Netgate pfSense Reviews

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.

One to three years.

The GUI is an all in one solution that includes features such as DHCP, VPN, Squid, Firewall, etc.

I am using this product as a firewall for site-to-site connectivity and also, the Dynamic DNS (DynDNS).

As per my understanding VPN, Captive Portal user-level and MAC-level filtering need to be improved.

I have used this solution for the last one and a half years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I am using the community version so there is no need for any support.

Earlier, I was using FortiGate. Due to budget issues we moved to pfSense.

The setup is simple, if you have some Linux and firewall administration expertise.

We evaluated FortiGate, Cisco ASA and Palo Alto.

I would recommend joining the community and ask questions.

You should also read the installation and configuration documentation on the website.

pfSense is used as our firewall and router.

The performance is good.

It is easy to use.

I have been working with this solution for so long now that it has become easy. It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet.

I expect a better interface with more log analysis because I create my own interface.

I have been using pfSense for a long time. Since the beginning.

I have the latest version.

pfSense is a stable product.

pfSense is a scalable solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I worked with Fortinet FortiGate, Linux, and OPNsense.

I have tested all that are available on the market and pfSense is more.

The initial setup is easy. 

The first installation took an hour to complete, but the configuration is another part. It's about the complexity of my network because I have provided services from a firm and every company has a different setup.

I was able to complete the installation myself.

I am not aware of the licensing costs.

I would recommend pfSense to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

On-premises

My primary use case is for controlling incoming traffic from various countries and blocking IP addresses if necessary. I'm the company director and a user of pfSense.

A key feature is being able to block IP addresses. This is a good product and I have no issues with it.

I'd like to see some instructional videos as opposed to documentation. It would be helpful for beginners and start-up companies. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable.

It's worth giving this product a shot and testing it out because it's free and community based.

I would rate the community version a 10 out of 10. 

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.

Still implementing.

• Free
• Open source
• Robust
• Strong community support
• Strong author support

Critical network infrastructure has improved.

I've used it for two years.

I've also used Untangle and Sophos firewalls

Straightforward, but it requires some technical expertise and tweaking.

We implemented it entirely in-house.

Make sure the implementer has programming experience.

Performance, cost effective, scalable, customizable

After switching from Cisco, Juniper, Astaro and Microsoft network response improved and more control of packet (for me, pfpacket technology is better than packet filter.)

Graphic report implementation tool (now possible with extra software)

5+ years.

No, perfect scalability from 20 to 500 users

Cisco, Microsoft and when TMG progressively died it was necessary to switch to unix technology, many corporations require low budget and high performance.

The initial approach is very complex because of the multiple functions, but after a short learning curve it is able to handle the standard functions.

In my case, I buy network appliance from Lanner Inc. ltd (watchguard supplier) and deploy the image depending on the desired size and functionality required by the customer.

Identify the most suitable hardware for the required size.

Yes, Astaro and PaloAlto plus Juniper, but the renewal planes (AV, UTM, etc.) are very expensive.

We use pfSense as a firewall and proxy server. We use it to apply different restrictions for different users from some data locations.

I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable.

There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall.

I have been working with pfSense for many years now.

pfSense is a stable solution.

pfSense is a scalable solution. We have about 200 users in our company.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a seven.

On-premises