Netgate pfSense Reviews

Our most common use cases are for our corporate firewalls, and currently, I'm using it as our school firewall. So it's our perimeter firewall. So, we're running three firewalls on our network. 

So we have separate networks each because we have, like, different use cases. So we're running three at the moment.

We've been running it for six years now, and so far, it's been good.

Netgate pfSense has been utilized to create and manage VPNs within our organization. So we're running pfSense with VPN on one of our private cloud providers. So we're using IPSec VPN on that.

For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution. 

We were using an open-source endpoint solution for that. So we're integrating that with the one we have on pfSense. 

The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.

We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.

Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.

For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model. This feature of pfSense would be great, instead of relying on a third-party module.

I have been using it for six years. 

It's about 95% stable, not perfect, but quite reliable.

If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.

We have around 4,000 endpoints. 

I reached out to support for an unusual CPU usage issue after an upgrade. They were responsive, and even though I ultimately found a solution, they were helpful in diagnosing.

Positive

We used Fortinet. We opted for pfSense because of budget limitations. pfSense was a more affordable solution for our requirements.

pfSense is easier to manage and offers modularity for features. With FortiGate, everything is there, but we might not need everything, and too many features can be challenging.

The initial setup is very straightforward and intuitive. 

We use the pfSense software directly and install it on our rack servers. So, we're adding three instances of that.

I handle all the deployment processes. I am the core manager for the entire infrastructure, so I manage and deploy everything.

I consider how many users and gigabytes we expect on the network and try it on a test network first to validate before actual deployment.

Just my core team members manage the whole deployment, so that's enough for us.

Migrating the old one to the new one took around a month because we have many rules, and the new Netgate was quite different.

From the maintenance perspective, it is not difficult at all. 

While configuring or maintaining pfSense, we had high CPU usage on one firewall, but the GPAC subscription provided a good response. The support team was helpful, and we resolved it in a few hours. So, we had good support because of the support subscription. 

We just have the yearly support subscription.

I just found pfSense online. I just tried it out on a home lab and found it worked well enough for us. So, just started out, like, searching online and responded and tried it.

I would advise you to try to estimate your network first and do a test network just to have a proof of concept of what you want to run and check the routes you want to run against your network, making sure that your requirements are valid before deploying it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I have used Netgate pfSense for a range of purposes. Initially, I employed it for VPN connections, mainly for personal and professional use. I also relied on it to maintain network equipment in a professional context. In the professional sphere, I have experience with both pfSense and Juniper, but eventually, I decided to phase out Juniper due to its high costs, especially for updates and the addition of new functionalities. pfSense's cost-effectiveness and the flexibility to transition to new hardware while retaining configurations made it a preferred choice. pfSense also stands out in terms of its rapid algorithm evolution compared to competitors like Juniper. Its scalability is another advantage, where adding a new box or reconfiguring can boost the firewall's capacity.

On a personal note, I use Netgate pfSense to connect to my equipment at the data center. Currently, I have a highly available installation that requires two instances of pfSense. While I considered pfSense for this setup, I had to assess whether OpenSense might offer better features for future requirements before delving deeper into pfSense.

It's worth noting that Netgate pfSense's performance is independent of the hardware it runs on. As I mentioned earlier, its scalability is a strong point. Most functions are readily available, and additional features can be obtained by downloading and installing plugins, which are generally free. When you compare this to the alternative of purchasing a firewall from a different supplier, you'll find that the latter option typically doubles the cost of the firewall itself. This cost increase is often attributed to additional licenses for deep inspection and similar functionalities. While configuring pfSense may require more time and effort upfront, the long-term cost savings make it a more cost-effective choice.   

One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs. When creating IP lists, I've noticed that synchronization doesn't always function correctly. While it's not entirely dysfunctional, troubleshooting these synchronization problems can be quite challenging.

I have been using Netgate pfSense since 2015-16.

I've experienced certain issues with Netgate pfSense in the past, particularly with the previous version, which was 2.5. It posed several problems. However, the current version appears to be more stable. Nonetheless, I still encounter troubleshooting challenges. For instance, there is an issue where it initially blocks an IP range but releases it after ten minutes. This behavior is somewhat peculiar, and it pertains to IP filtering.

