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.

We did a PoC with Check Point CloudGuard WAF for a month. We had acquired it for a month for testing purposes to see how it would help us with our setup.

It was placed at the starting point of our network infrastructure wherein all the traffic was monitored. We created security policies on Check Point CloudGuard WAF. Whenever an IP used to come to us, it would basically go through a set of policies, and then Check Point CloudGuard WAF would search for malware and other things in the traffic.

During the PoC, we did not face any issues related to false positives. I am in the network security team, and we have a security operations team as well. The security operations team has an SIEM tool. Whenever an alert got updated in the SIEM tool, they used to pass it on to us. We could easily find the logs for a particular alert generated on Check Point CloudGuard WAF. It was always correct. We did not observe any false positives with them.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF protects your applications against threats without relying on signatures. It works fine without signatures, but it cannot detect all the malicious traffic that might enter the setup.

Check Point has its own threat intelligence database. It is global. All the malicious samples are added to that. Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them. That was a good feature of Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

We had scheduled a time for the database update, so every day at 3 pm, the CVE database used to get updated.

It was costlier than other solutions. We brought it into our setup for PoC purposes. It was there for one month. We liked all the features, but compared to its competitors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto, it was a little bit costly. However, considering the cost, it was good and efficient. Other than the price, I did not see any room for improvement.

I used Check Point CloudGuard WAF for a month. It was in the month of January 2024.

We never faced any issues with Check Point CloudGuard WAF. However, in the case of Check Point Firewall, we experienced crashing issues with the SmartConsole application.

I have not contacted Check Point support for Check Point CloudGuard WAF. It was with us only during the PoC. During the one-month period, we did not face any issues, but for other products, we generally raise a TAC case with the Check Point team. We have a Check Point Firewall in our setup, and whenever we face issues with it, we raise a case with Check Point TAC. Technical support of Check Point is good. They respond on time. They analyze the logs properly and give a proper workaround.

I was not involved in its deployment. We have a company named Softcell in India. They are the first point of contact, and Check Point is the second point of contact in our setup. Whenever we have to implement any new Check Point devices in our setup, we raise a service request with the Softcell team, and they provide an engineer for the implementation. However, I was a part of the deployment team of the Check Point Firewall 16000 series, and we did not face any issues.

I work for an Indian banking client. In India, companies are on a budget. The company liked Check Point very much, but it was a little bit costly compared to FortiWeb. However, it had more features compared to FortiWeb. 

Check Point CloudGuard WAF was quite good compared to FortiWeb. We have FortiWeb now due to budget constraints, but feature-wise, Check Point CloudGuard WAF was quite durable and reliable.

I am not very aware of how Check Point CloudGuard WAF works at preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. If it is updated in the global database, Check Point CloudGuard WAF could prevent Zero Day attacks from getting triggered.

Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a nine out of ten.

We have multiple cloud tenants, such as AWS and Azure, and we wanted to make sure we are secure.

By implementing CloudGuard WAF, we wanted to avoid using the built-in WAF. We wanted to avoid using the WAFs built into our Azure or AWS products. We wanted to make sure that we were using something proven and secure.

It is extremely important to us that CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. We are a financial institution, and we want to make sure that we do not have any type of traffic that infiltrates our cloud environment. We have 90,000 members around the world.

CloudGuard WAF is very good in terms of false positives. I do not see a lot of static noise, which we used to see with other apps that were in place. It is fantastic.

CloudGuard WAF has been fantastic for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. I would rate it a ten out of ten for that. As soon as we see a Zero Day, we get the alerts right away, and we are able to do the patching. This guarantees the use of our services. It is immediate and in real-time.

CloudGuard WAF has reduced the total cost of ownership for our web application firewall. It has reduced the overhead of not having people manually look at or review the alerts. It has been more automated.

It is mainly for egress and ingress, just making sure that we are keeping the proper traffic. The integration with Azure ExpressRoute was also key for us.

We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results.

In terms of features, I do not have any negatives. Their integration is extremely quick. It is better than others I have been involved with in the past. Their pricing model, however, can be better. 

