WatchGuard Firebox Reviews

I've used it for network control, and it's been quite helpful.

We have used it to keep our network clean and only allow certain things to work. So, it's useful for network control.

The control software is currently only available for Windows, which can be a little annoying. However, it is painless to use. A future release that is more focused on Linux would be great. Also, it would be helpful if it provided more diagnostic information on the OS side. So, a Java application that works for every other OS would be helpful.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years. We are using the latest version. I have experience working with it.

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable product. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. While there are currently around 50 users, the number of users may vary depending on how the software is used in our particular environment. It's possible that there could be more users in a different environment, but we wouldn't be using the software concurrently. Additionally, some users in our network are currently submitting requests and utilizing the software, which could create a challenge or bottleneck for the software due to the increased demand.

The initial setup was quite simple. We didn't face any bigger issues. For us, it was so simple that we had all we needed. I didn't have any big problems. You just need to decide what you want to have and which programs you want to work with, and then make those configurations work. 

It's easy to do once you learn the WatchGuard side, but there's also the other side where you need to test the TCP ports, IDB boards, and other things that the program needs to work with. Depending on what you want to work with, it usually takes a bit longer, but it needs to be easy to modify and allow/disallow things in every software you're using. 

If you have the subscription system in the license, it can be included in your hardware subscription. So we usually purchase a big license that includes it. But it's always possible to take smaller subscriptions and then add those. You can choose between subscription plans.

It's user-friendly. And if you are using a WatchGuard device and you want to test that side of the software, it's quite easy to get the license to test it. It's included when you purchase the WatchGuard device. Then there's the possibility to test the bigger software for a while and get the older things to happen. And, of course, if you need more, you can just call your support and ask if you can have a test license to try a little more.

Overall, the product is an eight out of ten because WatchGuard lacks diagnostic information on the OS side.

We primarily use the solution to secure our networks in branch via SSL and VPN. We also use it for our web pages hosted on our servers. This product handled everything UTM.

The solution has benefitted us by offering a secure connection. We don't spend as much time analyzing when traffic goes somewhere. We have clearance capabilities. We see what happens in our network.

The hardware is quite good.

The solution is fast. When we commit and change items in Firebox. It just works and it is simple. When you drop a connection, it gets dropped in a second. The speed is important to us.

It has everything we need in terms of functionality.

The solution is scalable.

It is stable and reliable. 

Pricing is reasonable. 

The UI and web view aren't nice. The fonts are too small, for example. 

I've been using the solution for three years. 

It is very stable. I haven't seen any issues with it. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of stability.

The solution can scale quite well. If a company needs to expand, it can. I'd rate the ability to scale at an eight or a nine out of ten. It's easy.

I've never directly reached out to technical support.

When we need to make something really good, we need to take the time to ensure that's the case. However, the configurations are simple.

We had a business help us implement the solution. 

So far, the solution has been worth the cost.

The product isn't necessarily expensive to acquire. The pricing is reasonable. 

There are no extra costs or hidden fees. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pleased with the product overall. 

Our primary use cases for WatchGuard Firebox are routing and VPN, including the integrated firewall. We do not use the SSO system or any other router features.

WatchGuard Firebox was able to help our organization during the pandemic as we were obligated to work from home. We were working remotely, so the VPN feature of WatchGuard Firebox allowed remote work.

The most valuable feature of WatchGuard Firebox is the VPN. It's easy to connect to the VPN.

The user interface for WatchGuard Firebox has room for improvement. Right now, it's a bit complex to work with and could be easier. I like Fortigate better because its user interface is nicer and easier to work with than WatchGuard Firebox, so improving the user interface would be great.

I've used WatchGuard Firebox for two to three years and still use it at work.

WatchGuard Firebox is a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

In terms of scalability, WatchGuard Firebox is an eight out of ten.

I didn't have to call the WatchGuard Firebox technical support team, but the support on the website is a six out of ten.

Neutral

The company used Fortinet before using WatchGuard Firebox, though I don't have information on which Fortinet product and why the company switched to WatchGuard Firebox.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of WatchGuard Firebox because I wasn't there when the company chose the product. I just learned to love it.

WatchGuard Firebox was great for remote working, but I have no information on its ROI.

I have no information on WatchGuard Firebox costs.

My company uses WatchGuard Firebox. There's a Watchguard router for the internet and three sites on WatchGuard.

I'm using WatchGuard Firebox M440.

The product is deployed on-site.

