Netgate pfSense Reviews

pfSense is a nice product, and I find that there's a lot of information out there. There are some good tutorials on YouTube and other websites with helpful information.

pfSense could improve by having a sandboxing feature that I have seen in SonicWall. However, maybe it is available I am not aware of it.

I have been using pfSense for approximately three years.

I have used the SonicWall solution. 

Sometimes firewalls can get a little complicated. I think some of the things about the setup could be a little bit clearer. Maybe something like a configuration wizard or something that would guide you on more in-depth projects.

I'm running pfSense on old hardware, it takes all of 10 minutes to install.

I did the implementation of the solution, it is not difficult.

I like pfSense and I have deployed a number of them. I have approximately four of them in the area that I'm using. I have replaced SonicWall with a pfSense unit. It's a more economical way of using a firewall, and the protection it provides is second to none.

Lonnie Buchmann:
I would say give it a serious look. And especially a lot of times when you're in a small business, this is a really good solution that doesn't kill you with all the technology overhead that you deal with nowadays.

I rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

I use pfSense as a proxy and a firewall to monitor all the traffic to my network. It allows me to shape the traffic and eliminate bottlenecks that cause the network to slow down. You can use pfSense to catch some websites or make the network faster because we have applications connected remotely all over the country. We need to have a network with a reliable speed and no hiccups on the way because all our applications are on-premise, and the entire country goes to the same data center to get information.

I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall.

The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus. For example, pfSense could add templates with firewall policies that a user can customize. I haven't tried to integrate pfSense with Microsoft Active Directory, but in Mozambique, we use many Kaspersky antivirus solutions. If pfSense integrated with these antivirus solutions, everything would be much more stable because most of the companies here have a different kind of security solution. Within a single company, you might find two or three different antivirus suites. So, for example, there could be an open-source solution that you get for free, but you can pay for the support if you want it. So for solutions like that, it would be great.

Companies in Africa have issues with budgeting for IT. An open-source solution like pfSense gives us stability and provides us with good reports. It's amazing. It makes the solution reliable.

I haven't tried yet scaling up pfSense. But my setup is Windows based, and I have some Windows-based applications, so I want it to integrate with the Microsoft Active Directory. I haven't done it yet, but I think it would be good to have that integration.

I contacted pfSense support only once when I was installing it and had only configured one network tab. I had to get in touch with them, and the support was terrific. I was impressed. I can't complain about their support.

I have some experience with Linux distributions, so setting up pfSense was a bit easier for me, and I have been working with security for quite some time. It was fast for me, but part of my team is not used to a Linux environment, so it was tricky for them to implement add-ons to the appliance.

I rate pfSense eight out of 10. I would recommend it for a small business or a startup as a starting point. It's also good for companies that are on a tight budget.

We primarily use pfSense as a firewall. It's a DHCP server.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the way it can browse packages on the internet.

The initial setup is very easy.

We've found the stability to be very good overall.

The product can scale if you need it to.

The access control aspect of the product could be improved. There should be more control over everything that the user is doing. It should be able to log and report on everything users are doing. 

The product no longer complies with new rules in Brazil. Therefore, we need to move off the solution.

I have about five years of experience with the solution. It's been a while since we started using it at our organization.

The stability of the product is very good. We haven't had any issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We've found the solution to have good scalability. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. That shouldn't be a problem.

We have about 10,000 people using the solution. There is a network manager and about ten people that work directly with the solution.

We won't be increasing usage, however. The Brazilian government recently changed some laws and this product is no longer in compliance. That is one of the reasons we are looking at Palo Alto. We are likely moving away from this solution.

While the websites and forums are excellent, we don't have any dealings directly with technical support. Therefore, we can't speak to how they are in terms of their responsiveness or knowledgability. 

A long time ago, the company did use a different solution. They switched to pfSense. However, now they are moving away from it as well. 

We're also using Palo Alto, however, right now, it's just in the demo phase. The solution seems to be better at centralization, which is a big selling point. We have three school campuses and we'd like to configure a solution from one central location that would work for all three campuses. With Palo Alto, it looks like we can achieve this.

On top of that, with Palo Alto, there are more user control products. You can log everything that you are doing on the internet with it.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy. It's straightforward. There isn't any complexity. A company shouldn't have any troubles with the setup.

We are using a free version of the solution. We don't need to pay any licensing fees.

We are just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would recommend the solution to small companies. If you are a small company, you can use pfSense without any issues due to the fact that it's a free solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are using the solution for a firewall and other operations, such as traffic shaping.

The features I have found best are ease of use, GUI, and performance.

The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve.

In a future release, they could redesign the policies because we need to write inbound and outbound simultaneous policies. They could change it to one policy, such as in FortiGate, Sophos, and Cyberoam. In these firewalls, we add rules in one way, and they add rules automatically. However, in this solution, we need to write every policy manually. 

They can improve in site-to-site tunnels with other devices, such as Cisco or FortiGate. It is not very easy to set up VPNs for site-to-site tunnels.

There have been some problems we have been facing with BGP routing that needs to be improved.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The stability could improve.

Since this solution is software-based it is easy to scale. We can extend the UIs by adding some hardware, such as CPUs and memory discs. We would not be able to match this type of scalability with a hardware-based solution, for example as FortiGate.

This solution is best suited for small to midsize networks. When there is heavy traffic in larger-scale businesses it becomes less reliable.

I have used FortiGate previously and this solution is cheaper and more reliable.

