Check Point CloudGuard Code Security

My main use case is protecting internet-facing web applications and APIs from threats such as SQL injections, XSS, and malicious requests. For example, I use it in front of customer-facing applications to inspect incoming traffic and block suspicious requests before they reach the application servers.

I also use it for visibility and control over application traffic, not just blocking attacks. The logging and security policies help my team investigate suspicious requests and fine-tune protection rules when new applications or APIs are introduced.

The features I rely on the most are web application protection policies, real-time threat detection, and traffic visibility through logging and monitoring. The ability to customize rules for specific applications and APIs is useful because it helps reduce false positives while keeping protection active.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my overall visibility and reduced the amount of suspicious traffic reaching our applications. It has also made security operations more manageable because I can monitor events, fine-tune policies, and respond to threats without making frequent changes to the application itself.

One area for improvement would be making the policy configuration and troubleshooting experience simpler, especially for complex applications and APIs. More guided guidance around rule tuning and clearer explanations for why a request was blocked would also help reduce investigation time.

The overall interface is useful, but some advanced settings could be easier to navigate and understand for new administrators. I would also appreciate more practical documentation and troubleshooting examples, especially for application-specific policies and API protection.

Another improvement would be more detailed real-time diagnostics when a security rule triggers so it is easier to understand the reason behind a block. Additionally, smoother integration with monitoring and SIEM tools would make incident investigation and day-to-day operations more efficient.

I have been using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for a little over a year.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been stable for day-to-day production use in my experience. I have not seen major reliability issues, and it has handled normal traffic volumes consistently while providing the expected protection and monitoring.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has scaled well as I have added more applications and APIs for my needs. I have been able to extend protection without major changes to the overall setup, although very high-traffic applications still require some more planning around capacity and policies.

Customer support has been good for issues around configuration or troubleshooting. The support team has generally been responsive and helpful, although some complex cases can take additional time to resolve when deeper investigation is needed.

Before Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I used a more basic web application security solution. I switched mainly because I needed better visibility, more flexible application and API-specific policies, and stronger centralized threat detection and monitoring.

The initial deployment was fairly straightforward once the application, traffic flow, and security policies were defined. Ongoing management is manageable, although tuning rules for new applications and investigating certain blocked requests can require additional time from the security team.

I have seen ROI mainly through reduced manual security investigation and faster response to suspicious traffic, rather than direct headcount savings. The centralized visibility and automation blocking have saved my team time in day-to-day monitoring and incident handling, although I do not have a formal dollar figure.

The pricing and licensing were reasonable for my use case, but the overall cost depends on application traffic and the level of protection required. Setup costs were manageable, although I would recommend clearly understanding the licensing model and expected traffic volumes before budgeting.

I evaluated a few other enterprise WAF options, mainly AWS WAF and Microsoft Azure WAF. I compared them on threat detection, application and API policy customization, visibility, ease of management, and how they would fit into my existing cloud environment.

I would recommend clearly defining your application and API security requirements before implementation and spending some time tuning the policies for your specific traffic. Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is a good fit if you need strong protection with centralized visibility, but make sure the team is comfortable with the configuration and ongoing rule tuning.

My experience with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has been positive overall. The combination of protection, visibility, and application-specific policy control has been useful for my environment. The main areas I would see improved are a simpler configuration, troubleshooting, and more detailed documentation. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10.

I have been working with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for 14 years.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is particularly useful for protecting my network from external attacks, such as DDoS attacks and broken authentication.

Regarding which product of Check Point I would like feedback about, I chose Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) solution.

What I appreciate about Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it has an auto-enabled CDN within it, which helps us because even if there are floodgates created by an attacker, the CDN gets enabled automatically, and the UI is well organized, so even if a graduate comes in and tries to explore it, they are able to do so.

Moreover, network segmentation can be done very easily using WAF.

The key benefits I have seen from using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is that it can be centrally managed, so if we have ten firewalls, they can be centrally managed through one center and one platform, which is one of the key features I appreciated.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) has improved my ability to discover, monitor, and protect APIs so that our security risk, which was ambient earlier, is now green, and the security posture assessment by third-party evaluators shows we are green.

Regarding the false positive rate, we need to configure it according to our environment because unless we configure it according to our environment, it's a tedious process, particularly with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), and sometimes if it's not configured properly, there are more than 60% of false positives that we receive.

Apart from the configuration aspect, I would like to see improvements in false positives, and the second part is endpoint security because there is no agentless control. If endpoints can be managed using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), that would be very beneficial, rather than it being just a firewall.

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s AI-driven threat detection and prevention capabilities is one area wherein I believe Check Point lacks, as I did not find many AI features in Check Point, but compared to Palo Alto, they have better AI capabilities.

When it comes to stability and reliability, I find Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) stable.

We do have crashes, downtimes, and performance issues, but we receive good support from Check Point, so it is taken care of by the Check Point vendor.

When it comes to scalability, I would rate it as nine out of ten, as it's very easy to scale, and whenever we bring in some VLANs or different networks, we can easily integrate them within Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

I would rate the technical support of Check Point as eight out of ten.

Prior to adopting Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I previously used a different solution called SentinelOne.

Before implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), I was trying to solve network security challenges, particularly all the challenges that exist for network security.

I utilize Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) alongside Check Point Firewall, which is the basic firewall.

Since implementing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), it has helped us to get more business, and along with that, we are able to prevent threats to our organization using Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF).

Apart from the pricing, other differences I found include that Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is centralized, as ASA does not have centralized management, and although Palo Alto does, Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is found to be more user-friendly.

The main reasons I selected Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) over other solutions were that it is a smarter firewall than others, and it was more cost-effective compared to Palo Alto, as they provided a lengthy quotation, and ASA is a legendary solution, but no one uses ASA nowadays.

For assessing Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) for preemptively blocking zero-day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies, we particularly use CrowdStrike for that function, as we detect using CrowdStrike, and there is not much on Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF)'s side.

For ZTNA, I can maintain a ZTNA using certain MFAs or enabling certain network controls, so on the ZTNA side, it performs well.

Regarding integration, how Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and firewalls integrate with my existing systems, I find the integration with third parties straightforward as I have not encountered challenges, complexities, or needed to work on or enable anything there.

I do not find any challenges with the ongoing management of Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF), so maintenance is very smooth, and I do not face any issues with that.

I purchased Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) through a vendor, not directly through Check Point Technologies.

Given my experience with Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) and other technologies, I recommend Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF). I would recommend it primarily for its scalability, which is very easy to scale, and the integration capability, as we can integrate it easily with systems like Splunk or any other SIEM devices. My overall review rating for Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) is 8.5 out of 10.

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.