Netgate pfSense Reviews

I use it as a firewall and also as a router because you can address what you want to do with it. It can do network advanced translation (NAT).

It is sitting on my own server. It is on a remote server on a private network.

It is very simple to use. I'm working faster now. I don't have to configure a switch and sync some VLANs on the switch. I can concentrate more on my work because I know that pfSense is guarding my network. It improves my workflow a lot. 

The plugins or add-ons are most valuable. Sometimes, they are free of charge, and sometimes, you have to pay for them, but you can purchase or download very valuable plugins or add-ons to perform internal testing of your network and simulate a denial-of-service attack or whichever attack you want to simulate. You can also remote and monitor your network and see where the gap is. Did you forget a printer port? Most attacks at the moment are happening through printers, and they can tell you immediately that you forgot to close the port of the printer. There are more than one million printers that are in danger, and everybody knows that hackers are using them to enter the network. So, you can download plugins to protect your network.

It is not only a firewall; it can also do some routing or network advanced translation (NAT), which makes it very powerful.

It is very simple to use. As long as you understand the basics or fundamentals of networking, you can manage everything very quickly with it.

The web is evolving every day. So, the product should be constantly improved with more regular updates. Things are constantly changing. There are obsolete protocols, and then there are new protocols. For my own use, it is not an issue, but for somebody who is more at the forefront of internet browsing, it could be a problem.

There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app.

I have been using this solution since May.

It is very stable as long as you don't change the winning theme. When it is working, leave it working. My rule number one is one computer, one function. So, pfSense does that one function, and I don't try to use it for anything else. I could do some File Transfer Protocol or things like that, but it is not made for them. I don't restart it and move it. I only do the security updates and change the username and password very often.

I don't require much scalability. It is fine for a small-scale company with about 30 devices, such as printers, computers, etc. I'm only working with a few people, and I don't have any traffic problems, but a company with 50 or 60 users could have problems with it. Currently, there are four to five users, and I'm providing multimedia services to four to five people. 

It is being used extensively. Sometimes, its usage is 50 times a day, and sometimes, there is no usage. I don't work on it on a daily basis. It also depends on the project I'm working on. We have plans to increase its usage.

Their support is good.

I didn't use any other solution previously. I didn't have a need for it. Only in May, I had the need to deploy my own service.

It is easy to set up if you understand the protocols. If you understand the theory of what is a firewall and what is a router, its initial setup is straightforward.

Its deployment took one week. The strategy was simple. It involved blocking certain traffic, allowing certain traffic, and making ACL or a list of undesired operations such as cookies so that if it is impossible to sniff, and there is complete security. If someone is trying to enter, I immediately get a message on my phone, whether I am in the county or abroad. I immediately get a message saying that somebody is trying to enter, and I am able to counterattack immediately. That's a big advantage of it.

I did it on my own with the advice of some of my friends who have much deeper knowledge than me. It is also very well-documented on the web, and there is a big community.

I am also taking care of its maintenance. I don't have any maintenance except that sometimes, the server on which this solution is implemented has issues. Its maintenance mainly involves regularly checking the systems.

There is a big return on investment because FortiGate is 60 to 70 times more expensive, which could be a big problem for me. It is more expensive than my car. I have a small budget and a small car.

It is about €1,000. It is a one-time payment. I do not have a monthly or yearly subscription. I don't subscribe to any subscription because I hate cloud services.

There are no additional costs.

I would advise others to try it and see if it is good for them. It is a very good product for me, but that might not be the case for other users. There are so many solutions, but I'm really happy with it. For my scale, it is good. If you are Amazon or a company with one million connections every minute, don't ever use this. It is not made for that. It is perfect for small-scale networks.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It needs more regular updates, so I can't rate it a 10, but it is very easy to use, stable, and solid. 

On-premises

We have a client who's got a number of VMs on a single piece of hardware. They needed to have access over a VPN to those VMs from inside their network. We use pfSense to provide the VPN link using the IPsec.

