Our main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to protect web applications and APIs from common threats such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and bot attacks.

A specific example of how we've used Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect against SQL injection attempts is that we had a public-facing customer portal hosted on AWS, where CloudGuard WAF detected and logged multiple SQL injection attempts targeting the login page and flagged the attacks in real time. We were able to review detailed logs showing the malicious payload, which ensured the application stayed fully available without any downtime and prevented the exposure of sensitive data, giving our security team confidence that the WAF rules were working efficiently against the OWASP Top 10 threats.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted our organization in security and operational efficiency. Our critical web apps and APIs are now continuously protected against the OWASP Top 10 threats, and we have seen fewer phishing exploit attempts after deploying, with a 30-40% drop in malicious traffic and a 15-20% reduction in manual intervention for our SOC team due to reduced false positives and automated protection.

By blocking attacks automatically at the WAF layer, we have reduced the incidents escalated to our SOC team by around 30-35%, and the application team no longer needs to push urgent code changes to mitigate vulnerabilities. The WAF policies buy them time, saving several hours per incident, and with fewer false positives and reduced noise, we have avoided the need to hire additional headcount for web app monitoring.

Some of the standout features of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that help with our main use case are contextual machine learning-based WAF, including the OWASP Top 10 API-based protection and discovery, anti-bot protection, intrusion prevention and CVE coverage, file security, DDoS and rate limiting.

The contextual machine learning-based protection of Check Point CloudGuard WAF works effectively for most teams because it goes beyond the static signature and regex-based detection that traditional WAFs rely on. Compared to older WAFs, we have noticed clear differences, such as smarter detection of novel attacks thanks to the ML engine and lower false positives, meaning the legitimate traffic isn't blocked as often, and we experience faster onboarding for new apps, allowing us to spend less time tuning the policies.

Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex. More guided workflows or templates would help speed up deployment, along with deeper integration with the DevOps pipeline, and while it handles API well, more dedicated API security would add value.

In addition, it could be improved with better integration with the DevOps pipeline, more granular reporting, as the dashboards provide good high-level visibility, but sometimes digging into specific attack patterns or trends requires manual effort, and simple tuning of the ML models would be beneficial.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for around a year.

Before adopting Check Point CloudGuard WAF, we were using the AWS native WAF for some workloads and Imperva WAF in certain environments, which provided baseline protection but were found too limited in advanced threat protection.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that the pricing and licensing seem fair but not the simplest, as the licensing is flexible and subscription-based. While it can feel complex to estimate the upfront cost depending on traffic volume and features enabled, the initial setup cost is straightforward with minimal infrastructure costs, though fine-tuning and integrating took extra time, which adds to the indirect setup cost in terms of experienced resources.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I would rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF an 8 out of 10.

I chose the 8 because Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides robust protection, great cloud integration, and effective ML-based threat detection, which has improved our AppSec posture, but it isn't a 9 or 10 yet because the policy tuning can be complex, advanced API protection feels limited, and the learning curve is somewhat steep for new administrators.

My advice for those looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to plan your deployment strategy early, especially whether to run it in a single cloud or across different environments, as that impacts the setup.

My company has a business relationship with Check Point, as we are a partner.

I was not offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

My main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to protect web applications and APIs from OWASP Top 10, and it has helped to secure cloud workload and prevent unauthorized access to data leaks.

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to block SQL injection and cross-site scripting attacks, and we protect the API by enforcing strict access, automatically applying a security policy to new applications before deploying in the cloud.

The best features Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers in my experience include automated policy upgrade with threat coverage intelligence, flexible deployment, and zero-day protection, which stand out to me the most.

The automated policy creation and threat intelligence have helped my team by reducing manual configuration and saving time, and the threat intelligence updates ensure immediate protection against new threats, simplifying daily operations and improving response speed.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by strengthening overall application security and data security, and it reduces manual workload for the security team while improving compliance in securing cloud workloads.

It has improved compliance and manual workflows through automated updates and reports, making it easier to meet compliance, with faster audits and readily available security evidence in reports, and it reduces time spent on manual rule creation and log reviews by automating policy enforcement.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF could be improved by simplifying the initial setup for a faster deployment, making the dashboard and reporting more customizable, and offering a more accessible pricing model.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for the past one year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is definitely stable in my experience.

It has a user-friendly interface that makes monitoring and management easier with smooth integration with other Check Point and third-party security tools, and it provides a clear dashboard for visibility into attack and traffic patterns.

