UTM is really only a part of the solution. It is a very basic commodity with limited flexibility, which fits branch offices better than it does enterprises. With software blade architecture, every technology has individual kernels to ensure business continuity. This distinction frequently creates confusion in the market over our hardware appliance strategy. UTM is really consolidation without best-of-breed. We are in that space but delivering much more than just UTM.

With today's tighter IT budgets and a threat landscape populated with new challenges like the cloud, BYOD and virtualization, how can CIOs justify their security investments?

You can't tell when you have invested enough in security. I've always compared security investments with the army. How many tanks or airplanes do you need to ensure safety? For security, the issue is not about investing more; the idea is to invest smart. We can secure enterprise infrastructure on IPS, DLP, secure gateways with over 40 percent savings. One can add functionality through blades in an inexpensive manner and consolidate an enterprise's security posture. We clearly see a big move towards the private cloud, where we have Check Point Virtual Systems to simplify security and deliver cost savings. 'ThreatCloud' is our cloud offering which facilitates collaboration between all our gateways through real-time security intelligence.

CIOs and CSOs are perennially battling the best-of-breed versus single-vendor conundrum. What works better today and where is Check Point heading?

If you are big enough--and with constant innovation and investments in R&D--you can be a market leader and consolidate. Then there is no contradiction between consolidation versus best-of-breed. I am not declaring that we are by nature best-of-breed. But we can be best-of-breed and consolidate. Symantec or McAfee are focused on end-point security and I don't see them competing in our core business activity, which is network security.