In others, let's say smaller organizations, we will put a Mini ITX system that then connects into their broadband - typically sort of fiber or something like that - and just gives protection. 

The solution also allows us then to manage port forwarding and things like that.

The firewall aspect of the solution is very valuable to us. We had so many limitations with the Dre tech, however, it's the firewall and the port forwarding that is the most interesting due to the fact it allows us to restrict IP addresses and move things from different ports and things like that.

I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good. 

The solution is easy to use in general, for everyone.

The product is very powerful.

It's the type of device that does one thing well. There isn't much I would want to change.

We are at the moment looking to use it as a proxy service so that we can limit what websites people go and view and that sort of thing. That's an area I've struggled with a little bit at the moment and it could be a bit easier to set up.

The only other thing I might look at would be some sort of antivirus type of aspect to check traffic coming in and out of the network. If they offered unified threat management, that would be an ideal outcome for us.

I have been looking at it as a sort of an appliance, rather than installing it on an actual PC. However, that's for future research first.

pfSense is only a small part of what we do. The majority of our systems are full-blown Linux systems and we use that firewall as a system. It's only recently we've started switching some clients to pfSense where we think we need to have slightly different things. Maybe they haven't got a server and this is just replacing their sort of existing TP-link or router, et cetera.

I've had no issues with stability whatsoever. I'm quite happy letting it run for days, months, weeks, et cetera. We have no requirements to actively manage it. In terms of performance, we just need to go in and make changes as required by the customer. Other than that, it's set and forget. There are no bugs and glitches to navigate. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It's not been extensively used at the moment as we've already got a Linux server in place. If we can justify it for the customer, we tend to use that. That said, we are looking to increase usage of that as it would say it takes some of the work away from me and allows me to farm that out to the staff.

We've never had to use technical support. Therefore, I can't speak to their level of knowledge or how helpful they are. We've always just been able to find the answers we need without their help, and therefore have never really had to use them.

We're still using Linux servers that are running IP tables, et cetera. Prior to that, we were using, something called IPCop. Before that, I can't remember what it was. We've always used sort of Linux old BSD-based solutions for our firewalls. That's just what we've always done.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It is very straightforward. We connect and we just have got a couple of standard procedures to setup once it's complete. We could probably get one up and running between half an hour to an hour. The deployment is fast and the whole process is pretty seamless at this point.

We did not use any integrator or anything like that. We're offering our client's the installation process as part of our services. I find it very, very straightforward, however, that's due to my previous experience with Linux setups. 

We use the open-source version, which is free to use. 

I say we've always used the community edition as I've never felt a need for support or anything like that and our clients have never insisted on it. I know where to go to look for answers if we run into problems, so paying for that extra support isn't something we need to worry about. 

We are just end-users and customers.

I cannot speak to the exact version we are using. Ours may be slightly out of date. We may not be using the absolute latest version. Version 2.51 is available soon and we'll likely upgrade to that.

It's good for where people have outgrown their existing broadband routers, such as the TP-link, the Dre Tech, and that sort of thing. Often, it doesn't justify putting in a full system. We tend to use a Mini ITX PC, multiple LAN network cards, and then install the opensource version and configure it appropriately.

You need to be slightly more tactical than just plugging in a Dre tech or similar Nokia device. I don't think you need to be incredibly technical to set this up. 

I like it, I'd recommend it to most people to at least give it a try, and to spend a few hours initially to work their way around it.

I'll definitely give it at least a nine out of ten for its general ease of use for me and my staff. It does pretty much everything that we ask of it and the required resources for the hardware are minimal as well.

On-premises

I am using pfSense as a firewall and VPN gateway.

pfSense has helped our organization because we use a data center that needed a firewall, VPN, and other features under a budget. 

The most valuable features of pfSense are security, user-friendliness, and helpful online management.

It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution.

I have been using pfSense for approximately one year.

