I use it on our websites and web servers, and it is protecting against malicious code and injection code, as well as any type of attacks.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF enhances web application security with AI-driven threat prevention and seamless cloud integration.

The Check Point WAF gives me a view that I did not have that occurs on the web servers. 

It allows me to show results and reports to demonstrate the attacks, the number of attacks, and prevention measures.

It protects against threats without relying on signatures. The zero-day attacks could be bad. Without this, we wouldn't know al the attacks we're getting. It allows us to save time manually analyzing on the web servers. It frees us up.

It helps against zero-day attacks and protects against anomalies. It's one of the factors that made us choose this solution. 

For now, the product is doing all that I need, however, I need the support of IPv6.

I have used the solution for three months.

It is very stable, never crashing or giving me an error that I can see. It responds very quickly and allows me to enter the menu and set up and configure everything without problems.

The customer service is very good. I have opened one or two cases and received quick responses.

Positive

I have not used any other solutions for a while.

The initial setup is very easy. We use it for our on-prem web servers. It only takes five minutes to deploy.

I used an integrator to help with the implementation the first time. They explained the phases, and it was very simple and quick. The person who helped was from Portugal.

I don't have an exact number in terms of ROI.

The setup cost is very simple. It is a really good price considering the functionalities of the product and the price of the license. It is very well-calibrated.

We did not evalute another solution. I'm a Check Point customer. 

If someone is only using a cloud-native product and not using something like CloudGuard, I'd advise buying it. It is a very good product. Now with WAF, I see many attacks being prevented. It is a good solution for me. I have five million requests per month on our web server. The last results I saw showed maybe 50% to 60% of attacks being prevented. 

I rate it ten out of ten. I am very satisfied.

I use the solution for almost all of our web servers.

Before CloudGuard, we periodically had some website issues. Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again. 

The rate limit feature is the most useful feature of the product.

We don't need to rely on signatures. We are protected when the signature doesn't exist. 

It can protect against zero-day attacks and hidden anomalies. It blocks items that would affect the company.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate. It took a bit of time, however, not long. We're near zero false positives. 

The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good. More user-friendly features could be added. Perhaps something between CloudGuard management and the virtual appliance on-site could be faster. 

It could be interesting to have an app for smartphones to manage all the cloud environments.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The stability is always good. 

The scalability is always good.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. I am satisfied. It is always good. 

I have dealt with a very complex situation. We are fortunate to have a global presence in 98 countries. We have about 400 people working worldwide. 

Our challenge is to support our customers and protect our infrastructure, which is quite different from normal ones. Unlike a typical company that centralizes everything in a data center, we work in countries with strict legal restrictions. This requires us to create a separate infrastructure for each country. I need something to support us and provide compliance.

I am a very exposed company, and this solution helps prevent attacks.

I have thousands of exposed websites and APIs. Being able to control what is happening and try to prevent any attack is the best feature. 

I provide gamification, and if one wants to acquire services like Netflix, they can go through my application. Some people try to find tokens to sell on the black market; however, with the WAF, I'm able to understand what's happening and block it in real-time.

It's important to protect against threats without relying on signatures. If it sees any anomaly, it just blocks it.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helps guard against zero-day attacks. Luckily, we haven't had any.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helped reduce the cost of ownership for our web application firewall by 50%. We have everything centralized and we can configure everything centrally.

We've been able to reduce our false positive rate by 80%. It's easier to have something automated instead of a person working on this, checking everything. 

I'm not sure what can be improved. I don't manage the solution. It seems to be a product that runs all the time. They might be able to add more integrations. Security could always be improved. Overall, it's very good. 

I have used the solution for the last three years.

I would give stability a nine out of ten for sure. It is very stable. As an evolved product, there are always areas to mature, of course, however, it provides a very good and mature experience.

I enjoy it the scalability. I can scale up or down based on workload, so I'm very fortunate with that.

I have a great partnership with Check Point. I know a lot of people who work there. For me, it's a very positive and beneficial relationship.

Positive

I did not use any previous solutions.