I can recommend WatchGuard Firebox to anyone looking into implementing it, but I cannot advise on how to implement the product for your network or environment.

My rating for WatchGuard Firebox is eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is a primary firewall.

The features I found most valuable are probably the built-in VPN functionality and the scalability because they can both be centrally managed. It is very easy to scale. It is also very granular, so you can be as restrictive or as non-restrictive as you like. This means you can be very precise with it.

The area where I think this product can be improved is the user interface and the reporting. It can be quite difficult to find the correct logs and to actually find out what is going on. The digging can be time-consuming.

I have been using this solution for a year now.

I would rate the stability of this solution an eight out of 10, with one being unstable and 10 being very stable.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a 10, on a scale of one to 10, with one being not scalable at all and 10 being very scalable.

We currently have about 200 users.

From my experience with their customer service team, I would say that they seem quite knowledgeable and fairly quick to respond.

Previously, we used FortiGate. FortiGate is a much more mature product. I feel like FortiGate is a lot easier to work with. Firebox, you're able to achieve the same outcomes, but it can be a lot more complicated to do so.

The initial setup can be somewhat complex. I would rate it a six out of 10, with one being not complicated at all and 10 being very complex.

Our deployment was done through a third party.

I would rate their pricing plan a four, which means it's definitely on the cheaper scale.

I would recommend this product, but you need to make sure that you've got the technical capability to work with it because it can be quite complicated. Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of 10, with one being poor and 10 being excellent.

WatchGuard Firebox is used as the core firewall. It's also used for routing purposes. As a software, it's also used as a VPN access for external clients.

How WatchGuard Firebox improved my organization is that it provided a deeper level of traffic management. It allowed the company to more effectively manage the network traffic, which led to higher efficiencies across the network. Though FortiGate does a much better job of managing traffic, WatchGuard Firebox does it more efficiently.

What I found most valuable in WatchGuard Firebox is that it's a functional platform that works, and each of its features works well. The solution also has good reporting and dashboard capabilities. I also find the overall performance of WatchGuard Firebox great.

What could use some significant improvement in WatchGuard Firebox would be its interface and policy management.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of WatchGuard Firebox is the ability to modify an existing policy instead of having to recreate a policy when changes are necessary. At the moment, there's no possibility to modify the policy. You have to delete the policy and recreate it.

I've been using WatchGuard Firebox since 2016. I'm still using it.

WatchGuard Firebox is a very stable product with no issues whatsoever.

WatchGuard Firebox is a very scalable product. My company decided, after initial implementation, to move to a redundant core network, and it was able to implement a second device seamlessly to act as a passive follow.

All of my interactions with the technical support team of WatchGuard Firebox have been great, so far. The support team is very responsive and very knowledgeable. I haven't had an issue that the team hasn't been able to resolve. The team always responded within the SLAs.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating the support for WatchGuard Firebox a five.

We used Palo Alto before WatchGuard Firebox, and the reason we switched was because of some failures in the Palo Alto firewall.

The initial setup for WatchGuard Firebox was very straightforward, though my company has a relatively complex network utilizing SD-WAN, MPLS, and BOVPN technologies. On a scale of one to five, where one is the worst and five is the best, I'm rating my setup experience a four. There's always room for improvement, but it was a fairly good process.

The deployment of the WatchGuard Firebox took eight hours to complete.

WatchGuard Firebox has been implemented as the core firewall for the organization. The reason my organization upgraded to the device and switched from a previous software was due to a hardware failure of the previous firewall.

We deployed WatchGuard Firebox internally, through my team.

In terms of ROI from WatchGuard Firebox, from a data perspective, I couldn't share only because my company doesn't have any metrics on ROI. However, I can say that the threat management and prevention features such as IPS and IDS caught several malicious files coming in through the firewall or WatchGuard Firebox, so I suppose that alone makes it worth its weight in gold.

We paid $4000 in AUD for WatchGuard Firebox per year. There were no additional costs.

I didn't evaluate other solutions, apart from Palo Alto, before using WatchGuard Firebox.

I'm using the latest version of WatchGuard Firebox.

My company has one thousand and five hundred users of WatchGuard Firebox in IT, Finance, and Graphic Design.

At this point, there's no plan to scale WatchGuard Firebox, but it's fairly well-configured to scale if required.

I do ninety-nine percent of the work in terms of maintaining the product. One person seems enough for the maintenance of the WatchGuard Firebox.