The support for Netgate pfSense mainly comes from online forums. These forums are populated by a significant number of individuals who are knowledgeable in pfSense and its related areas, making it a valuable resource.

The choice of whether to use Netgate pfSense often depends on the company's preferences. In some cases, particularly in Switzerland, there is a strong preference for open source solutions. This choice is sometimes motivated by the desire for open source alternatives and can also be related to cost considerations.

The Initial setup is very easy.

Netgate pfSense is a cost-effective option. If you're not using a VPN, you can acquire a decent embedded PC for around a hundred dollars and install pfSense on it, effectively creating a robust firewall solution. With this setup, you can achieve a throughput of two hundred to three hundred megabits per second without any issues, provided you're handling relatively simple rules. The level of performance depends on the specific requirements and tasks.

If you're considering using Netgate pfSense for the first time, I would recommend giving it a try. It's relatively easy to set up and use, especially if you have some prior knowledge of network and IT work. The user manual provides helpful guidance, and the basic configuration is straightforward. Just ensure you pay attention to the hardware requirements to make the most of it.

It can be rated as an eight for simplicity. However, as you progress and introduce complexities, such as enabling deep packet inspection, adding extra features, or installing multiple plugins, the configuration can become more intricate. I encountered some issues with iOS in version 2.5, but they are expected to be resolved or have been resolved.

Most of my clients want to use it as a firewall. There are two things that they're looking for. Number one is bandwidth management so that if there are multiple links, they can share bandwidth for their staff. The other important aspect that has come up recently is for IDS and IPS.

Currently, for me, the most valuable feature is the implementation of pfBlockerNG. The community behind pfSense is really strong. 

In terms of the features, the simplicity of the installation is a significant advantage. Out of the box, I am ready to start using pfSense after installation, which is very important. It allows minimal downtime before integration, enabling use even on a weekday without users knowing there's a new firewall in place. 

The key thing I found is saving on the cost of equipment. Whether CapEx or OpEx, we appreciate this.

The user interface needs improvement. Even though it's a system that's easy to get working upon installation, the configurations are not intuitive. The interface needs to be friendlier. That's the only complaint I have about pfSense.

I have been using pfSense since 2008.

One issue is due to bugs and broken links.

I have not had the chance to experience Netgate technical support, because most of the time I have been able to sort out the issues with forums.

Positive

Before Netgate, I used a lot of MikroTik. In comparison, pfSense is more robust in terms of the feature set. The open form of the GPL system makes it better than MikroTik.

The steps to implement involve aligning with the key aspects I am going to implement, knowing what they already have running, and what needs to be mirrored and improved. I usually have it pre-installed, tested, and then deployed.

I have a team. There are around three of us, and we do this together.

I would recommend it a lot because it's a proper firewall, and there are no issues apart from the interface and broken links. It's very easy to recommend pfSense without even going through the POC stage. For me, pfSense is a ten out of ten.

I install Netgate pfSense in various locations. It is also used for monitoring traffic and acting as a proxy.

I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfSense. 

The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface.

They rely on third-party tools, unlike Fortinet, for example, which has its own tools. In comparison, we also use third-party tools on pfSense. For example, we had a situation where we needed a tool to identify authorized users, and when I searched for a solution, I found a third-party tool. However, using such tools may come with additional costs.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around one year. 

If I think about pfSense, I would rate the stability around six. There have been some issues with stability, causing occasional downtime. I haven't extensively worked with pfSense in the last year, so my experience is limited.

The scalability of pfSense is excellent, and it's easy to expand. Currently, we have around 200-plus users at our head office using pfSense. I would rate it 7 out of 10.

I haven't contacted Netgate technical support, so I can't provide feedback on that aspect.

Comparing pfSense with other vendors, I appreciate Fortinet for its all-in-one device with ALi involvement. However, for a country like Pakistan with limited resources, pfSense is suitable for small offices due to its cost-effectiveness.

Installation is straightforward, especially for IT professionals. During the installation process, you are prompted to input the brand of the internet and LAN cables. If you're unsure, you can simply connect the cables – one for the internet and one for LAN – and proceed. You can choose to use either one or two cards based on your preference.