The solution is easy to deploy.

The solution is free. However, you need to pay for support.

I rate pfSense a five out of ten.

I use the product to test firewalls and VPN solutions.

We could use the solution to connect with the firewalls remotely for security.

The VPN features are the most valuable. The product’s documentation is good.

The solution’s interface must be improved.

I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial installation is easy.

The product is cheap.

Initially, the product was difficult. It gets easier with use. It was a good investment. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We have solutions from 10 to 5,000 users. One person alone can manage the firewall.

The VPN is my favorite feature. pfSense is very easy to use. The interface and configuration capabilities are great.

The main problem with pfSense is that we have to use proxy solutions. They don't have features like Layer 7 filtration. We can't filter based on applications. For this reason, we need to work with solutions from Cisco like OpenAPPID that help pfSense understand similar applications. For example, if I have to block WhatsApp, I need to use a third-party solution like OpenAPPID to help it understand what WhatsApp is. This capability is not native to pfSense, so I have to use another solution, like an add-on. I think that the proxy is the main problem with pfSense.

pfSense doesn't implement SD-WAN solutions. Competitors have this feature. If pfSense began doing this, it would be a big improvement.

Stability is great. That's a strong point.

Scalability-wise, it's great. Often, we need to research and assess the size of an appliance in order to understand what kind of environment the firewall is going to protect. From here, we have the possibility to do an upgrade depending on the type of model.

There is the option to have a firewall that is entry-level or a firewall that supports a huge internet service provider. We have many solutions that we can apply to our customer's environments, but first, we need to do these assessments in order to help us choose the right appliance. One appliance simply can't be upgraded to cover this entire spectrum of needs or the size of demand. This is why we must perform these special assessments.

Although it's not quite pre-configured, it is ready to use, straight away. It's so easy to put it to work. We had to do some configurations, mainly related to security issues. Configuring rules for monitoring had to be done, but otherwise, it's ready to go, out of the box.

Only one person is required to deploy this solution. 

pfSense is a free solution.

Before deciding to go with this solution, make sure to evaluate the features to ensure that pfSense will cover your needs. pfSense is very strong in some areas, but it has some difficulty in others. It's a good solution, but it all depends on what you expect from the firewall. 

If you need the firewall to implement security in your network, then pfSense is better than the competition in terms of price. It will cover all of your basic needs for far less money than similar products that cost five to ten times more money.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a rating of nine.

• Battery backup
• True processor power at low energy cost
• Expansion possibilities
• Low noise emission

We like it mostly for being able to use BSD compiled software inside it. It is flexible, fast, powerful and full of features, such as an easy proxy filter, and clustering along with an easy and well developed web based interface.

Kernel support for laptop features, USB/Firewire ethernet cards, and specially built in WLAN cards. If the WLAN functions work properly, pfSense makes a perfect "repeater" or controlled and robust accessed point with built in QoS and firewall. Wider support for 3G and 4G USB cards as backup networks would be nice too. It was impossible to get some USB stuff to work.

We've used it for two years, with an HP Elitebooks 8350 for battery backup.

No issues encountered.

I got terrible kernel crashes on HP laptops while trying to setup WLAN, but it worked better on Fujitsu ones.

It has worked as expected so far.

I have never needed it.

I have never used it.

We have mostly used Cisco products. Their products feels like we are back in the stoneage when compared to pfSense. We switched as we needed more power (as traffic, bandwidth and user accounts grew). pfSense was one good clear substitute, and Cisco is too expensive if you want real throughput power, and it was too hard to administrate when we compared it with pfSense. also, anyone can learn pfSense pretty fast because of the intuitive web interface), and there is never trouble with invalid licenses. The features like IPS (snort/suricata) are well developed and can be used for free or at a small cost for extra security. The most valuable of all though, is that we could recycle old hardware to make our perfect firewalls, reducing the hardware cost.

It was easy.

We implemented these ourselves.

It's hard to say. The setup goes pretty fast and, once you know the hardware to be used, it will work, so there was no significant amount of time there. The laptops used in this project were already recycled and had enough power for us to make a cluster and be happy with them, so it pretty much only cost us the price of some 3G modems and some USB network interfaces. Maybe not more than 200 Euros per machine.

We evaluated IPCop and m0n0wall. We took a vote on our team and pfSense won the deal.

If you are unsure, do a labtest before you implement it. If you are still stuck on the traditional "stoneage" products, you may get amazing results.

We are an MSP. We have some customers who have on-prem networks, and they want to have their networks protected by a firewall. They are quite small customers with 10 to 50 users. We use pfSense in order to protect our customers' network, to make some network automation, and especially to make VPNs to some remote branches to enable remote users to get access to the enterprise network.

It is deployed on a private cloud and on-prem.

My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. 

pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much.

I'd like to find something in pfSense that is more specific to URL filtering. We have customers who would like to filter their web traffic. They would like to be able to say to their employees, "You can surf the web, but you cannot get access to Facebook or other social media," or "You can surf the web, but you're not allowed to gamble or watch porn on the web." My technicians say that doing this kind of stuff with pfSense nowadays is not easy. They can implement some filters using IP addresses but not by using the names of the domains and categories. So, we are not able to exclude some categories from the allowed traffic, such as porn, gambling, etc. To do that, we have to use another product and another web filter that uses DNS. I know that there are some third-party products that could work with pfSense, but I'd like the native pfSense solution to do that.

I have been using this solution for five years.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of 10. It is a very good product.