Netgate pfSense Reviews

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

Outbound Load Balance for internet links work great. It's very good to keep internet access for the company we support.

I could keep my customers working even if they lose one internet link. Most of them have at least two links.

We have been using this for 10 years.

There was a problem when I ran a version update, then the server just stopped working. This was because pfSense (in this case FreeBSD) was no longer supporting the hardware of the server (HPE).

There were no stability issues. If there are issues, they usually stem from a hardware fault.

There were no scalability issues.

Customer Service:

It is usually easy to find answers in the forum.

Technical Support:

Technical support is good.

I used Kerio and Microsoft. I switched because I was looking for something with better security and for someone who could fix bugs faster.

The setup was easy. You can install it in two minutes. It takes more than five minutes to put it to work with a single internet link plus NAT.

It is free.

It's easy to access and configure in general.  As for features, the firewall and security  options were valuable.  These are valuable because I like simple things that are easy to work with, as too much difficulty or too much constraint is not good, and boring.

It provided us with better security.

I used it for two months.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

It was straightforward because it's simple and easy to understand to begin using.

We used a vendor team who had a good amount of knowledge,

VPN has allowed me to deploy applications just for the organization and not to public servers.

The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location.

A way to clean squid cache from the GUI.

Not at all.