I rate the stability of pfSense an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution.

I rate the scalability of pfSense an eight out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor. However, I use community support.

The initial setup of pfSense was simple. However, when we install filters or agents it can be difficult.

I rate the initial setup of pfSense an eight out of ten.

I am using the community version of the solution which is free.

The paid version is priced reasonably.

The solution has solved many of our use cases.

I rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

We have one Head Office and two main offices and other small branches. We want to secure our network from external and internal threats and block all unnecessary ports. We want to create a WAN with firewalls installed at all other offices and branches to connect to Head Office directly.

Overall, our experience with pfSense has been good. We're satisfied with what we're doing, but we have to move forward. It's covering what we require now, but maybe we might need something else in the future. For example, we are implementing ISO 2701, and the regulators could demand something else for compliance if they conduct an audit. And if we're following the policies required by ISO 2701 best practices, then perhaps we need to implement new hardware too because we can't do everything with our existing hardware infrastructure. 

For instance, say I want to block USB access, but I don't have the software. Currently, we use our antivirus software, which is a proper endpoint management tool. We can use it to modify the Windows registry and block everything, I can do whatever I want with the PC on the endpoints. We need to have that, but not everything works without the hardware infrastructure. 

The GUI is easy to understand. 

We had one issue with hardware support. The department head who was managing the solution became the director of the company, but he still has administrator access. And usually, whenever a WAN goes down, we always have a backup, but the hardware doesn't support more than one WAN. And then, if he wants to switch, he doesn't know how to reconfigure it. So we have to wait for the ISP to resume their services, which is not professional.

Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand. A user should be able to find the feature they're looking for easily, but pfSense isn't so good in that sense.

We're using a flavor of pfSense. It's called XNET. It's a flavor of the pfSense main pfSense build because it's open-source, but it's basically similar to the pfSense build, and we've been using it since 2008.

Not very stable.

Scalable but only if one has expertise of open source configuration of software such as pfsense.

Customer support for any open source product is mostly based on the individuals who have expert knowledge while otherwise we have to resort to other internet sources.

I've used TMG by Microsoft, and it's much easier to manage domains and websites. For example, pfSense has IP-based blocking, but websites like YouTube and Facebook keep using different IPs. TMG blocks the actual domain name. That is one downside to pfSense I've noticed as a basic user.

It was complex and done by the vendor.

We implemented it through a vendor who had build upon the pfsense open source to create a package titled Xnet firewall.

We only paid for the hardware and savings were quite high.

This is a good option. If a vendor is trying to sell Fortinet and Sangfor, but the customer's requirements are basic, they'll have a hard time convincing someone who believes in free, open-source software that pfSense is not suitable for them. The only cost is the hardware. But pfSense doesn't have after-sales support or some of the other features you might find in a commercial solution. 

I've heard that Fortinet is slightly more expensive than Sangfor. Then again, if Sangfor comes into the picture, maybe you would consider Sangfor.

I rate pfSense six out of 10. We want a product that has at least two WANs as well as fault tolerance or load balancing features, which pfSense also has, but we don't have the hardware or support. That's why we need to switch. However, if cost is a big issue, then I recommend pfSense for customers who can't afford a paid hardware and software solution. That was our issue because we're a government company, so our assets belong to the government. We have to think about where we want to spend money because it's the taxpayers' money. If your management doesn't understand the need to invest in IT, then you can consider this alternative.

On-premises

The product makes our business more secure. It has increased the security of our business. We are using the two solutions. The first one is from Cisco, and the second is from pfSense.

A few months back, we were attacked, however, the attackers used the wrong software. We decided then it was important to start prioritizing our security, which is why we brought on this product. 

The solution is very flexible.

I find the product very easy to use. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

The solution has been very stable so far.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

The process can be challenging. We do not have one security team. We need a team that can guarantee the security of our company and we're not there yet. We only have the client's equipment, and one guy managing this equipment. This isn't necessarily a problem with the product, it's more about our own internal structure. 

Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time. 

I've been using the solution for about five years now. 

The stability has been great so far. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance has been great.

The scalability of the product is very good. If we want to expand, we can do so. 

We have 3,000 people on the solution right now. There are people from various teams that utilize it. It's not just IT. 

We previously used OpenBSD, a Linux solution. 

We switched to this product as it is free and open-source. It also increased the level of security we had on hand, even though OpenBSD was more user-friendly. 

When it comes to setting up the solution, it's not a complex process. It's pretty straightforward in general. 

The deployment took maybe a month and a half. 

We have two teams that handle deployment and maintenance tasks. One team is internal and the other is external. They're mostly engineers and they work together. 

We used an outside integrator to help us and we were pretty happy with the results. 

We are using the free version of the solution. We are not paying anything for it at this time. 

We're reading up on other solutions every day. We likely won't stay with this solution. It's good for now, however, we'd like something more robust further down the line. 

We are a customer and an end-user. 

We're using either version 5.3 or 5.4 at this time. 

While this is a good solution, we're looking for something stronger in the future. I'd recommend others also look for something strong, that fits their security needs. 

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

On-premises

We had been hit by crypto, and with our existing firewall infrastructure, we found out it didn't have geofiltering without an additional cost. That's still written from SonicWall and I think you have to pay extra for that. pfSense came with geofiltering and with logging as well, which I believe you have to pay extra for with SonicWall. So we didn't realize this until we got hit. We implemented GoIP filtering, and we also activated and stored the log files from within the firewall. I think there are some other feature sets that we used as well. The device seemed to be a little bit simpler to manage and configure through the interface. Of course with it being open source, we were able to stay current with that without having to incur annual purchasing or annual licensing fees like we do with SonicWall.

What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using open source. I think it just provides the end-user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher-end, almost enterprise-type service. 

In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense.

I've used this solution for about a year. 

You could scale the pfSense platform to multiple users and bandwidth. With SonicWall, you have to go get a different version of their product because they're going to tie their firmware to their version. pfSense doesn't do that. It seemed to me like the scale of pfSense is easier and it was a non-sales interactive requirement to scale the offering versus with SonicWall.

Technical support was through an online chat. I don't remember us running into any snags. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward if you have your ducks in a row if you understand the IP engineering and design, and you understand some of the protocols that you want to introduce into the environment. I think one of the biggest things that it allowed us to do also was remote desktop or remote access. We filtered out remote management. We shut those ports down within pfSense, and that seemed pretty straightforward. I think the GUI has a little too much information out there, but if you're a senior engineer, you're going to love all the information because it makes sense to you. If you're a junior or a freshman engineer, you're not going to mind it either because you can use it to teach yourself how to take advantage of that information that's there. 

On the front end of this, I thought it was rather intuitive.

With a firewall, typically we only charge between $25 and $75 a year to manage the firewall. That allows us to keep our price points low, and with minimal administrative overhead, we can maximize our profits.

When compared to other solutions like SonicWall, SonicWall has a built-in administrative burden where you have to go back and make sure your client understands they're going to get hit with another annual fee to keep that device up to date. pfSense is not like that. pfSense is not like that in the sense that if you go out and get the latest update of firmware or software, you're going to get the latest and greatest. You don't have to remember to go to the client and remind them they're going to be charged another fee next year to keep their license current. I hope they keep that model.

If you're a junior or even a beginner engineer, jumping into the interface for pfSense could be overwhelming. There are going to be things in there you just have never heard or seen before, which isn't a bad thing.

