three staff members from cybersecurity departments or Check Point Harmony solution teams.

For maintenance of Check Point CloudGuard, typically one or two people are required to ensure the solution functions properly, including updating applications and managing access.

The auto-generation of WAF rules has positively impacted our security posture by efficiently identifying and mitigating threats. In cloud security, it may reduce delays in detecting and responding to security incidents. By checking the security posture of clients' websites, we can assess cybersecurity risks, such as those specific to certain industries, improving overall security awareness and readiness.

The deep API protection provided by CloudGuard has several benefits, such as comparing API calls to updates in cybersecurity groups and enhancing security for web applications and APIs. An example of CloudGuard's effectiveness is when protecting cloud-based RP systems or electronic invoice applications. In these cases, CloudGuard secures the cloud environment, including databases, against malware, encrypts applications, and provides overall application protection.

CloudGuard integrates well with existing cloud security tools and management systems, making it easy to implement and manage.

I would recommend CloudGuard to others, especially for organizations heavily reliant on cloud infrastructure and applications. It provides comprehensive security coverage, including WAF, which is essential for safeguarding applications in the cloud. I often suggest CloudGuard to clients to enhance their cybersecurity posture and mitigate risks effectively.

Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF as an eight out of ten.

It's our cloud security tool for management solutions. We have tenants on the web portal and other systems, which are part of the POC activity. We haven't bought it; they just put it on the computer today.

It has helped us to improve our security posture by providing us with a centralized platform for managing security across all of our cloud environments. It has also helped us to save time and money by automating many of our security tasks.

I find the configuration and real-time monitoring features valuable.

It doesn't detect user activity like some of its competitors. It's not a vulnerability, but it's a legitimate activity that it doesn't detect. It only detects vulnerabilities or misconfigurations.

Additionally, Zenix features are not handled or captured.

We just had a POC for CloudGuard. It's only been two or three months.

It is a stable solution. We didn't face any downtimes. 

It is scalable enough for our use case. 

The customer service and support were very good.

Positive

We had POCs from different vendors. We haven't used any other solution before. This is our first time trying a cloud security solution.

There were a few reasons. First, we are from India, and Check Point has a strong presence in the Indian market. Second, we needed a solution that could support multiple cloud environments, including Azure, AWS, and Oracle.  

The initial setup is a straightforward process. There were no difficulties. 

It took us one to two weeks to deploy it. We have deployed it in AWS and Oracle cloud. 

The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average. 

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

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security helps us ensure the security of contact devices and meet audit requirements for compliance. 

The tool performs device health checkups and updates us. It helps us to be compliant with regulatory policies. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

We encountered stability issues during the configuration. The tool's stability is good. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security is scalable. My company has 1000 users for it. 

The tool's support is good. 

Positive

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's deployment is easy and completed in six hours. You need two to three resources to handle the deployment. You need proper training to do it. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive. 

I rate Check Point CloudGuard Application Security an eight out of ten.