I need to protect cloud security for my company or customers. I protect their cloud infrastructure and any applications they have on the cloud. This is the main concept of cloud networking, where we use Check Point Firewalls in the cloud.

It makes my life easier. I have on-prem and cloud firewalls. I can use the same policies in both places.

It is a full-featured firewall on the cloud. The best feature is that it is the same software used on-premises. It's like having a full-blown firewall in CloudGuard.

It is the same policy used on-premises, seamlessly pushed to the cloud. I have the same principles in the cloud. Security features allow control in areas usually not available, filling the gap with firewalls to secure operations. Overall, it greatly improves posture and internal operations.

Network Security provides us with unified security management across hybrid and cloud as well as on-prem. Once again, this is about having the same policies. It's seamless. There are the same configurations, the same principles, et cetera.

It's helped us reduce organizational risk and improve security posture. We have robust security on the cloud to secure everything. It helps improve posture and internal operations.

I would focus on the implementation in the cloud, as it relies on third-party vendors like Azure and AWS. It's not seamless; the solution should be more straightforward for complicated environments.

I have been using it for the last two to three years actively.

It is stable. I did not experience any downtime, and I hope I won't have any.

Regarding scalability, I set up a firewall in the cloud and left it operating. Nothing happens to it without intervention. We perform minor and major upgrades, and it works seamlessly. It is very good.

I have a very good relationship with customer support. They are like my best friends - especially those on level three and four. How would I would rate them a solid eight out of ten.

I did not use a different solution previously. We chose this over options offered by our cloud vendors since the policy management is strong. I don't have to redo everything from scratch. Also, since I have been using Check Point for many years, it was very easy for me to use the same product that I use on-prem in the cloud.

The licensing is bit pricey. Check Point is expensive, however, with the features and capabilities, I can justify the cost.

I'm an end-user, partner, and reseller of CloudGuard.

The same features used on premises apply to the cloud. It makes my life easier with consistent policies and configurations. It's a fair option.

Overall, I would give the product an eight out of ten.

We are using it for perimeter inbound and outbound detection.

It is running in an EC2 instance in AWS.

For the move to the cloud, normally, you adopt a cloud solution, but big companies like ours have to control the roles in place and keep the standards that we have on-prem. We adjust it to the way the cloud works, but we still have the traditional firewall, similar to on-prem. We have the same management capabilities. We have the logins. It is just a central way of managing.

It saves time for us. We adopted the cloud solution as much as we could, but in terms of security, we wanted to keep the same method that we were using for security, and we wanted to use the knowledge that we already had.

It matches what we have on-prem. We kept the same management and the same functionality that we were having on-prem. It has simplified things for us because there is no new dashboard to touch.

The relationship between AWS and Check Point could be better. We had issues related to the type of instance and how it interconnects with AWS or cloud-native solutions. We overcame the pain points that we had, and now, AWS is evolving in a way that will facilitate how Check Point works. Our pain points were minimized, but they were there.

There could be more capabilities around the management protocol itself. We deploy the boxes very easily with the software. We want automation. We are already using it to deploy instances in AWS regardless of whether it is Check Point or something else we use. Integration is already there, but there is a possibility to have more functionalities. We are in a good state, but there can be new features.

I have been using CloudGuard Network Security for two years.

It is tricky to distinguish because we have the software and we have the instance. There is the tricky part of AWS not sharing some information around the instances where the software runs and then saying that it is a software issue and not sharing deeper details. Check Point struggles with having that information directly from AWS.

So, there is room for improvement if Check Point wants to be a native-use solution in AWS, for example, which is our main provider. It is tricky, and I understand. It is also about how Amazon or AWS manages their data centers. They do not disclose some information. In terms of throughput, performance, etcetera, they do have the numbers, but when it comes to some issues, nobody can explain or when an issue is from a network background, there is no explanation. Finger-pointing is not a solution.

There should be more sharing of information between them directly, not involving the customer. In the end, we were able to sort things out. We had to read between the lines. They were not disclosing exactly what was the problem. Check Point did not see any issues with the software, and in the end, it was about how the instances in a shared environment inside the AWS run and how they control the resources on each virtual machine that the customer runs. That is their way of doing business. AWS wanted to run it on a bigger box. In the end, I was able to overcome all the issues with a different instance type that was never proposed to us. It was a matter of the CPU generation that was being used on the instance. It was not the fact that the machine was not able to cope with it.

That goes back to how the AWS services run because the software runs in any virtual box. It is exactly the same software that you can use in a physical box. We never had a need to use Autoscale so far. We have tested Autoscale. We have seen it working, but we never had the need. We are in a stable environment, and we foresee when it is needed ahead of time to avoid any bottleneck. It has been running without issues.

We have 12 active AWS versions worldwide. Three of them are the main data centers that we use. In every data center where we have AWS, we have at least different architectures of products, so our environment is quite big.

The management is standardized between all regions. They run exactly the same way with exactly the same purpose. It is standardized. We define the architecture and when there is a need, we have the solution already available.

Over the last three years, I rarely used them. We did not face issues that needed support from Check Point. We were able to fix all the issues we had because there was either an upgrade available or a knowledge article available showing how to fix it. All our support cases are more around RMA.

The added value is not the software itself. The added value is the way we can easily change the capacity of a virtual box that we run the software on. Keeping the same software, we can change the VM capacity to higher or lower depending on the needs. The return on investment is the simplicity of being flexible in that way.

It is the most expensive part of the product. There is a lot of room for improvement. Security comes with a price, but it is still a big chunk just for the service.

We tested the native solution of AWS, but we decided to go ahead with our own existing solution on-prem being reflected in the cloud environment. We already had the knowledge and expertise internally. The central management platform and logging were already there. A multitude of features that we were already using were common.

In terms of ease of use, everything in the cloud is new, so there is a learning curve. They are adjusting the layer features in AWS native tools, but Check Point has the advantage of knowledge. We already had familiarity with it, and Check Point itself has a good knowledge of the market. They are experienced in security solutions.

We have not been that exposed to AWS. We are very happy with the availability of Check Point and so forth. So far, when the biggest threats came, Check Point always reacted faster than any other.

There is no real issue with the software itself. It does the job. It does what it was designed for. I can rate it a ten out of ten because it is exactly like the on-prem software physical appliance. There is no difference for us.

We use it for network protection. We're using its latest version.

We're benefiting from the solution. We're protecting all of our assets with it. It's a very good security solution. We don't face any big challenges or problems.

Security effectiveness is the most valuable feature. Operational efficiency, reporting, and support are also good.

The SD-WAN could be better.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

Their support is very good. I'd rate them an eight out of ten.

We have been using the same solution from the beginning.

The initial setup is very easy. It took two to four hours.

We have a hybrid cloud deployment. We have Azure and AWS.

We used an integrator. Our experience with them wasn't great.

We've seen an ROI with this solution.

It's not very expensive. It isn't very cheap either. Its price is okay. It depends on how much money you have. It might be expensive for some companies.

Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

We evaluated solutions from Forcepoint, Cisco, and Fortinet. We went for it because of its security effectiveness and operational efficiency.

It's the best solution to use. You can trust it. We don't have any issues with it. It works fine.

Overall, I'd rate it a ten out of ten.