OpenVPN Access Server Reviews

The solution is a VPN installed at the customer's headquarters, with three small offices connecting to the main server to open the application and access a specific database.

The most valuable feature is stability.

There is always room for more security features.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable. I was able to apply almost the same configuration without having to monitor the connection daily. Thus, the solution is stable and does not require more bandwidth or a more complex configuration. It is simply a link to connect to the specific application on the server and that is all.

The scalability for the four locations is good.

The technical support was satisfactory as I found a lot of information on the network and on the Internet. 

The initial setup is straightforward, provided we have done our preparation. When we attempt to install the solution for the first time, we need to research how to configure it, check the parameters, assess whether other software is more suitable for the customer, and consider the cost.

The deployment took one week.

I first installed the server for the deployment, created the key for the client, and tested it on the external line to check if connecting was possible. Then, I went to different remote sites and deployed their information.

The solution was free of charge.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We tested and discussed with the new vendor an application that is almost the same, but it is cloud-based and all upgrades are done on the data center. This means that their new solution does not require any installation on the remote side, just an internet connection to connect to the cloud and they don't have to worry about security as everything is stored on the server. This is the future.

We have ten people using the solution in our organization.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the scale on which the solution is being used. On a small scale, only one person is required for maintenance.

There may be other solutions that are better than OpenVPN Access Server, but we must assess what we will receive after installation and our requirements in order to find the best solution to meet our needs.

When deploying the solution, we strive to work with it as much as possible. We must consider the possibility of updates and, if the customer has configured the solution, we must make the necessary adjustments. In this case, it is important to involve and attempt to comprehend the situation.

In our country, there is a problem with accessing some sites. Therefore, we need to use OpenVPN. We also use it to access our server.

The solution is very easy to use. It's very direct. It always just works when we need it to. The performance is good. 

The solution is stable.

It can scale well.

The initial setup is fast and easy.

The interface could be a little bit better in future iterations. 

I can't remember how long I've used the solution. It's likely been around six years. 

The solution offers good performance. It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It makes access simple. 

The product can scale well. 

We have 40 or 50 people using the product at this time. 

As remote work increases, we likely will expand usage. 

We haven't needed any additional support so far. 

We did not previously use any other services similar to this product. 

It is easy to set up. It just works right away. 

It takes a very short amount of time to deploy it. I found the process to be quite fast. We deployed in minutes, as I recall. 

A company would only need one person to handle the deployment process. 

We did not need any outside assistance or support for the implementation process. 

I'm unsure of the exact licensing costs. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

I'd recommend this product to other users and companies. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The solution is used to connect to the user's remote screen to access the network.

The solution is secure and user-friendly.

I would like more frequent updates.

The solution can be more compatible with different operating systems.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I give the stability of the solution a seven out of ten.

I give the scalability a six out of ten. The scalability of the solution relies on the operating system being used by the clients. It is easier to scale for clients who are using Windows, while it can be a bit more challenging for clients using Linux.

The initial setup is straightforward. I deployed the solution on my own in four hours. The only step is to run the executable files.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We currently have 20 users and plan to increase the usage eventually.

We have one administrator for the maintenance of the solution.

The solution is compatible with Windows, Linux, and Mac, but it is most optimized for Windows.

I used the solution to deploy a tunnel to limit lateral movement in a specific network.

The solution's valuable feature is that it is open source.

They should make the solution more secure by adding some firewall functionalities.

I have used the solution for three months.

I rate the solution's stability a six and a half.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability as an eight.

The solution's initial setup is of medium complexity. I deployed it to three ports to establish a tunnel between them. It took three weeks to deploy it to all the virtual machines.

I implemented the solution myself.

The solution is free of cost. 

I highly recommend the solution to those who want to learn about VPN infrastructure and its deployment. But I wouldn't recommend it to any company. I rate it as a nine, as I have learned so much from it.

This is an enterprise infrastructure VPN solution. 

It is very stable and reliable. It's a useful device. 

It is very easy to look at the quality of the connection and the bandwidth and do an investigation if there are problems on the network.

It is simple to set up and deploy. 

It's compatible with WatchGuard. 

There sometimes is an incompatibility between some VPNs. 

I've been using the solution for two or three years. It hasn't been a long time. 

We have found the stability to be good. It is reliable. here are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'm not sure of the scalability. I've never tried to scale the product. 

We have three customers on the solution right now. 

We are able to manage the support of the solution and troubleshoot for clients. However, I have never dealt with the solution's technical support services in the past. 

