CloudGuard WAF

Our main use case for Check Point CloudGuard WAF  involves sharing, conferencing, and comprehensive detection. We also use the cloud native integration for seamless integration in major cloud platforms such as AWS , Azure , and Google Cloud .

One specific example of how we use Check Point CloudGuard WAF  in those cloud environments is for advanced ruling. While the platform offers robust protection, we utilize it for protection while fine-tuning advanced policies. We also sell it to smaller organizations with limited accessibility and adoption.

We primarily use Check Point CloudGuard WAF  for its features because Check Point offers many different capabilities and simplicity in policy management and security visibility, so the advanced state of this is always simplicity and its features.

The best features that Check Point CloudGuard WAF  offers include cloud native integration with seamless integrations and automated management, which offers hands-off operation. Approximately 90% of customers are operating in preventive mode, eliminating the need for constant fine-tuning.

The automated management assists our team with automatic scaling since CloudGuard can automatically scale with other cloud workloads. During traffic spikes, it can handle additional load without manual intervention, ensuring consistent protection. Additionally, there's unified management across the cloud and seamless integration with deployed pipelines.

The implementation of Check Point CloudGuard WAF has positively impacted our organization by increasing our security significantly. We have a faster and smarter CloudGuard that provides strong security.

I've noticed improvements in our web application security, as the solution integrates seamlessly with the cloud infrastructure and provides automated protection against common threats, which are reduced, and our manual workload is simplified.

I would add a feature for fast threat response, because with direct integration into cloud native services such as load balancers, storage, and APIs, it can detect and block threats immediately at the source.

Currently, there are no features I wish worked better or would to see added in Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I have been working as a network security engineer for two years in my career.

My advice for others looking into using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is to plan your deployment carefully, leverage the cloud native integration, invest time in training, and continuously monitor and optimize.

We are partners with this vendor, besides being a customer.

I rate Check Point CloudGuard WAF 10 out of 10.

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.