Regarding maintenance and technical support, we have a team of around 14 technical staff who handle phone calls and work on maintenance when required.

On a scale of one to ten for pfSense overall, I would rate it a seven. In comparison with other top devices like Fortinet and UDMP, pfSense stands equal in my opinion.

I am using it for personal use.

It is quite easy to manage firewall rules and policies in pfSense. It is not the most user-friendly, but it gets us there. We have to be sure of all the things that we are activating, but it is easy. It is alright.

Open source and support are valuable. I have community support.

Its performance is good. It is reliable. I would rate it a solid nine out of ten for performance.

There are several levels of firewall configuration such as beginner, advanced, and expert configurations. At each level, it becomes more complex and more tricky to set up the firewall. For example, if you want to install the firewall on your computer system, it would be a lot easier if it just tells you that this is the internet NIC and this is the Wi-Fi NIC. 

It would also be interesting if we could add an interface for DNS versions. It will be a multisystem to make all the blocks of the DNS. I know that firewalls are different from DNS, but if we could take advantage of everything in a single system, that would be lovely.

I have been using pfSense for half a year.

It is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

I believe it is scalable. If I need more computers with more NICs, it is scalable, but it is not something related to pfSense. 

The support that I have is community support. 

Neutral

I also use WatchGuard Firebox. It is different from pfSense. I have Firebox on a rack mount server on a cabinet, whereas pfSense is on my computer, so it is quite different because I can use any kind of hardware to implement the firewall.

Firebox can make an open-source version, but that is not the target of the company. pfSense is doing a great job because they have covered both situations. They have an open-source version with community support, and if we purchase the license for hardware, we can also get support from their side. In the long run, pfSense has more advantages.

If I go to a company and they ask me to implement something, I would most definitely go with pfSense. Its price is lower. I have a great knowledge of pfSense. I can very easily find support in the community, and if the company buys a license, I can get support directly from pfSense. I believe it is a win-win for pfSense and for the customers.

I am implementing it in two phases. In the first phase, it was implemented directly on hardware on an old computer with five NICs, and everything went smoothly. The second stage is virtualizing this machine into a Proxmox server, which is a bit more tricky. It is quite difficult to make it work on the NIC hardware system.

The first phase is very easy. It is almost plug-and-play. We just have to install it and activate the NICs. Everything will go smoothly. The second phase is not easy because I have to make double configurations on Proxmox and on pfSense. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of the ease of setup.

In terms of our environment, I have one computer connected directly to the Internet's router, and then all the information is passed through and managed, so I can filter everything by MAC address in my network. I have it on one computer, but my whole network is using it.

I use the free version.

I would recommend it. For personal use, it is a great way to start. For companies, it is a great add-on. Companies can get support by buying the license.

I would rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

I use pfSense for various reasons, including implementing IPsec technology due to having limited branches. I use a VPN for secure connections, control the Internet or network flow, employ it as an NTP server, facilitate conference calls, and set up VLANs. I use it to run a proxy server.

I use the free version of Netgate pfSense software. I installed it on my servers with mini network cards, allowing me to create mini gateways and implement different plans.

The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years. We are using the V23.09 of the solution.

Everything is very smooth, with a user-friendly interface. You can use the user interface or CLI as a command.

We have 250 employees using this solution.

We have Git Community forums with a million topics about all issues regarding Netgate pfSense. We can save this information to address various concerns.

I have several reasons for choosing Netgate pfSense. Firstly, it serves my purposes effectively and is entirely free. Secondly, when I search on Google or inquire about past experiences with firewall workloads, its reliability and cost-effectiveness stand out.

The initial setup is too easy.

The product is free of cost.

I recommend using Postgres. However, if you need a firewall without additional tools and prefer a pool of well-established services, pfSense offers suitable features."

Other solutions like Postgres, Sophos, and Palo Alto are in the market. We've used firewalls for a long time, but in the last three years, I worked with pfSense, and it's efficient for all devices.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

THe solution is used as a primary gateway with two lease lines of 450 Mbps total. Around 200 users are under it. 

There is no server or database in the environment. Users use only the internet extensively. We have three separate locations in the same building. Web filtering, IDS/IPS are the obvious requirements. Squid and Snort open-source packages are installed. 