The only advice I would share to others looking to implement WatchGuard Firebox for business is to consult with a person experienced on the platform, specifically during your first implementation, just because there could be some unique issues that you may face that you won't find outside of the WatchGuard platform. Overall, I would recommend WatchGuard Firebox to others.

In general, I'd give WatchGuard Firebox eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement. No product will ever get a perfect ten. I ruled out nine as the rating and I gave WatchGuard Firebox an eight just because fundamentally, a firewall packet and policy management is at the forefront of what a firewall does, and not being able to modify the policy really bumps the product down a little bit in terms of rating, in my opinion.

I'm a customer of WatchGuard Firebox.

We run education organizations. We have students and staff working on campus. We wanted to be protected within the campus as well as outside the campus.

I am using WatchGuard Firebox XTM 850, and I have its latest version.

In terms of users within the campus, the policy-based usage helps us where we allow something during the daytime, something after school hours, and something during the night. In terms of outside the campus, it helps us in monitoring our mail services. All our deployments are protected from external users.

Policy VPN, site-to-site VPN, traffic monitoring, anti-spam filters, and all other advanced features are valuable.

The way Secure Sign-On authentication is happening needs to be improved. When the Secure Sign-On portal is turned on, anybody who comes into the campus, whether he or she is a staff member or a guest, has to go past the initial portal. One of the shortcomings is the username. It shouldn't allow permutations or combinations with upper or lower cases. For example, when there is a username abc, it shouldn't allow ABC or Abc. It should not allow the same username, but currently, two separate people can go in. Therefore, its authentication or validation should be improved, and the case sensitiveness should be picked up. If I have restricted someone to two devices, they shouldn't be able to use different combinations of the same username and get into the third or fourth device. It shouldn't allow different combinations of alphabets to be used to log in. 

I have been using WatchGuard solutions for the last ten years.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We have about 1,200 users at this point in time, but the number of devices exceeds 2,200. There are multiple devices per person in today's world. A staff member is using three or four devices, and students are using at least two, which makes it 2,500 or 3,000 devices.

Their technical support is very good. You get a response within 15 minutes to an hour at the max.

We had Cisco ASA Firewall. It was a very simple firewall.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. It took 30 minutes.

A consultant from WatchGuard was there. He showed it once, and our people could do it easily. They have deployed it again and again. It is pretty simple. 

You just need one person for its deployment and maintenance. Security personnel is the one who manages it.

They have an annual subscription license. Initially, we had opted for three years. After that, we went for another three years, and after that, we have been doing it yearly. They also have a license for five years.

We evaluated SonicWall, Palo Alto, and Cisco, but this was the best.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use them for perimeter security and also to manage virtual LANs.

The main benefit for us is the ability to manage the VLANs. It allows us to monitor types of traffic and to actually review and determine what traffic we want to allow and deny. It also allows us to modify the categories of restrictions that need to be applied.

It has also simplified some of the processes that we have. For example, we were having some issues in identifying where most of our bandwidth was being used up, which devices and which users, and what they were using the bandwidth to do. Were they watching videos or were they looking at some other bandwidth-intensive site or application? We have been able to determine user behavior on the network.

We are quite happy with the Firebox. It really helps us with the ease of managing firewalls at other locations. It has really helped us save time by not having to go to other locations. We have devices at two smaller offices, where we don't have IT staff. It has allowed us to remotely manage and update the firewalls at those locations. It's saving us at least four hours a week.

I don't think it has helped improve productivity in terms of efficiency, but it has enabled us to improve the security of the network. We don't have to worry as much about where the users are going. And if a user was blocked, it will let us know why they were blocked, what category of trip was being blocked, or what policy it was blocked under. Even if our staff is going to a legitimate site, but the site is under a wrong category, it allows us to put that site on our exemption list to allow it.

It has also really helped us with our management and to monitor internet usage. Our department is just three people and it has made it very easy for us to manage.

• Two of the functionalities we use most are the traffic monitoring and the full panel dashboard. Those are two things that are very useful for us.
• It's very easy to use. The interface does not present a challenge for the user. It is a great device for small businesses with up to 500 users. It allows easy management of all devices from one central device and updates are very easy as well.
• The performance is also very good. The throughput is excellent. I've not had any issues with that so far.
• The reporting and management features are excellent. They're easy to navigate and very intuitive, and reports are easy to read.
• In addition, it provides us with layered security. It allows us to determine what types of access, to which networks, we want to allow or deny.
• We also like the site-to-site VPN that allows us to connect to and securely access devices at other locations.