As solutions providers, we deal with a lot of VPN technology. For example, I have worked with FortiClient. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. For example, I find it easier to implement than FortiClient.

The deployment is fast. It takes five to ten minutes. After that, you can put in the customer's configurations. 

If the customer gives you the HTTP link for the certificate and the configuration, you enter everything on that site, and automatically, you are good to go.

We handle the maintenance for our clients. 

We've been able to implement the solution for clients for a while now. 

I don't have details related to licensing. The customer typically deals with that directly. 

We sell software solutions. 

I'd recommend the product to other users. 

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for a secure VPN connection.

Overall, it's okay and performance-wise it's fine.

It is easy to set up.

The solution is stable.

It can scale well. 

It is open-source and free to use. 

The performance could be a bit better. The stability could always be enhanced. 

When there are too many concurrent users trying to connect at the same time, there may be a bit of a bottleneck. When all people would like to reconnect to the VPN at the same time, the performance and availability of the solution could be better.

I've been using the solution for almost a year.

The solution is quite stable and has okay performance. However, it could be better. We'd like the performance to be more robust.

It's a scalable product. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

We have around 2,000 users on the solution right now. 

We're always open to increasing usage. 

I haven't dealt with technical support just yet. I can't speak to how helpful they would be. 

We did not previously use a different solution. 

With OpenVPN, the amount of people you need to deploy and maintain it depends on how many nodes you would need and the number of users as well as whether you are operating 24/7 or operating only during work hours. Likely, you would need between three and six people.

This is an open-source solution. We can use it for free. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

I would rate the product eight out of ten as I have been mostly pleased with its capabilities. 

We are a solution provider and the OpenVPN Access Server was one of the products that we used for our customers. It is used to create remote desktop connections into the cloud network, where people who are working from home can share resources with people in the office. When people are working in an office then they have a local network, and OpenVPN expands the network for use externally.

We are no longer using this solution because of complaints raised by our customers about security vulnerabilities. The server is now shut down.

This server allows you to connect to a network that does not have any public IP addresses. You first dial-up the OpenVPN to get onto the network, then directly use the private IP for the local device. Once the connection is made, we can do development work, maintenance, or whatever is required.

The most valuable feature is the remote connection capability.

It is easy to use.

There is support for multi-factor authentication.

We would like to be able to access the parts of the network that belong to other virtual LANs, which is not currently possible. For example, if an organization has different VLANs for sales, developers, and production, then we can only connect and view one of these segments. If you can access sales then you will have visibility of that particular subnet and not be able to see the developer VLAN resources.

The security needs to be improved because it was a complaint that our customers had. I'm not sure exactly what the specific issue is, other than they told us that it was not compliant with their organizational policies.

It is not possible to scale this solution horizontally, which is something that should be improved. They could allow multiple instances to run in different zones, synchronizing with each using a round-robin scheduler.

It would be great if they added intrusion prevention and detection (IPS/IDS) features. If they had these then there would be less need to use other products, such as firewalls. It would allow everything to run under one umbrella with centralized control.

We were using OpenVPN for about one year and we migrated away from it about three months ago.

Horizontally, this solution is definitely not scalable. Vertically, it is possible but there will be some downtime. Scaling requires that we stop the server, upscale it, select a different instance, and then restart it. The downtime is approximately five minutes.

I have been in contact with technical support and the experience was good. They have knowledgeable people.

We have migrated to Fortinet because of security vulnerabilities.

The initial setup is easy. Once we go to the marketplace for the license, we can install and start using it. This involves selecting an image, then selecting a VM, and deploying on that. You then install the certificate and create the users. Creating users is also easy to do.

 One person is enough for this task and it will take between 15 and 30 minutes to deploy.

Our in-house team deploys OpenVPN for our customers. After the deployment is complete, users will log in, download their profile, and then they can connect.

Before migrating to Fortinet, we looked at other vendors including Cisco. We found that based on the sizing we needed, the pricing of Cisco AnyConnect was not as competitive.

Personally, I have not found any differences between these products that affect what I need to do.

Personally, I like this product and our decision to shut down the server is in response to decisions made by our customers. I have not found any issues with it, myself.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to communicate with our servers located in the office.

OpenVPN Access Server is a simple and easy-to-use solution that I can use myself without anybody's help.

The solution should provide a faster connection, and its security could be improved. The solution’s stability could be improved.

I have been using OpenVPN Access Server for two to three years.

I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 users use the solution regularly in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is complex and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven or eight out of ten.

The solution’s deployment did not take much time.

The solution was deployed on the cloud in our organization. More than 100 people are needed for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.