We utilize CloudGuard Network Security for internet surfing and handle inter-sector traffic between VPCs. Specifically, we have over 200 accounts in AWS, each with its own VPC. The solution interconnects all the regions. 

The tool's most valuable feature is its scalability. You will only have to pay less for scaling up. Its notable benefit is deployment complexity. Regional deployment is simpler compared to on-premise setup. 

When upgrading the firewall, the old VPC containing the firewalls needs to be destroyed. After that, a new firewall is redeployed in the setup. Additionally, there's a need to separate the routing, and the routing from the old VPC has to be recreated in the new one.

I have been using the product for two years. 

We had issues with stability. We have an open ticket at the support regarding this. 

CloudGuard Network Security is scalable. 

The tool's support is good. 

Positive

CloudGuard Network Security is not too cheap. 

I don't see any difference in user experience between on-prem and the cloud setup. We have an MDS environment where we can manage the whole country. The tool enables us to manage policies on the same platform for branches and regions in the country. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We use the product as an internal firewall between Azure, on-premises, and the internet. 

The tool's most valuable features are the REST APIs that help to automate the deployment and maintenance process. It helps us to reduce time to 15-25 minutes compared to the manual process which used to take around two to three hours. 

It eliminates the need to manually import hundreds of IP addresses into firewalls and architecture objects. This process now happens automatically. 

The tool helps us to automate processes. Operating it is relatively easy, especially for standard tasks like implementing firewall rules for source, destination, port, or URL. Our team can handle these tasks. 

We miss full blade support for all blades that are compatible with the cluster. Especially notable is the lack of support for Identity Awareness in active standby environments for customers. In our setup, transitioning to Connective clusters would be preferable for maintaining connections during failover situations.

I have been using the product since 2016. 

The product is stable. 

CloudGuard Network Security's scalability is easy. 

The tool's first response is usually prompt, and issues are generally resolved. Additionally, the support team proactively follows up, reminding us to provide necessary details when we might be on a high workload.

Positive

The deployment experience varies depending on the structure of your environment. In our case, we invested significant time in designing our network and aligning it with our existing Check Point environment. Once the overall design was complete, the actual deployment was straightforward. We have automated most of the process, enabling us to set up the environment within a few hours. Additional nodes can be added in just 20-30 minutes.

We had evaluated Barracuda before CloudGuard Network Security. We chose CloudGuard Network Security since Check Point knowledge was available in-house. 

Invest time in analyzing the templates provided by Check Point and tailor them to your specific requirements. Understanding the deployment process is crucial, as it allows you to benefit from it in later stages. You can optimize it later based on the needs. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We use CloudGuard Network Security to protect Azure's networking environment. 

The CloudGuard Network Security's most valuable feature is implementing IPS for accessing our data center and server environment in Azure. It helps us to prevent attacks. By protecting our environment with Check Point, which we were already familiar with, it provided a solution that extended into the cloud environment.

The product needs to improve support. They don't consider my case the number one priority even though I want a quick resolution. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

The solution is getting better. We faced issues a few years back. Its stability depends on Azure. 

The solution's scalability is not good. Our upgrade process was not straightforward. It took one day to complete. 

The solution's support is very good. We have Check Point certified engineers. At times, Check Point's support can take a day or two to respond. 

Positive

We opted for CloudGuard Network Security after evaluating what Azure had to offer. It proved easy to manage, and the crucial aspect for us was the ability to see the activities on our central log system. We can see everything in the environment. 

The solution's deployment is straightforward. We required some time to learn it. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

CloudGuard Network Security provides unified security management across both our hybrid clouds and on-premises environments. I rate it a nine out of ten. I would recommend others to install the solution. 

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.

Positive

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 are using it for network security.

The whole reason we got it was to expand and make an extension to the Azure Cloud so that we could establish services that would make a link between the on-prem and the cloud. That was the goal.

We have unified management. It is one of the advantages of this product.

In terms of protection, we have not yet done any kind of penetration tests. We will check them later. In the future, we would also want to use all kinds of features such as IPS, IPSec, etc.

Its advantage is its layout. You do not need to get any unique devices and install them. The installation is easy. The assimilation is less easy because you have to work with a manager in Azure and upload and define all kinds of addresses.

In essence, you do exactly what you do with on-prem. It is the same operation. You can manage it in the same way as on-prem, which is an advantage. You can manage the firewall in the cloud from on-prem, and you do not need any more interventions.

There is a limitation with the version upgrade. We are using version 81.10 and from what I understand, it is problematic to upgrade this version. I do not know if that is true. I am trying to figure it out. If I want to upgrade to a newer version, I have to make new machines. If this is true, it will negatively impact my thoughts regarding the solution.

It is always running. Its availability is high because it is located in two different data centers. This is the purpose of the cloud. It is located in two data centers in two different countries. We have placed one in Frankfurt, and the other one is in Amsterdam or London. That is the advantage. Because it is not the same country or city, the availability is great.

I mainly receive support from an integrator. Check Point did not accompany me as a vendor from the beginning. I am satisfied with the integrator at the moment. He gives me the answers. 

We had a few inquiries recently, and he gave me the answers. They were also very helpful during the installation. So, I have had less communication with the manufacturer. For more complex issues, I can communicate with Check Point's support.

I would rate the integrator's support a nine out of ten because sometimes, it takes a long time for the integrator to find the solution to the malfunctions. The glitch related to the deleted machines was very critical for our organization. Things were working normally on the network, but the entire project was simply blocked for a few days. I expected the integrator to open a ticket in a faster way, but he did not open any ticket at all. He resolved it all by himself, but he did not share with us what the solution was. Deleting things and opening them again is not good enough because there is no reassurance that the glitch will not happen again.

We did not use any other solution before this.

The installation is simple. We just had to put it in two centers and deploy it. It was easy. 

During the process, we had to wipe a machine. Microsoft gave us some addresses to work with. We used those addresses because we needed public addresses to work with. At first, we were not able to do something properly, so we deleted the machine. When we came back to set up the machine, we had to take new addresses from Microsoft all over again. I do not know whether it was because of Azure or whether it was Check Point´s fault. 

I do not know if I have seen a return on investment because we are at the beginning of establishing the cloud. It is not entirely working yet. At the moment, it is not in production, but I assume that there will be an ROI.

It is not expensive.

I wanted to try Palo Alto at first, but because my entire setup was already in Check Point, I did not go in that direction. I wanted unified management. I also consulted my team, and they said that they do not want to come and manage another firewall because of the management and knowledge it requires. The advantage of this solution was unified management.

My recommendation for those who are thinking of installing the product is to check its survivability at the level of downloading a machine and uploading it. Do not upload all the applications straight away to run tests. Research first.

Based on my experience, I would rate it a seven out of ten. There were some malfunctions. There were also issues at the beginning due to the lack of a dependency needed for it to function. The experience is not yet perfect, but like any product, it will improve over time. In the end, I need stability in the cloud, but right now, that feeling is not there. I do not have the feeling of stability where I can say that the production and the service will not drop again. That is the concern. I want to start uploading some kind of application to production soon.

Foreign Language:(Hebrew)

המוצר מספק ניהול מאוחד, אבל נראה שלשדרוג הגרסה יש מגבלה

מהו השימוש העיקרי שלנו במוצר?

אנחנו משתמשים בו לאבטחת רשת.

בחרנו אותו כדי להתרחב ולעשות הרחבה ל-Azure Cloud כדי שנוכל להקים שירותים שיעשו קישור בין On-Prem לענן. זו הייתה המטרה.

איך זה עזר לארגון שלי?

יש לנו ניהול מאוחד. זה אחד היתרונות של המוצר הזה.

מבחינת הגנה, עדיין לא עשינו שום סוג של בדיקות חדירה. נבדוק זאת בהמשך. בעתיד, נרצה גם להשתמש בכל מיני תכונות כמו IPS, IPSec וכו'.

מה התכונה הכי משמעותית של המוצר?

היתרון שלו הוא הפריסה שלו. אתה לא צריך להשיג מכשירים ייחודיים ולהתקין אותם. ההתקנה קלה. ההטמעה פחות קלה כי צריך לעבוד עם מנהל ב-Azure ולהעלות ולהגדיר כל מיני כתובות.

בעצם, אתה עושה בדיוק את מה שאתה עושה מ- On Prem. זו אותה פעולה. אתה יכול לנהל אותו באותו אופן כמו ב-On-Prem, וזה יתרון. אתה יכול לנהל את הפיירוול בענן מ-on-prem, ולא צריך יותר התערבויות.

מה טעון שיפור?

ישנה מגבלה בשדרוג הגרסה. אנחנו משתמשים בגרסה 81.10 ולפי מה שהבנתי זה בעייתי לשדרג את הגרסה הזו. אני לא יודע אם זה נכון. אני מנסה להבין את זה. אם אני רוצה לשדרג לגרסה חדשה יותר, אני צריך ליצור מכונות חדשות. אם זה נכון, זה ישפיע לרעה על המחשבות שלי לגבי המוצר.

מה אני חושב על יציבות המוצר?

המוצר פועל תמיד. הזמינות שלו גבוהה מכיוון שהוא ממוקם בשני מרכזי נתונים שונים. זו מטרת הענן. הוא ממוקם בשני מרכזי נתונים בשתי מדינות שונות. הקמנו אחד בפרנקפורט והשני באמסטרדם או בלונדון. זה היתרון. מכיוון שלא מדובר באותה מדינה או עיר, הזמינות גדולה.

איך שירות הלקוחות והתמיכה?

אני מקבל בעיקר תמיכה מאינטגרטור. צ'ק פוינט לא ליוותה אותי כספק מההתחלה. אני מרוצה מהאינטגרטור כרגע. הוא נותן לי את התשובות.

היו לנו כמה תקלות לאחרונה והוא סיפק לי את כל התשובות. הוא גם עזר מאוד במהלך ההתקנה. עם היצרן הייתה לי פחות תקשורת. לבעיות מורכבות יותר, אני יכול לתקשר עם התמיכה של צ'ק פוינט.

הייתי מדרג את תמיכת האינטגרטור תשע מתוך עשר, כי לפעמים לוקח הרבה זמן עד שהאינטגרטור מוצא את הפתרון לתקלות. התקלה הקשורה למכונות שנמחקו הייתה קריטית מאוד עבור הארגון שלנו. דברים עבדו כרגיל ברשת ופתאום כל הפרויקט פשוט נחסם לכמה ימים. ציפיתי שהאינטגרטור יפתח טיקט בצורה מהירה יותר, אבל הוא לא פתח טיקט בכלל. הוא פתר את הכל לבד, הוא גם לא שיתף אותנו לגבי מה היה הפתרון לתקלה. למחוק דברים ולפתוח אותם שוב זה לא מספיק טוב כי זה לא מבטיח לנו שהתקלה לא תחזור על עצמה.

באיזה מוצר השתמשתי בעבר ומדוע החלפתי אותו?

לא השתמשנו בשום מוצר אחר לפניו.

איך הייתה ההתקנה הראשונית?

ההתקנה הייתה פשוטה. היינו צריכים לשים אותו בשני מרכזים ולפרוס אותו. זה היה קל.

במהלך התהליך, היינו צריכים למחוק מכונה. מיקרוסופט נתנה לנו כמה כתובות לעבוד איתן. השתמשנו בכתובות האלה כי היינו צריכים כתובות ציבוריות לעבוד איתן. בהתחלה לא הצלחנו לעשות משהו כמו שצריך, אז מחקנו את המכונה. כשחזרנו להגדיר את המכונה, היינו צריכים לקחת מחדש כתובות חדשות ממיקרוסופט. אני לא יודע אם זה היה בגלל Azure או אם זו הייתה אשמתו של צ'ק פוינט.

מה היה החזר ההשקעה שלנו?

אני לא יודע אם ראיתי את ההחזר על ההשקעה, כי אנחנו בתחילת הקמת הענן וזה עדיין לא לגמרי עובד. כרגע הוא לא בייצור, אבל אני מניח שיהיה החזר של ההשקעה.

מה דעתי על התמחור, עלות התקנה ורישוי?

זה לא יקר.

אילו מוצרים נוספים שקלתי?

רציתי לנסות את פאלו אלטו בהתחלה, אבל בגלל שכל ההתקנה שלי כבר הייתה בצ'ק פוינט, לא הלכתי לכיוון הזה. רציתי ניהול מאוחד. התייעצתי גם עם הצוות שלי והם אמרו שהם לא רוצים לנהל פיירוול נוסף בגלל הניהול והידע שזה דורש. היתרון של המוצר הזה הוא הניהול המאוחד.

איזה עוד עצה יש לי?

ההמלצה שלי למי שחושב להתקין את המוצר היא לבדוק את השרידות שלו ברמת הורדת מכונה והעלאתה. לא להעלות את כל האפליקציות מיד, כדאי להריץ בדיקות ולחקור קודם.

בהתבסס על הניסיון שלי, הייתי מדרג את המוצר שבע מתוך עשר. היו כמה תקלות. היו בעיות גם בהתחלה בגלל חוסר העצמאות הדרושה לתפקוד. החוויה עדיין לא מושלמת, אבל כמו כל מוצר, היא תשתפר עם הזמן. בסופו של דבר, אני צריך יציבות בענן, אבל כרגע, התחושה הזו לא שם. אין לי תחושת יציבות שבה אני יכול להגיד שהייצור והשירות לא יירדו שוב. זו הדאגה. אני רוצה להתחיל להעלות איזושהי אפליקציה לייצור בקרוב.

For the Azure platform, especially Azure endpoint protections and other network aspects, we utilize CloudGuard Network Security to secure the egress connection. This includes configuring and maintaining express route connectivity between on-premises and Azure.

The Identity Awareness blade and dynamic tagging in Azure are valuable because they make access management automatic. Instead of manually setting up access for each new resource, it happens automatically based on the same access policy. This dynamic setup is scalable. 

The tool is cloud-based and scalable. As our resources scale up or down, the system automatically adapts. This reduces the need for manual work, allowing us to manage the entire cloud infrastructure with a smaller workforce. It helps with automation. 

Regarding CloudGuard Network Security's integration with various resources like application gateways and application-based security groups, there's room for exploring dynamic access in those areas. A significant concern is the upgrade process. Unlike an in-place upgrade, upgrading the tool in Azure requires deploying a new resource, which can be hectic and less reliable. We have to spend something new to have the tool's latest version. 

I have been using the product for four years. 

Stability is generally good, and I don't have many complaints due to its scalability. When there are hardware issues, it automatically sets up a new, healthy instance. Overall, it contributes to a stable environment for us.

The solution's scalability is excellent, but we do encounter some restrictions with the API on the cloud platform. This occasionally causes issues with the frequent pulling up of new resources.

Our deployment model involves VM scale sets. We have set up instances across three environments: production, staging, and development. This structure allows for easy testing in the development environment before moving on to the production environment. We utilize Check Point's professional services to integrate, deploy, and build a cloud platform for CloudGuard Network Security.

We have seen a return on investment from CloudGuard Network Security. As more workloads shift from on-premises to the product, the costs associated with on-premises infrastructure decrease. Additionally, its dynamic and scalable nature in Azure allows us to maintain control. 

The solution's licensing is based on the number of users of the VMs. We follow a pay-as-you-go model. Its pricing is competitive. 

CloudGuard Network Security can manage security for both our hybrid cloud and on-premises systems. Currently, we have separate solutions for on-premises and the cloud. We also use Smart-1 Cloud from the Infinity portal. We haven't integrated the tool with both Azure and on-prem environments. 

I have about an eight out of ten confidence level in our cloud network security with the product. It is because of Azurre's robust and dynamic nature. It is easy to incorporate anything new that comes up. We can integrate any new steps in Azure concerning the blades, CloudGuard Network Security, and Check Point. 

Cloud-native firewalls lack functionalities such as IPS, which are exclusive to products like Check Point or other vendor-specific solutions. This is why we opted for CloudGuard Network Security as an additional layer, complementing the limitations of Azure's native or any cloud-native firewalls.

We are already using Check Point for our on-prem environment. The cloud solution was easy to integrate with our existing infrastructure. 

I rate the overall product a six out of ten. Due to certain limitations in the integration between Azure and CloudGuard Network Security, I currently rate the experience as a six. However, I'm hopeful that Check Point is working on its new release. 

The architecture proposed is based on Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework enterprise-scale landing zone architecture. Enterprise-scale is an architectural approach and a reference implementation that enables effective construction and operationalization of landing zones on Azure at scale.

We're using CloudGuard solution in a NorthBound - SouthBound design to protect and filter both incoming and outgoing traffic.

Also, we are using a VMSS solution deployed in Azure, with a minimum of two instances

The design is based on a "Hub & Spoke" model in which the environment is set up as a system of connections arranged as a kind of bicycle wheel where the spokes are connected to a central point in the hub, and all traffic to and from the spokes passes through this hub.

The NorthBound/SouthBound design solution allows traffic to be scanned and filtered both when entering (NB) and exiting (SB) the organization.

This design is also extremely suitable for segmenting a network. Network segmentation is usually done to reduce the attack surface of the network and limit the ability of a malicious threat to spread freely across the network.

Also, CloudGuard came with a new benefit in terms of scalability, with the VMSS solution capable of auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include:

• Easy to administer and also to deploy, thanks to automated setup with pre-configured templates. On top of that, security comes first.
• The proactive threat detection results in huge risk reduction.
• It has a user-friendly interface; it's best in the market for policy management and log monitoring.
• There are multiple options to deploy (clustering, standalone, VMSS and single management solution, SMS or MDS, and even better: Infinity Portal).
• It has a really strong user community, which seems to compensate for the very poor vendor support.
• The capability to auto-scale in or out, depending on the resource demand is great.

Vendor support might be the weakest point of the CloudGuard solution. You really struggle to find a CloudGuard specialist, even for simple tasks. As mentioned before, you can find better answers to the user community (which is actually a downside of the product).

There are lots of limitations and discrepancies across different Cloud provider deployments.

Documentation might become too complex or too spread out, especially for newcomers.

As in the past, with traditional Check Point firewalls, it sometimes seems to be moving too fast with software releases and upgrade cycles, which are difficult to keep up with.

I have been using Check Point for more than ten years - and CloudGuard for almost a year.

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security helps to ensure the security and protection of IT systems. We have many API integrations and want to ensure its protection. 

The product gives analytic reports. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security should give productive reports as per business requirements. It needs to improve support since the time-limit extended beyond a day. It should include more seamless API integrations. 

I have been using the product for four years. 

The product's stability is good. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security is very much scalable. My company has 1000 users. 

Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's deployment is easy and takes one day to complete. You need four resources to handle it. 

The product's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We use it to protect Internet access from our AWS environment.

Before we implemented CloudGuard, we had no filtering on what was accessed on the internet from our AWS environment. 

Now, we can filter which websites users can access and block categories that are a risk. For example, we can block social media and gambling sites. This has helped to decrease the risk of access to malicious content on the internet.

It allows us to filter what the servers on AWS can access on the Internet and allows us to filter in terms of IPS, antivirus, and so on, for the contents that are accessed on the Internet.

The complexity to deploy should be decreased. 

I have been using this solution for about five years. 

It is a stable solution. It has been pretty stable for us. We haven't faced any problems since it rolled out. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 200 end users using this solution in our company. 

The customer service and support from the vendor take a lot of time. 

The first line of support is not very good. They usually start with junior engineers when you open a case, which can be time-consuming.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is easy and ten is difficult to setup. 

For the deployment, we work with the vendor. So, the deployment took two weeks.

We need to provision the firewall, deploy the manager, and understand where the firewall needs to connect, which AWS area, and so on.

We just needed more than two people for the deployment. We worked with the security network security architect and called them engineers.

With ten being very expensive, I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten. 

It is expensive.

It's worth it in the sense that it can protect your network, and it's very scalable.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Check Point firewalls and SMS servers in on-prem DC and in multi-cloud environments extensively. These are used to protect the perimeter, DMZ, and internal network to protect and inspect network traffic.

The firewalls are best of breed and provide extensive rich features and a diverse range of protection against DDoS, malware, ransomware, and zero-day attacks. Also, it is used for terminating client and mobile VPN tunnels, URL filtering, IDP, DLP, etc. 

The environment is Internal and a multi-tenant hosted for external clients which is a complex setup.

The new Check Point firewalls are best-of-breed and provide next-gen firewall features with AI and ML capabilities. This helps to reduce the operational support overhead and protects against new emerging threats.

Previously we used Juniper, Cisco, and other firewall platforms which have very limited capabilities and offer no inspection or threat-prevention features at all. 

Check Point has changed this dynamic completely and offers a complete security solution to protect all digital assets which is immensely helpful.

Identity awareness, URL filtering, IDS, DLP, Content Filtering, VPN, and Application Control are all excellent. They provide features to inspect internet traffic, data protection compliance, and DDoS attack detection and protection.

The Check Point firewall product that we picked up has an excellent feature set and all the required licenses, it's a nicely engineered firewall technology and has a great support team to escalate.

Features like threat prevention and protection are good to have to protect against zero-day attacks, malware, and ransomware.

Software bugs and OS releases can be very fast to keep up with. Check Point has a history of moving fast with software release and upgrade cycles which are difficult to keep up with at times.

New features should have a single-pane-of-glass view for on-prem DC and cloud environments. 

Licensing costs are very high compared to other vendors. Check Point needs to be competitive to keep the cost down for the customers and partners. 

The previous Check Point OS model had to support multiple OSs which was difficult and cumbersome (i.e. SPLAT, IPSO, GAIA).

I've used the solution for ten years.

We did use a different solution and wanted to have better security capability and visibility.

The solution is expensive but feature-rich.

We looked at other options and checked if the firewalls had all the security and compliance features required by the organization.