I would like to have a little more control over access points and the ability to see the bandwidth that is passing through a specific access point. We are not able to see that. We can see what traffic is passing through the Firebox itself, but we can't identify if it is coming from a particular access point or not.

We have used WatchGuard Firebox for seven years.

The Firebox is very stable. We have not had a failure over the seven years we've used them.

In terms of scalability, we would need to add another device to the M300 that we have right now. I know there are models of Firebox that you can actually add hardware to, to get them scaled up and for additional portals. But the one that we have, in terms of subscription, is very scalable in terms of features, and it integrates with WatchGuard's central interface where it can update our firmware as the updates come out.

What we want to do is put in some more redundancy in our network access. We want to have a second Firebox at each location. We have two ISPs at each location, so instead of both ISPs going to one Firebox, we want to split the ISPs between the two Fireboxes and have load balancing through the internet on firewalls.

We have 100 employees at our head office, and we have 10 employees at our sub-offices. In terms of devices, we probably have about 150 devices, including printers and computers at our head office, and about 12 devices at each of our sub-offices.

We used the technical support once, when we had some issues with employees trying to access legitimate sites. That is when we learned about setting exemptions for certain sites. A company might be a travel site, for instance, but due to the amount of advertising they do, it might be flagged as an advertising site. To resolve that issue, when it's a legitimate site that does a lot of advertising, you can go to support for help in figuring that out, and also for help in putting necessary exemptions in place. 

The support was very professional. They were very patient, and they explained the issues and the solutions fully.

I don't have a lot of experience with other firewalls. There was a Cisco Certified office that I was exposed to before we moved to the WatchGuard Firebox. It felt like the WatchGuard was a lot easier to use, and easier to set up than the Certified Office device.

The primary reason that we went with Firebox was its cost. It is very economical and it provided us with all the security functions that we were looking for at the time. And the throughput was more than what we required, so it was a very cost-effective device to deploy on our network.

The initial setup of Firebox was straightforward. It was not complex.

For our deployment we configured all three access points at one location, our head office, and tested them in that one environment. Then, at the various offices, it was just a matter of changing the IP address. We had one technician go to one office and another technician go to the other office to install the Fireboxes and connect them to the network. As they were plugged in, they connected and it provided the service that we wanted from day one. We didn't have to do too many reconfigurations. The policies that come with it out-of-the-box provide adequate network protection, and we just had to put in special policies to allow various types of traffic, either both ways or one way, to various ports on the firewall. We didn't have many problems in getting them up and running at each office.

Deployment took one day at each location. Overall, we were able to prepare the Fireboxes and test them in less than a week. We prepared everything at one location, did the testing on the second day, and on the third and fourth days we went to the other two office locations to install them.

With the Firebox solutions we have had a lot more accessibility, in the network, to our third-party vendors and suppliers. Prior to that, we did not have a direct connection to those companies, but with the Firebox we were able to configure a DMZ, and that allowed us to apply the granular restrictions that we really wanted. It allowed us to reduce the number of devices that we have on one desk, at certain workstations. Instead of having the supplier's computer and our computer, we were able to use just one computer, and connect to the supplier.

Going with the Firebox is a no-brainer. It provides the necessary security, out-of-the-box, for your configuration of the policies. It's very easy to use and it also gives you a reporting dashboard that can be customized. It makes a lot of sense out of all the data. It's very easy to read. We use a 40-inch display in our office and have it connected to the Firebox so that we can see what's going on on the network. We can look at it and see how the traffic is going through it.

It's a perimeter device and I use it as a DNS server for my domain, but I'm not the typical user for this type of device. I'm a hobbyist when it comes to this type of product and I use it in a small office environment.

It's competent. There's really nothing technically wrong with it. This is just a small device, and I don't use it for intrusion monitoring. I am only using it as a basic front-end and I have port-forwarding for services behind the network.

I use it to give access to some remote users. I give them access to their desktops with RDP and I have a client so they can register on the domain network with dynamic DNS. The ports that I have assigned appear to be unattainable to outside "mal-actors," unless they have an address registered on the internet that this thing is expecting. That's a layer of security.

I don't think I can get a full-blown DNS client from it. I've been trying to have DNS services. It has forwarding, but I don't get the services of a full DNS client. My main difficulty with it is that I can't run a complete service. I need NTP. I need DNS. I need DHCP for my domain, but I only get forwarding. As far as I can tell, I don't get caching and the kinds of reporting and registration needed to host a DNS for a domain. I have to have a separate solution for that.