Our organization is ISO 27001 certified. 

An active directory was implemented to control IAM. Synology NAS with RAID for file sharing and off-premise data backup on the cloud. We have mostly L-2 switches to connect nodes. 

Endpoint security product is another layer of security there. 

The Netgate 6100 Max Model is equipped with pfSense Plus software. We configured it last week and replaced the Mikrotik router. There are many improvements, including more visibility, more control over Internet usage, and a robust VPN (no license required). 

There are multiple lease lines and load balancing, reserve or restrict bandwidth based on traffic priority, and user data transfer quotas.

We have almost no complaints about low speed, choking of the internet, or link problems. Now we can see and observe connections logs also. Usage reports are another improvement. 

It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled. 

We received a simple router, however, there are various tools/software to install to activate the full feature of pfSense plus products such as Squid for proxy, Snort for IDS/IPS, Squidguard for content filtering, etc. You can find many open-source software under the package manager tab on the dashboard of pfSense. 

Traffic shaping and load balancing are excellent features. 

pfSense Plus software is a powerful firewall, router, and VPN solution that leverages a number of highly-regarded open-source projects. The software competes effectively with far more expensive commercial alternatives and is used by hundreds of thousands of businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies all over the world. Leading secure-networking features and capabilities include:

Ad blocker (pfBlockerNG)
Captive Portal
CARP/HA
DNS Server
DHCP Server
HTTP transparent/web/reverse proxy (Squid)
IP/Country block list (pfBlocker)
IDS/IPS - Snort
Packet capture/inspection
Port forwarding
QOS/rate limiters
Software load balancer (HA Proxy)
Traffic monitoring
Traffic logging, statistics, and graphs
Traffic shaping
VLAN
Wake-on-LAN
Website blocker (pfBlocker)

and many more packages. Just install and play with it.

There must be a wizard section as per the use case. For example, if we need a simple firewall there must be an auto-install of most required packages. In the same way, if we need a more strict firewall, then different configuration settings.

There must be a more easy-to-use GUI.

More documentation should be available within the package manager.

A visible ON/OFF button must be there and can be easily configured as required. 

An additional non-us electrical plug must be inside the box.

There should be an option to upgrade RAM (i.e. 8GB to 16GB). It can enhance the capacity of the proxy server. 

I bought this solution 15 days back and configured it last week. 

It's an enterprise product and very stable. 

The solution is very easily scalable. 

As of now, we have not taken support. 

Positive

We were using a simple Mikrotik router with the limited capabilities of a firewall. 

It's not straightforward to set up. That said, it is not complex. Just use Netgate documentation and get help from YouTube resources.

We implemented it via an in-house team. My system admin configured it with the help of available documentation. 

The solution offers matchless ROI. There is no license for the VPN and no annual fees. It is a simple product. 

The product is very cost-effective and has no requirement for additional licenses.

The setup is not easy. Users need more technical expertise to configure it. This is not advisable for non-IT users. 

We checked Sophos and Sonicwall. Due to more configurable options and lower prices, and even no requirement of licenses, we decided to move to pfSense. 

This is the best solution with very impressive cost-effectiveness. 

We're using pfSense as a firewall and for web filtering.

The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well.

The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely.

I've used pfSense for two and a half years.

pfSense is stable. 

You can scale up pfSense with multiple clusters for higher availability. It has that capability. It gives you that flexibility to set up a hybrid with part of the deployment in the cloud and a mural copy or to grow your network. 

At my previous company, we used a Cisco firewall and a router, but they kept having issues with the firewall and the device.  When I joined this company,  we introduced pfSense and haven't had any issues since. 

Setting up pfSense is easy, but it depends on your experience level. The average person with an IT background who is grounded in ICT can do install and configure pfSense in 15 to 30 minutes. 

PfSense is an open-source product, but you need to buy a license to get some features. 

I rate pfSense eight out of 10. It's an open-source solution that you can deploy on data warehouses with various resources. You're not tied to specific hardware. It's easier to manage and use.

Before deploying, you should find out the details about the environment where you will install pfSense. I would recommend pfSense for an enterprise environment with around 1,000 to 2,500 users.