I have been using CloudGuard WAF for two years.

We have had zero issues. Being a financial organization, just like others, our big issue is having any kind of downtime. Any downtime affects our members, and if our members are affected, they will withdraw the money. It has been fantastic. We have had zero events.

There are no real ends. We are a smaller environment compared to what they are used to working with. I have no concerns with being able to scale with them.

It is being used across cross-functional teams for different applications that are involved. We have 335 employees, and at least 300 employees touch this environment at any given time.

We definitely have plans to increase its usage. There are some plans in-house to expand the cloud environment.

They are fantastic. We never had an issue. Whenever we need something, we get a response. 

We also have a managed service provider. We have engineers from the Teneo group, and they are always great if we need any help. 

Positive

We were using the built-in WAF, but that was before my time, and I knew better. 

We did not go with our cloud vendor's web application firewall because it is against the best practices. From everything I have read and studied, I would rather go with something that is proven. There are a lot more vulnerabilities that have been exploited with native WAFs.

It is a public cloud. We have AWS and Azure.

I was involved in the initial deployment only from a high level. I was able to support the team to grab the necessary resources. Outside of that, it was just more of approvals.

Its deployment was straightforward. The deployment was outlined very well. We use one of the resellers and managed service providers for Check Point called Teneo. They explained everything. They told us exactly how it was going to go. They had their folks in place, and it was just very straightforward. It was very easy.

We had the help of Teneo. They were brilliant, and then I was able to help the team with the right pieces to get it accomplished.

We recently did an integration with Azure ExpressRoute. We are bringing it in so that we have a safer way for the egress and ingress with our vendors. I wanted to make sure that we involved the infrastructure team. We had a cloud architect and our cybersecurity team involved. We also ran it through our change advisory board and the architectural review board. We wanted to cover all bases to make sure that all aspects are covered.

We have definitely seen an ROI. There has been a consolidation with not just the cloud stack, but Check Point in general. It has been nice to eliminate products. We have already eliminated close to $250,000 annually in different tools by consolidation.

This is where I have a different opinion. If the pricing for the Infinity platform covers everything, it would be more straightforward. I had a hard time selling it to our CEO as a former CFO because of the differentials. There are different deltas year to year over a five-year period. It is very difficult to explain. It would be easier to digest for our executives if there was a flatter scale.

We did not evaluate other solutions only because we have Check Point in-house, and I was able to talk to our rep. We were able to get a nice solution from them, so we did not have to evaluate any other solution.

To those evaluating CloudGuard WAF, I would advise that for integration, make sure they have a trusted partner that is going to help them with the integration plan or they have the in-house skills to develop that plan. 

I would rate CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten.

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.

Our primary use cases include enhancing security for web applications and APIs, optimizing resource utilization to reduce costs, and maximizing efficiency in log management for better insights and savings.

CloudGuard WAF has improved our organization by simplifying security management and enhancing our ability to monitor and analyze logs effectively.

The most valuable feature we have found in Check Point CloudGuard WAF is its rich logging capabilities.

In terms of improvement, I feel like I need more clarity in understanding pricing for DDoS protection.

I have been working with CloudGuard WAF for a month.

CloudGuard WAF impressed us with its stability; it is a powerful tool providing great visibility.

CloudGuard WAF's scalability is excellent, especially as a SaaS, offering significant improvements over on-premises environments and providing consolidated scalability.

The technical support is amazing.

We previously used Cloudflare. Now, we are testing WAF to enhance our log insights.

The initial deployment was straightforward. We transitioned from an on-premises solution to a SaaS model, which was simpler and more useful. Our implementation strategy involved redirecting the site to the new solution and creating policies to ensure smooth operation.

We haven't seen ROI metrics yet, but we expect long-term benefits, especially in budget management and risk reduction.

Before choosing CloudGuard, we evaluated options like Azure and AWS. The main differences lie in policy customization, market size, and preset features. Each has its pros and cons, but CloudGuard stood out for its robust policy options and wide market presence.

By implementing Check Point CloudGuard WAF we aimed to address challenges related to enhancing security for web applications while leveraging powerful logging capabilities.