I would rate customer support as eight out of ten.

I chose this rating because sometimes the response will be delayed more than expected.

Customer support is good, but sometimes it takes longer than expected.

Positive

I have seen a return on investment from using Check Point CloudGuard WAF, considering both time and money.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is straightforward without any challenges.

My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to plan deployment with clear policies to maximize protection from the start and take advantage of automated updates and threat intelligence to reduce manual work, ensuring proper integration with your cloud environment.

My main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is defending from SQL injection or DDoS attacks, and a quick specific example would be that it protects our applications and data from these threats.

I don't have anything else to add about my main use case, as there are no stories or examples where it helped my team.

The best features Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers are that it's very easy to use, the automated management is very nice, and the introduction of new AI is very efficient, which I find valuable.

With the introduction of AI in general, Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides very high accuracy on the data, allowing me to avoid a lot of false positives and saving me time in determining if what I'm seeing is a possible attack.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted my organization by reducing incidents because I don't have false positives.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF can be improved; initially, the setup is very complicated, and there's not a lot of documentation available, plus it didn't have something for anti-bot, but other than that, it is fine.

The documentation issue means that I can't find it online very easily, and while I can always ask support, it's a bit limited. As for anti-bot, I refer to a feature that I can find a better option for on Cloudflare.

I don't have anything more to add about the needed improvements or anything regarding the onboarding.

I have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for one year.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is very stable, and I haven't had any issues with downtime or reliability, plus it handles growth easily in my environment.

The customer support is rated eight. I have had to contact them, and my experience was satisfactory.

I did not previously use a different solution before Check Point CloudGuard WAF, so there's no prior comparison.

I don't have metrics, but I see a return on investment in overall efficiency, as it has saved my team time and reduced incidents.

I don't know about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for Check Point CloudGuard WAF, as I don't manage costs.

Before choosing Check Point CloudGuard WAF, I did not evaluate other options, as I went straight with it.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF works very well with all the clouds, such as Azure and AWS, and I shouldn't have any problems adding this feature to my environment.

Regarding the reduction in incidents, I don't have any percentages, but I know I can save a lot of time because I understand that if something is signaled, I need to check it, as it's very not probable that it is a false threat.

My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is that, similar to other Check Point services, it can be intimidating at the start, but you will manage after some time.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF eight out of ten.

Our main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF is that we have been reselling this product for three years, and we have experienced that this CloudGuard WAF protects from zero-day attacks, boot attacks, and other OWASP top 10 attacks.

Before deploying Check Point CloudGuard WAF, we faced several vulnerabilities such as SQL injections. We encountered different vulnerabilities, but after implementing this product, we have reduced these attacks.

We are a reseller of Check Point.

The best features that Check Point CloudGuard WAF offers are its easy integration with other products and its good threat prevention features. Since it is default in a device, it protects us from zero-day attacks, and first learns traffic before allowing it into our network. It protects us from botnet attacks and many vulnerabilities are discarded by these deployments.

The integration process went smoothly for us as it easily integrated with our existing products, and it reduced approximately 90% of attacks after deployment.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF also has a comprehensive reporting feature and a well-designed dashboard.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF has impacted our organization positively, as after deploying this product it reduces the time to analyze attacks and protects from several attacks, enhancing our security posture.

We are now saving approximately four hours per day on analyzing attacks.

There are improvements that can be made regarding pricing since it has a high initial cost. If they could reduce that, it would be beneficial. Additionally, it has a complex initial configuration. Reducing such complexities would make it even better to have.

We have been using Check Point CloudGuard WAF for three years now. It is a good product.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF is stable.

It handles increasing traffic easily because we can extend our demands based on our needs.

The customer support service is good based on the support we purchased, as they are available 24/7.

Positive

The initial setup with Check Point CloudGuard WAF is complex.

I have seen a return on investment since deploying Check Point CloudGuard WAF. We have saved money by protecting our environment from new vulnerabilities and preventing theft by cybercriminals. It has saved our money and time investigating vulnerabilities and zero-day attacks. It has great potential and provides an excellent security profile to our environment.

The initial cost of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is high.

We have evaluated other WAF providers such as F5 and others, but we chose Check Point CloudGuard WAF according to its performance. It is a good device.

I suggest to others that if you have web-based applications or HTTPS traffic, you must use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect your service. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 9.