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.

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. 

Currently, we have our applications and devices in the Microsoft cloud in Azure. We have been modernizing our platform, and some services we have been converting to a platform as a service for which many app services have been implemented, among other workloads, and we needed to expose them to the outside. Therefore, a tool was needed that could do this security filtering and that also provided a set of native tools and functionalities for the cloud and checkpoint to meet the needs that we were presenting.

Since we were able to implement this new tool, we have been able to put into production all the applications that we have modernized for the use of our clients and officials, thus resulting in a more continuous and faster improvement of our services and achieving better scalability, stability and we have managed to reduce the costs and labor in IT, thus ensuring that our developers dedicate themselves to other projects and not be making patches for the applications as we were doing due to our obsolete technology, in addition, it provided us with regulatory compliance, monitoring, and analysis of all applications.

The tool has many valuable features that help us in our day-to-day life with all the applications. With the solution, we managed to obtain complete comprehensive visibility of the entire environment in the cloud, thus having better control of each of the resources.

In addition to that, we managed to have security policies that allow us to reward compliance in each of the applications. We've been able to provide better regulatory compliance, thus being able to mitigate security risks in our environment and achieve a better standard in the security of the company.

The tool is currently one of the best on the market. It has a series of more innovative features in the security market. That said, there are improvements necessary.

They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information. 

They should improve in the support they provide since they have lost a lot of strength here. Quality has dropped; they do not comply with the SLA. 

They should have a centralized library of each of the manual technologies, guides, and errors where everything can be found in one place so that we do not waste time searching all over the web for a solution or guide.

This solution is new; I have been using it for one year,

To this day, the stability of the tool is very good and has not presented any problems.

The scalability of the tool is very good; it is multi-cloud.

The support must be improved. The performance and quality it offers have decreased.

Neutral

It is one of the first tools that implements application security.

The installation was simple since we have experience with these tools, however, it does have a medium learning curve.

The implementation was carried out by the IT department with the help and supervision of the vendor's engineer.

The investment was quite relevant; we did it to protect our information and power the applications in production.

The price and licenses are very competitive in the market and should go down a little.

We did look into Microsoft tools, such as the WAF, which were evaluated. They did not meet the organization's needs.

It is an excellent multicloud tool with good security features.

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. 

The solution's strongest point is that you can connect everything to it, giving you a full view of what's connected. If you configure it right, it works perfectly.

You need to know exactly the system. You cannot have someone running the system if they don't have the knowledge to do so.

I've been working with the solution for about a year.

The solution is stable. It doesn't matter which device is running Check Point. The solution works. It has never gone down. I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

My clients are large, but they are not enterprise-sized or small.

I rate the initial setup a five out of ten because it is easy if you have the required knowledge and difficult if you are new to the system. The challenge isn't installing it: "Next, next, next, finish." Even a less knowledgeable person can do that. The challenge is configuring the system. There are a lot of blades in CloudGuard. You need to keep each type of security in your view, except for the Check Point view.

The initial setup is very fast, but you need to pray that the solution does all the work itself.

Other unified platforms like QRadar and Cisco are comparatively easier to use.

You need someone knowledgeable to run the system. Today, with all the technology and everything, the company just wants to buy control and be lazy. "Let Check Point do the work." But this does not happen with Check Point because you need professional eyes. Check Point's price is very low compared to those controlling the system. You have to learn to investigate the solution to work better with it. The knowledge costs more than the system. The solution has a hybrid deployment, and I don't know a company that only chooses one deployment or another.

There is no support available for Check Point. There are things you have to look for, and that's it.

Check Point is the world's first and probably best security company. They might change its face, give it new names, separate into new models, and so on, but in the end, they are the best security company in the world. I rate the solution a ten out of ten.