The initial setup was very intuitive. I had minor issues, however, that was due to not reading the documentation properly. Overall, it was a very satisfying and straightforward experience.

I did the implementation by myself, however, I have a partner as well. They can do things first; however, I managed it on my own since it was easy to do.

We have yet to see an ROI.

For me, the pricing and licensing is a fair value for what they provide.

I did not consider alternate solutions. This was included in my subscription. I have a full suite of Check Point products, so I just use this.

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. I'm not the one managing it. From what I've heard about the challenges we face, I would rate it a seven. In one project, we had to use mutual certificates, and it wasn't the best experience to configure. It is doable, however, it can be improved. This causes some issues for our customers. 

If someone is only using a cloud-native option WAF, they are missing out on agility. We're more agile since we can protect everything we have. And multi-cloud is a real thing. Everyone has multiple clouds, so centralizing everything into one place is the greatest, in my opinion. 

My use case is mainly for new products that come up in the marketing field, products that are fast and need quick assimilation.

We connected protections, mainly of the WAF for products that do not need too much scam validation or more complex functions. The aim was to provide a quick response to marketing campaigns, customer transportation, and things that need very fast implementation.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has helped our organization in time-to-market manners; the time to market is very short. Unlike other products we tested, which were a bit more complex, they would take a day's process. Check Point CloudGuard WAF only takes a few minutes of assimilation and then goes live.

Its ability to protect our applications against threats without relying on signatures is one of the benefits I liked about this product. It does not depend on signatures. It looks at the anomaly in behavior. This is what we call a modern application. It saves us the headache of these updates and also the fact that the zero day usually has no signature.

The ability to preemptively block zero day attacks and detect hidden anomalies is exactly its advantage. The zero day does not wait for a signature but looks at behavior. This is how a modern app should be. If you wait for the unknown, your application will be affected, but with this solution, even if you don't know where the attack could come from, the product protects it because of the behavior. That's the advantage.

The assimilation time is short, about a few minutes only, so it is very simple for us and shortens the time of our functions. I'd say it has lowered 30% of our time.

In a product like this, there are not many false positive cases, at least not in our type of implementations, which are not complex. When you do not hear about any false positives, it is a sign that the solution is doing its job.

This product is very simple, it does not require complexity in its implementation. Its ability to deploy our materials quickly is what we appreciate the most.

I would like it to be able to analyze more complex functions, although I did not examine the case study of more complex implementations. Things like forum fields, etc seem to need a little more focused protection of the fields scheme validation. I would say that the more automation this product has, the easier it will be to work with it.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for six months.

There were never any server issues, they're very stable.

I am not really sure about its scalability since our framework is very limited at the moment. I am guessing that after we try to deepen our use cases, we may scale then.

Check Point is known for providing really good service. If a ticket is opened, it is addressed and not neglected. The emphasis is on the Israeli team, which knows how to achieve escalations and provide a response. We were never left without an answer.

Positive

We have had several protections from other WAF products that we have tested. Their implementations were longer, more complex, and sometimes, because of the speed we would implement it after it went live because of the times. The time to market was short, and we didn't have time to achieve the desired time window.

Today, with Check Point CloudGuard WAF, there is no way we'll go live without protection.

We used and evaluated Radware and Reblaze. They were very expensive and also dependent on third-party services. With Check Point CloudGuard WAF, everything was done easily in-house.

I'm in charge of the regulations, the SECOPS team is the one involved in the deployment. I'm more of a policy guide, and from what I've noticed, the experience was good.

We always have a business partner who accompanies us in projects of this type. We have always had a good experience with them, the're very professional.

The biggest ROI is that the time to market is good; I am not holding back the business. I do not look that much at attack prevention because that's something that every product usually does. The ROI is the time to assimilate and the short time to market. Those are its benefits.

I am less knowledgeable with prices because I only define the requirements and look at the execution. I know that its price is relatively expensive compared to other products but it gives benefits that are worth it.

My advice would be to use this solution since it's cloud-based and the deployment is quick and easy.