We check false positives in CloudGuard WAF using logs and the interface, and we have had very few issues, which helps our business.

Using preset policies, the solution preemptively blocks zero-day attacks and detects hidden anomalies without requiring full data.

The solution has cut our web application firewall costs because it is adaptable to our environment.

My advice to new users would be to focus on the benefits of software as a service and ensure clarity in understanding pricing, particularly for DDoS protection.

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

We utilize Check Point CloudGuard to protect our Office 365 email system from phishing attempts, which were becoming increasingly common. Additionally, we rely on it to secure our usage of Microsoft Teams for collaboration, as well as for our SharePoint platform. Furthermore, we leverage CloudGuard Endpoint to safeguard our machines, particularly because many of our end users frequently travel abroad. This ensures that we have visibility into their activities and locations, allowing us to restrict access if necessary or provide remote assistance when needed.

We were facing several challenges that prompted us to implement CloudGuard Application Security. Previously, we used another vendor for email security, but we found that many emails were slipping through, requiring us to manually review each one. This became a significant overhead, as we had to ensure that every email was properly tagged. With Check Point's email security solution, this overhead was practically eliminated. 

Now, the number of emails slipping through is minimal, perhaps only once or twice a month. Additionally, Check Point's solution streamlines the process by notifying users of potentially legitimate emails that were flagged as suspicious. This feature has been particularly helpful since our company relies heavily on email for contract-related communications. On the endpoint security front, we were impressed by Check Point's ransomware protection feature, including its anti-ransomware rollback capability. Having experienced the importance of such features in previous roles, it was a straightforward decision for us to switch from our previous vendor to Check Point.

The benefits we've observed are significant. On the email front, my workload has been drastically reduced, practically eliminating overhead. As for Check Point, it provides peace of mind knowing that in the event of a ransomware attack, the system has a rollback feature. This reassures me that I'll have the opportunity to investigate and diagnose any issues that may arise.

In terms of email, Check Point's solution effectively blocked numerous phishing emails that were previously slipping through, which is a significant advantage. Regarding Check Point in general, the cloud-based management capability is highly beneficial as it eliminates the need for on-premise appliances or servers. Additionally, it ensures that I can still manage the security of devices even when they're outside the corporate network.

It's very important that CloudGuard Application Security defends our applications against threats without solely relying on signatures. Relying solely on signature-based detection is limited, as it's only as effective as the signatures themselves. With the ever-evolving nature of threats, especially in environments like conferences where new threats emerge frequently, relying solely on signatures may not be sufficient. I've taken the initiative to test various security solutions by experimenting with different malware downloads and observing how they perform. This hands-on approach underscores the importance of having a robust behavioral engine, like the one provided by Check Point, which adds an additional layer of security beyond traditional signature-based detection.

Regarding false positives with CloudGuard Application Security, particularly in emails, I've encountered very few instances.

The solution has effectively lowered our total cost of ownership for our web application firewall, particularly in the context of email security.

We opted not to go with our CloudGuard vendor's web application firewall because, in the case of Microsoft, we decided to try their email security system. However, it didn't perform as expected, with many threats slipping through. Consequently, Check Point's solution proved to be more effective in this scenario.

On the endpoint side, the most valuable feature is undoubtedly the cloud-based management capability, along with the ransomware protection, despite not encountering any instances so far. Regarding email security, the standout feature is the minimal overhead, essentially reducing the task to routine maintenance.

One area for potential improvement is the management interface. Occasionally, when there are major updates, the layout of the menus changes, which can be somewhat disruptive as I need to search for familiar options. Consistency in menu structure would be beneficial, as it allows users to develop muscle memory and navigate the interface more efficiently over time. Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement.

I have been using it for five years.

In terms of stability, I find it generally reliable. However, there have been a few issues, particularly with license renewal, where the system would unexpectedly go offline without notifying me. This would sometimes take a couple of days to resolve, requiring support intervention to address licensing issues.

Tech support is prompt, knowledgeable, and efficient. On a scale from zero to ten, I would rate them a solid ten.