I also struggle with its usability a little bit. I come from an open source background, so I'm accustomed to BIND and DHCP from Linux builds. With their tools I'm struggling to have a web interface. I'm not getting a third-party web interface, so I'm using Webmin, which I have become accustomed to. You have to relearn or find services that you know are there. You have to figure out what they mean by an alias. Setting up a network interface or port-forwarding isn't necessarily using the language that I'm accustomed to. Every time you deal with a new user interface, they structure things differently. Where do you go and how do you maintain it and how do you document it?

So I'm frustrated often when I get involved in vertical software where they start to brand or rename things, or they've adopted terminology. An example with WatchGuard is that every time I want to find a log, I have to search forever to find just basic logging. It's in there someplace, consistently. It's just that there isn't a button that says "logging."

I've been using Firebox for two or three years.

The stability seems perfect. The last time I rebooted it was a half a year ago. 

Hardware-wise, it's comparable to a Linksys consumer perimeter device. It's obviously got more bells and whistles behind it. It's some sort of ARM processor. I'm sure it's pretty low power. It sits there and idles and I can always get on it, and I can set it up with additional security to keep the ports safe. 

The DNS works fine, although it's a little clumsy to find, and get at, and get set up. And I can set up some sort of VPN on it. I haven't at this point, but I've got a couple of licenses for VPN if I needed that for my home office.

In terms of scalability, I would imagine they know what they're doing. I would imagine you could make it as big as you want it. I've seen some of their devices, with the intrusion detection, that are designed for large networks. We've got 15 or 20 devices here. At any given time, I have five active users, and they're mostly just getting Gmail or streaming music to their desktops. Our needs are really small, but I would imagine that a company like WatchGuard knows what it's doing and that they could scale it up as much as you need it to. 

There's also WatchGuard Cloud. I think it's part of a subscription service and it maintains some sort of a threats database or maybe prevents users from getting on certain items. But those things are frustrating. You set them up and then people can't get where they want to go, and you have to crack the cloud on that. It's one thing if you're administering hundreds of desktops, but I can see all of mine. I know where my security problems are.

When I first got the device I was thinking, "Oh, I could at least, just out of curiosity, dig into the intrusion detection and traffic monitoring stuff." I was reading some of the guides. It has the power, but it's going to start to slow network traffic at a certain point. So I just didn't pursue it anymore. My impression was that you would want to buy models that are two steps larger than this if you wanted to actually do any effective stuff. 

For my purposes, I would just fire up a virtual machine, install pfSense and Snort, and figure out how that works. I could have as much hardware as I needed anytime I needed it.

I had an inexpensive perimeter device, a $100 Linksys product. Behind that, I had DNS, DHCP, NTP, print servers, and my domain management. I use Samba for that. I just used whatever firewall was there.

I switched to WatchGuard because I was experimenting with this VAR—he's a friend—to see if I could take what I've done and to get to know some of his tags and put some sort of a service agreement on my infrastructure, through his resources. We talked about it and they were seemingly interested. They do documentation or I might bring them in to do some of the coding projects I suffer with.

My experience has been, in my unique situation, that when I end up bringing somebody in from a third-party, it's more work to train them. You're training somebody from a VAR and they are going to charge $150 an hour or so. That's a pretty healthy investment. The training would take a lot of my time. If I take that time and just solve my problem on my own, I get a two-for-one. I don't have to pay for it outside the company.

But that's why I was bringing in this WatchGuard device in my particular situation. I was just experimenting and seeing if I could find a guy at this VAR whom I felt was worth investing more in, and having him be a third-party to maintain my system if it goes down or I get hit by a bus.

I had to learn it. I had to find where they put stuff.

It took minutes to get the thing up and operating. I started to configure DHCP and puzzle through what they meant by that, and find ways to identify what leases were there and if it was able to register with this other DNS server I have on it.

I've fussed with it any number of times, setting up the port-forwarding for the RDP clients. I knew where to go and what to do, and I got that working pretty quickly. But that was one of the situations where I needed to see a log to see what was happening—it wasn't answering—and to find out what the function was, I had to find the log. It took me an age to find the log. Once I found out what was being rejected, then I figured it out. I've had a couple of bouts of that.