Overall, the platform is great. I would consolidate it from the usual infrastructures, though. Every platform requires someone to focus on it, so it would be good if an integrator would be more involved in this specific solution.

My use cases include the use of WAF, landing pages, etc.

We see the advantages of a WAF solution when there’s silence, when there are no attacks, no mess, no fails. This is his biggest advantage and how it benefits my company.

Overall, it's a good product. I also have f5 for internal things that I use in another area. We work with several products. I’ve been working with a lot of Check Point’s products for a while, so choosing CloudGuard WAF wasn’t a big decision for me. 

It's a significant advantage that it's not signature-based; it's not too important to me, but it's good that it's that way.

Its ability to preemptively block zero-day attacks and detect hidden anomalies is the advantage of the product. It knows how to protect against any behavior and saves you from messing with signatures; that's its advantage.

There are no false positives in WAF for the most part. If there is an attack, then you know it, and there is mitigation for it. I wouldn’t say the reduction is noticeable.

The assimilation is fast overall. As long as I don't have unique problems that I need support for, usually when WAF works, it works. It's not something you manipulate, it's not an antivirus where you deal with signatures, updates, and upgrades every day. If it works, it works.

I have been using the solution for five months.

It is a very simple product, it’s very stable.

It has great scalability. I see the involvement of Check Point’s team whenever I want to scale. If I need to scale, I open a Whatsapp group with the director and the team, and we quickly proceed to do so.

I get the delivery I want from Check Point, I am a big enough customer to get the best delivery. I also received full technical support, especially during the implementation.

I would rate them a ten out of ten. They are always quick to respond to me.

Positive

The setup was relatively easy; it's a product that is easy to deploy, and there were no big drawbacks. During the installation, we tested it on two apps first; we saw that it worked as it should, and then we moved on to the other apps. The process itself is not long at all. We have another WAF system that we use in other areas so we were aware of how to run these sorts of solutions.

I work directly with the manufacturer; in this case I worked with someone from Check Point itself.

The ROI is that we are not attacked and are confidently protected. When we are attacked, we can understand how important the solution is. We have to get the blow to understand the importance of the solution.

It didn't lower the TCO, it actually raised it, in my opinion. It is more expensive than f5, where we purchased everything as bundles, and Check Point costs more, but it is worth the money.

Check Point is cheaper than Radware. It is relatively cheaper for a WAF solution which is something that we liked and made us choose it. It is a bit difficult to know the price differences since everything is always included in a bundle.

We also looked at Radware, but in the end, we chose this solution because it is very simple to use, and it gave us a much simpler and friendlier interface.

My advice would be to check the use cases you need to see if CloudGuard suits you. I recommend the solution in general.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. I can’t give it a 10 because there’s always room for improvement. I’d say that there should be better support from the integration team, I’m not sure if it’s Check Point’s responsibility, though. Overall, the product is excellent.

I am currently evaluating a hybrid solution for our infrastructure since some of our services are hosted on-premises while others are processed through the cloud. We have multiple websites, applications, and some non-web-based applications that we need to protect.

The solution's ability to handle multiple websites and applications without needing more expensive hardware is a key advantage. 

The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature. It also supports legacy applications and improves security access. Upon implementation and evaluation with third-party penetration testing, it meets rigorous security standards required for dealing with financial institutions and provides necessary protection between our central office and peripheries through VPN access. 

The solution allows for proactive support and parts replacement.

The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation. The provider could improve by providing better guidance and support during the configuration process.

I am happy with their support. They were responsive even before we committed to buying their solution. The support rating is about seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Positive

We looked at FortiGate and some open-source solutions, however, they either did not fully meet our requirements or required a dedicated person for administration, making them cost-prohibitive.

We collaborated with our vendor, A1, which also offers parts replacement and support as part of the package.

The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support.

The price is fair for the features offered. For us, it is cost-effective compared to hiring a dedicated person for administration.

Prior to choosing the current solution, we considered FortiGate and other open-source solutions.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.