Netgate pfSense Reviews

Use it to filter traffic and restrict browsing by profiles, use ACLs with Squid.
When using the load balancing functionality the performance is excellent, the best I could have 3 operators at the time.

Among the most valuable features I have found in PFsense are: Easy to deploy and easy to use, traffic graphics are excellent and tools that can be included as squid, snort, squidguard, ntop, pfblogNG, support wonderfully the purpose of generating PFsense.

Easy to deploy and easy to use, although the support of the community in the forums is excellent and there is always a solution

No, in fact I have one more than 4 years ago in production and it works perfect

No

Customer Service:

8

Technical Support:

8

Fortinet, TMG Microsoft, SonicWall, scalability, cost

After istalar pfsense the initial configuration is simple, and works without problems

The implementation was internally, clear before in production were made several laboratories

The power to use old hardware allows an exceptional ROI the investment is little just a few network cards

Of course, the tools he knew and those that are offered in the local market including FORTINET and SONICWALL

It is worth to enter the world of PFsense is rewarding to belong to an open-minded community that does not hesitate to share their experiences and knowledge

We just did not like its QoS interface.

We tested the solution for a very short period (one week), to compare it to Zeroshell. The idea was to decide which one to use. Our main focus was QoS.

No issues to deploy PFSense; it was straight forward.

PFSense sounded like the de-facto standard for simple SOHO solutions. We just did not like its QoS interface. For us, it seemed very "rigid" compared to Zeroshell. So we went back to Zeroshell because we considered that its QoS interface had much more flexibility and its latest version now even included nDPI too.

Initial setup was very straightforward; the interface is very self-explanatory.

Implementation was done in-house.

We also evaluated Zeroshell.

• Fail-over of between multiple ISPs
• Firewall
• Graphs
• Real time interface monitoring
• The web UI gives you an overview of everything you want to see
• For an open-source solution it has performed fantastically
• OSPF
• It contains loads of optional packages e.g Snort (IDS), asterix (PBX), network monitors etc.

We have pfSense across three sites where it manages the VPN and firewalls between them. Also, it has reduced costs drastically and has outperformed its expectations.

The load balancing can be improved as it uses tier levels to balance. For it to function most effectively, you often need to have the same bandwidth on the ISPs.

We've used it for six years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There were stability issues with certain versions, but fixes were released and the right hardware helped.

We do have issues as the right hardware needs to be deployed in order to expand correctly in certain areas.

We use a vendor team, Shrike Technologies who have been excellent, and once a while I consulted the pfSense cookbook.

The online forum has lots of answers.

We previously used Monowall and switched because we needed more functionality.

We used a vendor team, Shrike Technologies whose experience was very high.

Pricing is fantastic, we have gold subscription which covers on-line backup of device configurations, premium support, webinars and lots more.

Proper planning is necessary in order to select the right hardware and configuration required (rules, services etc.).

Flexibility is the most valuable feature for us.

There's no expensive licensing costs, which helps us save money.

Also, its capacity and functionalities are great for our needs.

Whenever a new version rolls out, there are hidden bugs. That's why we normally run a version behind for a little while before rolling into the current build.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

The features I've found most valuable are--

• Proxy server (to filter traffic, act as intermediary between our server and our client, and analyze and load-balance traffic)
• Load balancer (support multiple servers, load balances two gateways on the same tier)
• Hot spot (with captive portal, forces authentication or click-through for network access)

It's provided us with a fair internet speed for all users. We're also able to control web contents of our users.

The firewall feature could be improved.

We had no issues with deployment.

We had no issues with instability.

We were able to scale just fine.

- Firewall/router

- OpenVPN server

- DHCP server

- High availability cluster

- It's for FREE!

Before I started working for my present company, they used to use a small (for home use :) ) Linksys router. The main problem of Linksys was the limitation of firewall rules of up to 50 entries. I suggested using a main firewall/router because it has professional functions, has no limitation, and it's for free.

So far, from my point of view everything is working perfect!

I started working with pfSense in 2009.

Deployment is very easy and quite intuitive. Installation is very simple.

No, I didn't have any issues. Every issue I had with pfSense was with hardware (not caused by pfSense).

Never.

I never use customer service.

I never use technical support.

Before pfSense I had in the company an old Cisco router, but it had problems with stability so I was looking for an alternative and I found pfSense.

If you have some knowledge about router and firewall, initial setup won't be a problem for you. Ask google about it and you will find a lot of documentation, instructions and video.

I implemented pfSense by myself, so I can't rate the vendor team level of expertise.

System is totally free. I spent two days to implement it.
As hardware, I used old workstations which were prepared to scrap.
So ROI = use some cheap hardware with 2 NICs and you will get a professional firewall/router.

It's absolutly free, no pricing and no licensing.

I was checking some other alternatives (right now I don't remember which) but pfSense had the best documentation, so the choice was simple.

For professional use, I advise using two computers with three NICs

Why 2 computers???
To create a HA cluster.

You will need 3 WAN IP addresses, 3 LAN IP addresses, and a quite simple NIC configuration:

1st NIC use to WAN connection (CARP)

2nd NIC use to heartbeat and sync between two pfSense

3rd NIC use to LAN connection (CARP)

For more details ask Google :)

• Snort
• CARP
• Load balancing
• VPN

• Reduced the cost of our firewall solution
• Enhanced throughput compared with similar priced devices
• Stability
• Reliability

I'm no expert on this subject, and the OS performs all that is required.

I've used it for over one year.

No issues encountered.

We've only had to do one reboot in six months.

None as yet, because the solution hasn't reached capacity yet.

I'm yet to use the official tech support as the community provides all that I have required.

• Sonicwall
• Cisco ASA

We switched due to licensing costs and scalability.

It's relatively simple and straightforward, with enough documentation avalable online for the average user to install and setup.

£2000+

This product supports multiple ISP's, so it's good for implementation.

It's made us more productive.

FTP was not allowed, and it didn't indicate during set up whether FTP was to be allowed or disabled.

I've used it for about one year.

The stability is good.

The stability is good.

The technical support is good.

It's free.

All the other features are good, and with it being free, it is very attractive to the users.