The VAR came in—they charged me plenty, a couple of hundred dollars—to set the thing up. He put the thing down. I said, "How do I get onto it?" He made an account for me on it, but it wasn't, by design, to be user-configurable. Normally, they would configure it from their side and every time I would want to make a change I would have to call them.

Then I asked him about the DNS , and he said, "Well, is this it?" He didn't really know it very well. He was just a mid-level tech for a VAR who can set the things up in their base configuration, but he couldn't answer any questions.

From there, it was me. I can't get support from the WatchGuard group itself because they work through the VARs. So I'm looking at those websites that have server guys who talk about things that frustrate them, to find where the DNS is. Even now, I can't easily find logging. I have to search for it every time I want to see a log. The frustration I have with these devices is that they're put together in a certain way and you've got to learn where they want you to go to get what you want.

I spent $600 or $800 on this product and I'm paying a couple of hundred dollars a year in a subscription service to keep the lights on, on it. I imagine there's some aspect of it that I won't be able to utilize if it goes off of support.

For what it is—for example, for a doctors' office building or a situation with remote offices and no tech guy on staff—it's perfect. It has antivirus subscription services, IPS, web blocker, file exception, spam blocker, application control, reputation defense, botnet detection.

It works out to $100 or $200 a year if you buy several years at once. It's fair. But when you get into the intrusion detection and gateway stuff, it can be fairly expensive and you're going to need more expensive hardware.

I looked at a lot of stuff. I'm familiar with pfSense. I have used that a little bit here and there over the years, so if I went to an open-source solution I would go straight to that. And I looked at the professional versions and this one had a $700, three-year service contract on it and it handled VPN. The VAR supported it and they like it.

I don't really feel that it improves anything compared to a more common firewall device. It's certainly less capable or less configurable compared to something like a pfSense, an open source perimeter device that can be integrated with intrusion detection and network monitoring on a computer or on a virtual machine-type of setting.

The thing that the Firebox adds is it's managed and a VAR can support it. It's a known entity. It's supportable, whereas it's more difficult to support a pfSense-type of setup. You pretty much have to maintain the latter yourself.

It's there for a reason. It's there for VARs to be able to put in a known device that they can train on and the user doesn't need to manage it much. In my circumstances, I'm the IT guy of the company, and it's a small company. I'm also the owner and I understand this stuff. It's somewhat of a hobby for me to be able to configure and have a competent domain, without having to pay a VAR tens of thousands of dollars a year, and without having to pay subscription services. I'm not the targeted client for it. I'm more like the hobbyist and the super-geeks who use open source, freely available tools. The types of people who need this sort of service shouldn't listen to me. A hobbyist would never touch this product.

Use it. It's very unlikely that a perimeter device is going to be cracked unless you leave something really crazy open. Most consumers are going to have some sort of perimeter device involved with their internet delivery and they're going to have some sort of a reasonably clean plug, with some port forwarding for their outbound connections coming into their network. And then if they're geeks, they're going to set up a pfSense virtual machine or get a little ARM processor.

I wanted to have a physical device at the network that I could just glare at. But you can set up a perimeter device with hardware, pfSense, or virtual pfSense, in the back of a 20-year-old computer. As long as you're careful about how you set up your routing, it's as effective as anything.

In terms of its throughput, we barely use it. All we're really doing is using it as a perimeter device and gateway. It's just fine. It's a tiny little thing. It has two interfaces plus the WAN interface. It's fine for what I do. I trust it being maintained. And until I got to the point of wanting to use it for domain monitoring, and traffic shaping or IDS-type of stuff, it really didn't require any processing power. It's competent for that.

It's a firewall so it provides my business with layered security. But it's got additional options, many of which you have to pay for. My device is too low-powered to efficiently host any of that stuff. I'd probably have to upgrade hardware in order to do the layered security types of things, and I would probably have to pay a fairly expensive subscription.

For the cost, if I got to the point where I was going to make a change, I would probably go to an open source tool, and suffer through that too, but get it to the point where I could do pretty much anything I wanted with it.

I should be in a situation where I have somebody else maintaining this stuff and not doing it myself. If that was the case, I would use a device just like this. But if I'm still playing around with the nuts and bolts of IT management in my company, then I'm probably going to revert to an open source tool again.

Firebox is 10 out of 10 at what it does. In terms of usefulness and reducing frustration, at my level, it's a three. It's not targeted for me, but it's good at what it does. Overall I would rate it at eight. I don't have a bad thing to say about the hardware and the software, for what it is. It's just frustrating for my particular use case.