Guys and gals. This report on the Checkpoint site linked by
@upnorth was written by researchers, not by marketing or PR. These are skilled and technical colleagues who would not risk their reputation and artificially boast threats for marketing purposes. Marketing people and researchers are very different with their goals and methods. For marketing oversimplification and exaggeration are valid methods to tap into people's emotions and sell more.
Researchers live from publications and reputation. If a scientific researcher is not accurate, exaggerates, or worse, lies, their career is over. A career like ours needs trust first and foremost.
Yes, they obviously have their mandatory lines in the end with links to the Checkpoint products, but that's because they work for Checkpoint and some requirements do have to be met. There are naturally links on the Checkpoint website to their tools with marketing purposes, which has nothing to do with the report and is off topic at this point. Please cease discussing their security assessment in this thread. You can create a new thread for that purpose.
Edit: The first two paragraphs about researchers not boasting threats pertain to the "´this is no real threat
" discussion.