On the front end, I would take advantage of any courses that are out there, any introductions to it. It's very intuitive and there are a lot of forums out there that you can go watch and educate yourself on. If you are not that advanced of a network engineer, I think it's a great solution for you because you can go out to some peers and get a lot of direction and guidance from them to set it up in a small environment. The only other thing I would do is just compare. You always have to understand what your customers' needs are. Make sure you understand what your customer's needs are and that it's going to fit into their environment and their budget. I don't know why it wouldn't, but that'd be about the only advice I'd give is just make sure that it is definitely a fit for your customer base. I'm fairly confident, small and medium businesses should be a very good fit. I've been in the enterprise space as well. There may be some things on the enterprise level that you just can't do with pfSense and you might want to go to some other solution set, but I think it's very competitive.

I'd rate this solution a nine, even if I was an experienced engineer because it's easy to have and easy to maintain.

This solution is for my personal use, I've had a hobby of using it for a long time. I use it to protect my home network. Nothing is bulletproof but I'm happy to have a firewall at home scanning the ins and outs of my network so that I have a degree of security.

pfSense is a free firewall that you can download and install on your own hardware and establish a VPN for it. If you have remote users who need to connect securely, pfSense can do that. The solution has multiple use cases. It's good for scanning and filtering traffic. It's a good network security appliance which you can install on your own hardware or on their hardware. Some companies will invest in a really big firewall for their main branch, and will install pfSense in remote sites because they don't see the value of buying an expensive firewall for each branch.

I'd really love to see the web interface enhanced. It's good but it could be clearer and more straightforward. As a FreeBSD fan, I'd love to see a BSD license code, rather than a GPL license code. I'd also love to see a Sandbox and more security features. pfSense is a mature product, but if you compare it to other products in the market, you realize that pfSense is a little behind. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, it has the HA options that other firewalls also have. It's a software-defined solution, so you can pretty much put it inside a virtual machine and scale it up. Or you can load balance, or have an HA set up between two pfSense proxies, it's all possible.

I don't have contact with technical support. If you have an issue, you can go to the online community and wait for someone to respond. There's no SLAs for that. The only way I would have access to their support is if I actually purchased a Netgate appliance.

I've previously used vendor-based firewalls, like Sophos. They have Sophos XG and Sophos XG, UTMs. Those are the firewalls that I have the most expertise with and I also have some experience with Fortinet. pfSense is normally installed on x86 hardware which uses CISC architecture, a complex instruction set that runs on laptops and computers. They generally make calculations much slower than what we call risk architecture. As a result, firewalls with a risk-based architecture or reduced instruction set architecture are preferred because they provide better throughput. That's the case with FortiGate. They are very well known in the market to have the highest IPS throughput and that's one of the major factors for choosing a firewall.

The initial setup is very easy, it takes about 15 minutes. 

I would recommend this solution, it's one of those technologies anyone should at least try out. If you want to protect your home network, and don't want to invest in a firewall, pfSense will do the job. It's good for home use and for small businesses or remote sites of large companies. It's a good strategy because it's generally more critical to invest in defending your main data centers. It's important to choose the hardware wisely, make sure it's compatible. Netgate, the company sponsoring pfSense, manufactures hardware that is really optimized towards it. For small or medium businesses it's not a big deal. But for enterprises, this is important. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10.

We use the solution for a Firewall and a VPN.

We have found that this solution is better at keeping our business safe by having improved intrusion prevention than competitors.

I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable.

The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability.

I have been using the solution for approximately six months.

The solution is very stable.

I have found the solution to be unlimited when it comes to scalability. The more memory and power you give it, it will use it all.

I found the technical support of the solution to be not very good at all.

I have used Fortinet previously and the installation took a lot less time to install. Additionally, I have also used SonicWall before but I switched to the current solution because it was getting too expensive. 

The initial installation was very difficult, it took approximately one week.

We did the implementation and maintenance of the solution ourselves.

The solution software does not require a license, it is free. The support contract is about $600 dollars. 

I would recommend for other people looking into implementing the solution to read the manual, go on to the videos, verify everything with the tutorials. Make sure you fully comprehend the size of the software.

I rate pfSense a seven out of ten.

On-premises