Positive

Previously, our email security solution was provided by Barracuda, and our endpoint security was handled by ESET.

The initial setup was straightforward, primarily because it involved mainly APIs, which simplified the process.

I was in charge for the deployment.

We've observed ROI primarily in terms of cost reduction. This is mainly because there are fewer servers to manage now compared to other solutions, where on-premise servers were necessary.

I find the pricing to be reasonable.

I also evaluated SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, Mimecast, and CheckPoint. Ultimately, I chose Check Point because of its comprehensive IT toolset, which allows me to manage all aspects from a single dashboard. I appreciated the convenience of not having to switch between different units for different functionalities, thus avoiding the creation of multiple interfaces.

The advice I would offer to others regarding Check Point products revolves around their robust features, particularly the rollback feature. I appreciate how Check Point handles this compared to some competitors who use their own driver on the DriveSpace, whereas others leverage Microsoft VSS. Regarding email security, it's straightforward to deploy and has a high catch rate compared to competitors. Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

We use AppSec. The primary use case was for our client's app. We did a successful project with the biggest university in Mexico. It was a big survey for all the former students. There were thousands of them, and it needed to be completed based on some specifications from the security team.

The service was available for the client on time. They had a go-to-market or a due date to start sending the app to various students to apply. We were there 24/7 hoping and waiting for everything to be fine, and it worked perfectly and smoothly.

The client was very happy with the performance of Check Point on this project. When comparing it with Imperva, we strongly feel that the formula that Check Point delivers on WAF was what the client needed.

Check Point CloudGuard works perfectly for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies. Check Point is all about prevention. We strongly believe that if you want to prevent threats, Check Point is the one. There is no one else.

There are two main features. The first valuable feature is that it is not a complex process to get it up and running. It was not complex at all. We were in a close relationship with the team that developed the app, and it worked in a few hours.

The second valuable feature is the information that comes out of it. With the dashboard or the information that came from it, we made some executive reports for the client. They were very happy with it.

I do not know if it is already there, but I would like to have complete visibility between the posture management and firewall as a service. I would like the complete visibility of every product for the client to see in an executive way. I do not want it in a very complex way with so many warnings and threats. They should focus on the main things in all the products. I would like to see that.

We started using it six months ago.

Its stability is perfect. We have had no issues.

It is made for scalability. We have no issues on the matter. 

Check Point helped us a lot with the project. We interacted with Check Point engineers. They knew it was our first project, and we came across as one strong team in front of the client. I would rate their customer service and support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The client had Imperva, but for this project, they used Check Point. They have some current contracts and some expiration dates. We are hoping to have more deals with them.

They went for this solution for multiple reasons. The first reason was our service as a partner. The client needed somebody to handle the solution. They are not specialists in handling WAF or security. The second reason was that Check Point has authority over security. We were not delivering a solution that was new in the market. We were not an underdog. The third reason was that when we did the workshop, not a POV, the client saw that the solution was intuitive. The dashboards were executive. They liked it a lot. It provided visibility to focus on the efforts. It gave a list of all the threats. It was focused on the main ideas and threats.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can reduce the total cost of ownership for your web application firewall, but in this case, it was not a big deal. 

Our client could see that they can have a great solution that does not cost much more than Imperva.

It is not cheap, but it is worth it. For this project, our channel manager and our territory manager helped us a lot. We got a lot of flexibility on the license. I do not know how much discount there was, but it was big enough to win the opportunity.

For those evaluating WAF solutions, there are so many options, but I would recommend relying on a company like Check Point that has a great ecosystem. Their solutions are not only made for the cloud. They also have specialization in all types of security. With their AI and ThreatCloud, you have information about what is happening in the security world. The information that they provide is very useful, so rely on a company that is big enough to provide the security that you deserve.

In this project, there were a lot of technical issues that we had to manage through our engineers. It was our first project and the interaction with the development teams was important. It was very important to get the due dates and stay on track. For a successful project, you need to have a close interaction with the client, especially if the client is not a specialist in security. Check Point also helped us a lot with this project.

