CloudGuard WAF

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF  for security purposes. We have multiple clouds deployed in AWS . I look after and manage the incoming threats, and if there are any possibilities, I check in the XDR , which we also have. It gives a unified solution.

I receive lots of false positive reports that I bifurcate and provide to my manager. I manage any threats that have entered or are coming, and any processes that have been run. I manage these and provide reports to the concerned department to validate them.

The solution for blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies is very good. I can see lots of threats and how they are being blocked. That is the best aspect of Check Point CloudGuard WAF  solution.

The best feature in Check Point CloudGuard WAF  is its user-friendly dashboard. It is very detailed in a bifurcated manner, providing each and every detail about every threat or process that has been run.

The efficiency improvements provided by Check Point CloudGuard WAF  compared to traditional WAF products is that traditional products give much more false reports. I previously used Forcepoint WAF, which gave very false reports. Check Point gives a proper report, whereas I can see and validate that particular report. That is very useful in Check Point.

The main benefits that I have seen from using Check Point CloudGuard WAF is that the security posture is very good. It analyzes and delivers the threats, enriches the intelligence, and I get proper clarity in my organization. There are lots of APIs which I get through the security platform. The threat hunting provides details about how the threat has been run and how it is running in the sandbox.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF gives much more clarity in the organization about what traffic has been passed on which systems and switches. It gives complete clarity in a single dashboard. If any random person checks the console, they would understand what threats have been going on and what things have been running in my organization. That is the best part about it.

Currently, there is nothing in the areas of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. If there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely like to try that particular segment, and I am also willing to add some new features with much more clarity. It depends upon the roadmap.

Features that I would like to see included in the future are pretty much all there, but if there are any other enhanced features that can be implemented, particularly the integration part with other products would be better. Some products do not get integrated, so if those products become compatible with Check Point CloudGuard WAF solution, that would be much better.

I have been working with Check Point CloudGuard WAF product for the Web Application Firewall for two years.

I have not faced any stability issues with Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

I do find Check Point CloudGuard WAF scalable.

If any crucial updates or malfunction has happened with Check Point, I contact the TAC team. They are well responsive, and I like it very well.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate the tech support around eight.

Positive

In the past, I worked on Forcepoint WAF. Currently, I am working on Check Point CloudGuard WAF.

Before joining this organization, which was two years ago, there was a different solution in place. I got feedback from there that the particular solution was not able to provide detailed reports or detailed clarity that Check Point CloudGuard WAF solution provides. That is how they switched to Check Point CloudGuard WAF. The solution is not only user-friendly but also has lots of technologies and engines running, and depending upon how policies are set, false positive activity got reduced. I can customize the policies depending upon the reports, which helped reduce false positive reports.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF helped me reduce my false positive rate.

The onboarding process and initial setup for me personally was pretty straightforward since it was in the cloud. There were no challenges, and it was perfectly fine.

We did not deploy Check Point CloudGuard WAF ourselves. We involved a partner who deployed it and then handed it over to us.

Check Point CloudGuard WAF product does reduce the TCO, Total Cost of Ownership, for my Web Application Firewall.

The setup cost was taken with the head of the department, who handled the pricing and everything.

The key differences, both pros and cons of Check Point CloudGuard WAF compared to other WAF technologies that I have worked with are very much in favor of Check Point CloudGuard WAF, because it provides entire cloud security and security postures. I do not think there are any cons currently.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services  (AWS)

What do you like best about the product?

I appreciate the proactive and AI-driven threat prevention offered by Check Point CloudGuard WAF. It effectively detects and blocks threats like SQL injections, remote code execution, and automated bots without the need for traditional signature updates. This advanced AI-driven security extends protection against a wide range of threats, including zero-day exploits and API attacks, all with minimal effort. I find the product’s capability to ensure comprehensive threat coverage with reduced manual intervention to be highly valuable. Additionally, the initial setup process is very easy, which facilitates a smooth adoption and fast deployment.

What do you dislike about the product?

The steep learning curve is largely due to the sheer number of features and the extensive configuration needed before the system feels truly comfortable to use. With so many profiles, protections, exception paths, and tuning options available, it can be difficult to determine exactly what is necessary from the very beginning.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect web applications by automatically detecting and blocking threats like SQL injections and API attacks, without needing traditional signature updates.

What do you like best about the product?

I appreciate Check Point CloudGuard WAF's ability to provide a balance between strong protection and low maintenance. The product effectively shields our web applications on AWS by allowing straightforward rule setup for API protection, virtual patching, and blocking common web attacks. One of the standout features for me is the ability to apply virtual patches instantly, which is crucial when developers need more time to address vulnerabilities. I also find the auto-updates to threat signatures invaluable for keeping us protected against the latest threats. The learning mode is another advantage, as it quickly propagates policy changes, allowing our security measures to adapt swiftly. Switching to Check Point CloudGuard WAF from AWS WAF has resulted in stronger, more automated protection with enhanced visibility, which aligns perfectly with the time constraints we face. This product delivers a robust solution while minimizing the hands-on management typically required.

What do you dislike about the product?

I find the initial setup of Check Point CloudGuard WAF overwhelming. Upon logging in, the dashboard presents many menus, which can be quite daunting. Implementing a more intuitive feature such as a 'Connect Cloud Environment' could significantly ease this process.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect web apps with virtual patching, strong API defense, and automatic threat updates, balancing strong protection with low maintenance. It also automates tasks that were too manual with AWS WAF, enhancing efficiency and visibility.

What do you like best about the product?

I love that Check Point CloudGuard WAF protects our web applications and cloud APIs against a wide range of threats, which is crucial in today's digital environment. I especially value its ability to prevent bot attacks, ensuring the secure operation of our applications, in addition to effectively protecting us against scammers. I find that the implementation is quick and simplified, which is a great benefit by minimizing the time and effort needed to get the system up and running. I am also impressed with its multi-platform security that provides solid protection, and the high protection rate it offers highlights its effectiveness. Additionally, the initial configuration of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is very simple and suitable for users of different experience levels, which greatly facilitates the integration process.

What do you dislike about the product?

Possible bottleneck in the performance of the computer's processor and poor management of configurations. It overloads the computer's CPU a lot despite the hardware's power.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

I use Check Point CloudGuard WAF to protect web applications and APIs in the cloud from threats, including fraudsters and bots, with quick deployment and multi-platform security.

What do you like best about the product?

CloudGuard WAF’s biggest strengths are strong automated threat prevention, multi-cloud support, and ease of deployment for modern application environments.

What do you dislike about the product?

Trial periods and evaluation phases might be limited, It may longer trials or better QA/testing support before committing. And the rest parts are good.

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Uploaded files can hide malware or malicious payloads; CloudGuard’s “file security” inspects uploads and blocks dangerous content before it reaches your application. And traditional WAFs often require manual tuning of rules and signatures a tedious, error-prone task. CloudGuard’s AI-driven contextual detection and automated policy/rule management reduce manual maintenance and cut down false positives.