Netgate pfSense Reviews

In the past, we had different locations in different countries, and in every location, we had the same pfSense firewall. Therefore, the connection between our different locations was good and manageable. However, in the last two years, we have had only one location here in Belgium, thus the performance of the pfSense has been good, and we can manage great with the open ports and the closed ports, but now a firewall has to be a little bit more than just that.

I do not have any big malware in my network, partly because of pfSense. The firewall blocks every malfunctioning malware or virus. Also, the access from outside our network has to be blocked, and I know by experience that our pfSense is very closed. You have to open every port in order to make sure that there can be a connection from outside our network.

1. I can manage it easily by myself.
2. The interaction between the same firewalls is good. We can connect VPNs over the same firewall easily.
3. It is an open source solution. Therefore, the price is good.
4. OPNsense.
5. The performance and functionality are good.

A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion.

There are a few features not included, and when you have to use those features, you have to pay for them.

I know that I should change the current pfSense solution. I should change it because we have only one key port on it. Our internet access also has a key port now, I should have two key ports, one to the LAN and one to the WAN.

Therefore, I want to change it, because it gives us less speed. I could provide the speed, but there are not two key ports on it. Therefore, I now have to choose a new pfSense solution, or I could look at another vendor similar to what we have.

I am satisfied with the stability.

Scalability was less important. When we started, we did not have to scale the pfSense. In the seven years that I have used the pfSense, once I had to renew it because the hardware was broken or was defective. The second one was a little bit faster and had more memory, so I did not have to scale it again. Therefore, the scalability has not been so important to us until now.

We came from OneStart. OneStart was out of data and at end of life. Thus, we had to switch. pfSense was originally proposed to us by the dealer and our external IT help.

The initial setup was straightforward, therefore I wanted to continue using the product.

I did not do it alone. I had help from the dealer. Once installed, I can manage now to change little things. For the initial setup, I was involved with it, but I did not do it myself.

It was straightforward to buy from pfSense.

From Sonic Wall, their price is much higher, because for every feature that you want to add, you have to pay. I can do the same things with pfSense, but everything is included in one price.

We originally evaluated Cisco, WatchGuard, and Barracuda. We chose pfSense because of the price and it was open source software. At the time, our team was called OpenERP (now called Odoo), so open source software was an advantage.

I would recommend it. It is manageable and straightforward. It is not so complex. You have to know the different rules, but you can manage it easily. The performance is good.

I have used it in town halls with a number of employees ranging between 40 and 60. I have also used it in educational institutions.

The use and results may vary according to the objectives of the institutions. 

In the case of city councils, I have taken the maximum advantage, taking into account that they were small institutions for which the tools provided by pfSense were sufficient according to the requirements of those institutions. 

However, in educational institutions, it was more difficult. Sometimes, the tools have fallen short.

• The part of the firewall and aliases
• The content filter in non-transparent mode and transparent mode with Squid and SquidGuard
• The possibility of adding packages to perform network analysis
• Creation of certificates
• The facility to administer services

The product is good in many of its departments, but this should make HTTPS filtering more efficient since Squid falls short when using man in the middle. It works, but it is not 100% efficient. It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology.

For security testing in network functions virtualization (NFV). 

It is a good firewall with good performance.

Stateful packet inspection. It works quite well for an open source product. 

More regular patch updates, because this is very important for a firewall.

Works with:

• Routers
• Firewalls
• Network address translation (NAT)
• VPN
• OpenVPN
• DHCP Server.

• More control of the access to network resources
• More control of the security policies
• Integration with Active Directory
• Centralized administration

Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security.

Services on additional features: 

• SNMP Network Management 
• Managing inventory
• Generating IT reports.

I use pfSense firewall, especially as an IPSec VPN Server. There are several VPN connections with equipment of various manufacturers at the other end.

I use ServerU as hardware instead of an ordinary PC, as most other people usually do.

The gain in performance and security from configuring the VPN connections was significant, since pfSense has replaced a server with a custom Linux open source version, which was running on outdated hardware.

Security and stability. The pfSense server acts as "IPSec VPN Server" for a small financial institution, but regardless of the company size, interruptions would cause significant financial impact.

pfSense serves us very well. My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters. I have more than 10 IPSec VPN connections, and when there is a need for troubleshooting, the logs are of little help.

With regard to this configuration, I consider it a stable solution.

Firewall and VPN, Internet link balancing, as the proxy was installed on another machine. Used redundant firewall as a cluster.

Improved service performance and availability through redundancy. The company already had specialists in Linux, which facilitated the project.

Ease of monitoring and placement of other packages and functionalities next to the equipment.

Improve analysis of logs and dashboards (control panel) with improved alert functionality.

Firewall system for small, medium, and large data networks. It allows you to provide security to your environment: DMZ networks, LAN, WAN, etc. A very stable product that lasts over time, easy to understand, and administer.

With pfSense, an incomparable stability is achieved with other firewall systems. It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service.

Security

• Stability
• Integration with other systems
• Easy assimilation of its features
• Easy administration
• Multiple network management tools
• Load balancing
• Multiple links
• High availability, etc.

The connections should be shown in a more specific way, as Kerio Control does. It should integrate with LDAP, Active Directory, etc, to improve the way in which the traces and connections of each IP, or user connected through the firewall, are shown.