Overall, I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF a ten out of ten.

We implement it to protect applications and APIs across multi-cloud environments.

The primary advantage we experienced was in terms of security capabilities. Previously, our proxy solution lacked this level of protection, but with Check Point, we now benefit from streamlined management and complete visibility.

One of its most significant benefits is its ability to defend against a diverse array of security threats, without needing a specific configuration. It seamlessly protects through machine learning, giving us visibility into potential attacks and where they come from.

CloudGuard Application Security's ability to safeguard our applications from threats without depending on signatures is crucial. The intelligence behind its operation gives us the impression that it's being overseen by a human, evaluating whether activities are benign or malicious. It consistently provides accurate responses without requiring constant intervention from us.

In terms of its performance, CloudGuard Application Security boasts remarkably low rates of false positives. Occasionally, in certain implementations or configurations of additional functionalities, it may detect new elements as potentially intrusive, prompting proactive protection measures. However, meticulous programming and clear delineation of release parameters are necessary to address such instances effectively.

The solution has effectively lowered our overall cost of ownership for the web application firewall. Without the protective function of the firewall in place, issues are bound to increase. Therefore, it's crucial to configure it correctly to ensure that the internal intelligence can operate seamlessly with the application.

We opted not to utilize our cloud vendor's web application firewall since we have minimal cloud applications, primarily relying on those managed by CheckPoint. This decision is critical for securing our internal organization's work effectively.

We recently had a discussion about the challenge of API discovery and protection. There are occasions when it interfaces with other systems, leading to a loss of visibility. It would be advantageous to improve this aspect.

We have been working with it for two years.

The stability is commendable. Since implementation, we experienced only one interruption due to an update, which was promptly resolved.

The scalability is highly commendable, continually evolving in this aspect.

The technical support provided was excellent. Whenever we encountered complex configurations, we could easily engage with them for clear guidance, and the assistance provided was satisfactory. They demonstrate high effectiveness, and their response time is prompt. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

The deployment model of CheckPoint relies on virtual machines, such as VMware, which are implemented within our internal infrastructure. The deployment process was quick, smooth, and intuitive, as it was transparent. For deployment, we engaged a reseller to facilitate communication between CheckPoint and our organization. Additionally, we utilized their administrative services for monitoring the implementation process.

In regard to ROI, I believe that its capacity to safeguard our organization's information is highly advantageous.

Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory. While licenses were slightly more expensive previously, with the addition of more clients, it has proven to be reasonable.

We assessed several SaaS options alongside Check Point, and the primary distinguishing factor was the level of protection guaranteed by Check Point. Additionally, its maturity as a solution adds another layer of reliability.

Based on its effectiveness in safeguarding us from potential attacks and the value it has demonstrated, I would give it a perfect score of ten out of ten.

We use the product to access the internet internally. It helps us to block unnecessary networks. 

The tool helps us to block IPs and applications. 

I have faced issues with the tool's blocking aspects. It is hard to open or block web services due to the multitude of cloud centers. I have to do the process manually at times. We have a bug which is hard to solve. 

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard Application Security for ten years. 

I like the tool's stability. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security is scalable. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's support is sometimes good. 

We had used Sophos before Check Point CloudGuard Application Security. We switched to the product since Sophos did not have a firewall then. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's deployment is not complicated. 

The tool's control helped us with the deployment. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly. 

False positives happen occasionally, but it's not a big deal for me. I prefer false positives over the risk of something going undetected. The tool's abilities for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies are good. It has helped us reduce the TCO for the web application firewall. I rate it a nine out of ten.  

I use the solution for securing web applications. 

The tool's most valuable feature is AI, which makes operations easier. Moreover, it is easy to deploy. 

Securing web applications with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security is easy. The setup and configuration are easy compared to alternatives. It stands out for its simplicity. It does not rely on signatures, one of its unique features. 

The solution helps to reduce TCO. It minimizes the pressure. 

I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's deployment is easy. 

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market. 

The tool protects newer applications. It isn't very good when dealing with both applications. However, it is expected. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten.