Check Point CloudGuard Code Security

I have found features like Cisco ASA and Firepower most valuable. Secure Firewall is a secure firewall with features like WAF and web applications. We have web filtering applications, secure features, and application controls among other features.

I have found features like Cisco ASA and Firepower most valuable. Secure Firewall is a secure firewall with features like WAF and web applications. We have web filtering applications, secure features, and application controls among other features. I am not using Cisco SecureX with Secure Firewall.

Currently, I have no suggestions for Cisco Secure Firewall. I am not working on the next-generation firewall of Cisco. As I already mentioned, I have no suggestions regarding the features and improvements. I am not working on Cisco firewall currently.

Overall, I have been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for almost three to four years.

I would rate the technical support by Cisco a nine out of ten.

I think the implementation is easy. GUI-based implementation for firewalls is straightforward. Although the command line is a very simple process, next-generation firewalls now come with GUI-based interfaces.

In comparison to other vendors, the pricing is reasonable and affordable.

I am currently using some Cisco products. I am currently using some switches of Cisco. I am working on the ASA series. I stopped working with Cisco Firewall more than one to two years ago. I am currently dealing mostly with other Cisco products. I am not dealing with Cisco Secure Access or Cisco Duo. I am working with different product vendors such as Check Point and Fortinet. I am working with Check Point Web Application Firewalls and using bundles with them. I am using some features such as WAF and UTP bundles with application controls, web filtering, email filtering, and DNS filtering and controls that are implemented with UTP enterprise bundles and other WAF applications. I have been dealing with Check Point for three to four years on different products. I am using other platforms and testing some things for the networks. I am also using some other products with them.

I did not have new features or functionalities that I have used recently in Secure Firewall. Check Point WAF is used in my company and my customers are using it. I have seen measurable business and security outcomes since implementation of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). All vendors design firewalls with application filtering. As per current incident reporting, we implement and update our feature updates and security databases. These databases are updated regularly. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) works fine for every product like Cisco, Check Point, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. I am currently not using Check Point WAF as a primary solution, just for a specific purpose. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is working fine and reports, detects, and stops attacks such as IPS and detection. I would rate Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) a nine out of ten. The existing features are working fine, but new day-to-day attacks and issues arise in the environment globally, dealing with attacks such as phishing and DDoS attacks daily. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) could improve by addressing the new day-to-day attacks and issues that arise in the environment and globally dealing with attacks. I have been satisfied with pricing, technical support, and performance. I am a customer of Check Point. I have been working in this field for several years. My overall review rating for this product is ten.

We have implemented Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) in our environment. We have been dealing with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for three months. We are using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for our company only.

Currently, we are handling only the L7 part with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and we are planning to expand to the APIs and rate-limiting capabilities. We are not handling the network part, as we are only taking care of the security part with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

We have a team of 15 people who handle Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other security aspects. We have only two administrators dedicated to Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

We have seen measurable business and security outcomes since implementation. We have observed reduced incidents with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has helped us reduce our false positives rate. Compared to other WAF solutions, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is user-friendly and very visible. When we review incidents with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), it is clearly visible where the block occurred and it shows us detailed overview of the incident. In other products, I am not able to get the exact reason for the block, so I can identify where the block happened, and it is very user-friendly for me to add the policy or explicit policy there.

I face issues with the UI part of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), as it malfunctions sometimes. Sometimes I do not see the icons in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and whenever I refresh the page, the icons remain invisible.

Additional features I have considered with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) include the ability to add an exception rule. Since we have multiple projects, I want to add an exception rule to all projects as a shared exception, but when adding it, I am unable to add it individually.

I have been working in this field for three years.

When I raise any TAC ticket for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I am satisfied with their points and their support, as I am receiving immediate responses from the TAC. I can easily rate their support for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) an eight out of ten.

An incident occurred regarding the Global Accelerator movement from CloudFront to Global Accelerator, and for that, it took one week to respond, which was delayed by five days.

We considered the F5 WAF, Edge, and Radware before finally choosing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

Compared to others, it was very easy for us to onboard Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) application.

We received nice support from the OEM for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), so they guided us, and we completed it within a week, onboarding one full project.

The main reason why I chose Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is about the cost, and we have a Check Point firewall and we also use endpoint security and email security, so we wanted to choose this as a one-stop solution.

I do not have an idea regarding Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s ability for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies, as it has been only three months, so we are yet to explore things in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). Currently, we did not check the AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). Are you referring to the Gen AI or the built-in part of the WAF?

Regarding the built-in AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities, I do not see any false positive detection based on the AI part in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), so everything we are receiving is accurate results only. Based on that learning part, when Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is in learning mode, the learning part is very helpful for us to filter those things, so after moving it to blocking, we are not receiving any false positive alerts or incidents. If I want to add an exception in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I can either add it in the shared one or in a local one.

I have given this review an overall rating of 7.5 out of 10.

The main purpose is to have network security through machine learning, which can offer threat detection and intelligence for my endpoints, and I am looking for application security.

I am looking for an AI-based solution that can strengthen my cloud-native security, automate security, and better prevent threats.

I am looking for an AI-based solution and unified cloud-native security from the SaaS platform to improve my security posture.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a SaaS platform that gives unified cloud-native security across my applications, workloads, and network, allowing me to automate security, prevent threats, ensure compliance, and manage my security posture well across all my cloud environments.

It conducts security scoring and risk scoring, which helps prioritize my security needs, and the advanced threat detection is also very fine, providing actionable information for my current security threats by collecting and analyzing data through threat actors and IOCs, offering tactical, technical, and operational features.

The false positive rate is a concern, but I could recommend improvements where false positives have to be minimized better.

This all depends on how the rules are customized and configured, and it can also improve with planning during the initial configuration, including threat intelligence and APIs, so it could enhance how it defends against attacks and prompts injections.

It can find the threat actors behind it, and I find that strategically and technically it is effective, although the AI-related features could improve, especially as global AI capabilities evolve, which are advancing more than what Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) provides compared to competitors.

There are no glitches; I believe improvement could be made primarily in API Gateway and API security, especially by enabling enhanced AI-related features for better fine-tuning.

I have experience of two years with the product.

It is stable.

It is definitely a highly scalable solution without any doubt.

The customer support is very good.

Earlier, we had Microsoft Defender, which we replaced with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and we are now ensuring that policy enforcement and threat protection are better.

The deployment and initial setup are really straightforward; they provide enough documentation, videos, and deployment documents that are really helpful to complete it faster.

The return on investment is very good as it has increased my security posture and the operational efficiency of my engineers.

It is a little bit expensive, but the pricing model is acceptable, though a reduction would make it more competitive with leaders such as Palo Alto.

I purchased from a different source.

The configurations are pretty easy, and it is plug-and-play, which gives me regular updates.

I would assess the solution as positive in this regard.

All the integrations are pretty easy through API connectivity, which I can recommend more, and it also helps with modern AI-based vulnerabilities to conduct token tests and improve detection.

I would rate this review a 9 out of 10.

I am using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). I am also using multiple FortiGate products. I am using the product for URL filtering, security, WAF, and VRF. Check Point WAF improves our ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs.

I appreciate that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is an enterprise-grade service and a very good product that we have used. It offers smart AI protection as well. Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I have seen measurable outcomes; it has mostly stopped attacks through bots and API integrations. I see Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) as a good product in blocking zero-day attacks and detecting anomalies. It helps us a lot because the AI engines evaluate behavior on a real-time basis, and it can detect threats without signatures based on historical data.

I believe AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities help in identifying, blocking, and responding to application threats more effectively. The AI helps in Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) because it creates a targeted exclusion list based on its learning period. It can detect and stop or prevent threats based on context tuning and historical data.

For Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), the negative aspects include the very high price, complex licensing, and the need for specialized trained people to configure it, which is comparatively more complicated than other firewalls like Palo Alto and FortiGate. The two areas for improvement are the price and the complexity of configuration.

I started using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) approximately four to five years ago.

I would give a score of nine for the stability of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

I perceive scalability as limited due to challenges faced during DNS migration and HA mode.

I find Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) support helpful, but it is not proficient. It is often reliant on the site engineer's involvement, and it does not match the support offered by leaders like Fortinet, who deploy their own trained personnel ready to help anytime.

I find installation challenging, complex, and not easy, as it requires skilled professionals to configure the rules and threats, including AI configurations. The biggest challenge when deploying it is its architectural constraints, including limited synchronization during configuration, and there are many challenges involved in integration.

I am mostly using firewall solutions. I am using a firewall with IT, OT, and enterprise-grade services. We deal with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) products. I am speaking about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), Web Application Firewall. We are just a user of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). A context-based tooling helps more here because while the AI capabilities are learning, they could reduce the false positive rate. I have not integrated Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) with any other products.

Despite the complex nature and high price, I think the product is worth buying because it is effective. The configuration is complex, so it is not as easy as with other products. However, I believe it is worth the investment because the security is excellent. For security, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a leader without a doubt. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a very good, highly secure enterprise-level product, but it does have limitations, including the price and the need for trained personnel. I also encounter many errors during HA mode configuration, which can be tricky. I have a hybrid model for deployment. I would rate this review an eight overall.

Any cloud-native application is where my clients might be using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to secure Layer 7 with low latency. It is one of the best in Layer 7 security.

The biggest advantages of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) are that it is lightweight and the integration into cloud-native applications is very easy. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) produces false positives that are minimal. It has a learning process that is unique, adopting an education model approach. Ease of deployment and efficiency, particularly for API security, are phenomenal. The console is key, with Infinity Portal offering access to all kinds of Check Point products and a unique dashboard and reporting system.

Scaling is easy; once deployed, it takes care of everything without causing any concern for improving hardware or configurations. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) reduces total cost of ownership, being cheaper compared to any other software.

As a reseller, the most difficult part is the lack of awareness. Check Point does not provide any kind of awareness programs to the customers, requiring partners to educate customers.

There are indeed some features missing, particularly connected with integration or with artificial intelligence. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) faces certain issues with dual ISP tagging on entry-level devices since SD-WAN features were added.

I have been selling Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for almost three to four years.

Regarding stability, I am not finding any issues; it is very stable.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is very easy to scale. Once deployed, you forget it; it takes care of everything.

My impression of technical support for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it is adequate. The technical support team is really good.

If I were to rate support from zero to ten points, I would give them a ten, as they are the best.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is good; there are no questions asked.

In terms of pricing, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is not expensive; it is worth the investment. If there is no downtime or bottlenecks while accessing your application from the internet, that itself is the return on investment.

I can tell you specific issues or advantages with products such as FortiGate or Check Point perimeter firewall.

From a technical perspective, I do not think Check Point is leading in the web application firewall space. Cloudflare, F5, and Barracuda WAFs are noteworthy. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) can be configured with no prior training.

When I compare Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) with traditional WAFs, I find its learning curve to be simple.

Check Point has an excellent intelligence engine for zero-day attacks, unmatched by Palo Alto. I would rate this review a ten overall.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is required by customers who have web resources and assets that are important to them and in production. These resources include internet shops, services, and financial services. Without a web application firewall, the business stops, and customers need to implement this solution. Insurance companies, banks, and similar organizations fall into this category.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is easy to deploy and provides a complete solution.

Check Point's approach differs from others because it uses artificial intelligence elements and an AI-based approach. The WAF solution operates as a complex solution with multiple functionalities rather than a simple one.

The solution helps reduce the false positive rate. Productivity shows that only 10 to 25 percent will be false positives.

The interface and deployment require qualified skills and a qualified engineer who knows this product very well.

In general, Check Point products load the system somewhat and require more performance and better performance equipment on the customer side.

When compared to solutions specialized only on WAF, such as Imperva or Cloudflare, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a lighter version and does not have as well-performed a load balancer or anti-DDoS option.

We started using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) two years ago.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) scores eight to nine points on a ten-point scale for scalability. This scalability is one of the top features of Check Point solutions in general and especially for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). It is a main approach of the Check Point team.

I cannot be objective in this question because we have our own service team with engineers on our staff. We handle most tickets and cases ourselves.

We operate as a partner company in projects and serve as an integrator for different solutions, including security solutions.

Regarding total cost of ownership, I cannot describe this accurately. Concerning the price for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and license costs, the pricing is good, and the approach could be better.

Regarding competitors, Cloudflare is the most popular and best-selling solution on the Ukrainian market now, and this trend will continue.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and more Check Point solutions are oriented toward cloud infrastructure, cloud, or hybrid infrastructure. I would give Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) an overall rating of nine points.

I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) on a public cloud.

The features of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) relate to addressing global attacks that we require. The threat map, which displays information on a live basis, helps us understand the types of points logs, and that is the best part.

I utilize Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) alongside other Check Point products. They integrate with internal systems-level security devices, which we are using to communicate internally. The integration makes the tools work better and is helping us significantly.

Beyond user-level benefits, we are receiving some advantages that are really helping us. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) did reduce my total cost of ownership for my web application firewall, though not by a substantial amount, but it is acceptable.

In my opinion, there is some room for improvement regarding pricing, which we require, and much of it relates to the license base and support.

I have been using it for more than two to three years, and I confirm that I am currently running on it.

Regarding my experience with the deployment, sometimes we encounter difficulties, but overall it is good, and we achieve our time-based objectives. I would rate the stability as eight to nine.

I rate the technical support from one to ten as eight to nine.

I did not work with other WAFs before Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

The initial setup is simplified, and I confirm that it is good for understanding.

As of now, I have not integrated with third-party solutions because it is not required.

The investment regarding return on investment is not yet realized, but we are considering that investment base.

The pricing is reasonable, and I believe it is acceptable. I am satisfied with the timing.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is the best option on the market, and it is good for us. The potential attack surface level involves asking about vulnerabilities across the networks, which is why we confirm that it is really helping us.

I find Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to be good, though I cannot say it is popular in my region.

I would recommend Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) to others, but it depends on the environment. I think it is currently suitable for any types of companies, specifically in the database, which we require.

I confirm that I do not require additional features for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and it is currently adequate. I rate this product nine out of ten overall.