Netgate pfSense Reviews

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 are a solution provider and deploy this product for our customers. We also use it in our organization. We use both Cisco and pfSense but for our customers we mainly use Sophos and pfSense. I'm the CEO of our company. 

The solution has assisted us by preventing unwanted access. If the solution is configured properly, then you'll be protected to some degree, although you may also need other products. 

Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall are all good features. 

There's always room for improvement. In general terms, for someone who is not familiar with the product I think ease of use could be improved. When you're connecting, the interface is very difficult for an inexperienced user in the sense of setting everything up, as it all has to be set manually. I've also found that the more features you use influences performance and the drop can be drastic when you use advanced features. I want to achieve a certain level of security and at the same time maintain good performance.

The solution is feature rich enough, but one of the things usually outside the UTM system or gateway system is SIEM. It's an advanced system for managing the possibilities and it would be nice to have a kind of interface in the UTM, to enable connectivity with most SIEM systems.

pfSense is rated as one of the good solutions in it's field and stability is good. 

The solution is scalable to a degree but we never use it for big companies. We use it for mid-range companies. Our company has a data center and we have companies that are hooked to our data center. We're doing this on-premise for our customers so if the customer has an on-prem information system, we will implement the firewall and UTM at their location. We have plans to increase use because we have good feedback for the product and we have good experience with it. So we are increasing use of pfSense. Actually we are moving away from Sophos and more towards pfSense.

Technical support is well organized. Most of it is in-house, but in the case there's also a we have access to a second level if necessary. 

We were one of the first companies here making UTMs (before they were known as UTMs). We were the first partner of Cobalt, the first appliance creator. When Cobalt was bought from Sun, we made our first network defender line. It was the first appliance that had a firewall, content inspection, constant protection, intrusion prevention, intrusion detection, antivirus, and mail and web server in one box. Our line was mainly distributed all over the Middle East, Asia, and some parts of Europe. We expanded and worked with companies such as Palo Alto, Cisco, Sophos and pfSense. In some areas pfSense is better than Sophos which didn't make the advances they should have. They now have XG, so they have two totally different products in the same area which is one of the reasons I prefer pfSense.

If you carry out a straightforward setup, then you will have straightforward, basic protection, nothing else. It's more complex if you want other things included. We usually start with some research, carry out a basic setup and make the initial monitoring. From there we make additions based on the results of the complete monitoring. Then it's ongoing monitoring all the time and setting or adjusting to the situation.

For any compnay, ROI can be seen even if they look at the basic possibility of a crypto virus or the like. The savings on that would be at least two days of lost work and the cost would be more than the cost of the whole system plus maintenance. 

Licensing costs depend on company size. pfSense is an open source solution, so there's a charge for support. We offer a first line of support and a second line if required. Payment depends on the contract, because usually it's only covers the firewall. We offer a contract for the network which includes UTM. There's a hardware cost for HP servers and, again, depending on the size of the company, installation cost is about 500-800 Euro. There's an annual maintenance fee included in the networking agreement. 

I recommend this product, it's well-balanced, has a longer history than other solutions so it's not lacking in maturity. There is a lot of online support available via YouTube or blogs but professional support is available if required. I highly recommend taking the support because usually people look at the UTM as something which should be set up in the system and left, but that's not the case with these devices. I strongly suggest making an external agreement with a specialized company to deal with security. Users need to have decent protection, not just protection.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Our main business is for WiFi networks. Customers also ask us for simple firewalls, and we use pfSense to add a firewall to provide the complete solution. We are working with the latest version of pfSense.

One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well.

pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services.

There is more demand for UTMs than a simple firewall. pfSense should support real-time features for handling the latest viruses and threats. It should support real-time checks and real-time status of threats. Some other vendors, such as Fortinet, already offer this type of capability. Such capability will be good for bringing pfSense at the same level as other solutions. 

I have been using pfSense for about four or five months.

It is stable.

It is easily scalable. It is more of a hardware thing than a software thing.

It is easy to deploy. Our real deployments are for WiFi networks, and then we add one or two firewalls to protect the network. For a small network, it can take one week. For a more complex network, it could be two or three months. We have a few upcoming projects which would require severe thousand firewalls, and it would take us more than a year.

It is open source.

I would recommend pfSense, but it depends on the requirements. There could be other vendors who offer more services than pfSense. For example, Fortinet is a very good brand, and it offers services in a different way. Fortinet also offers more services, but it is very expensive. If you don't need some specific services, pfSense is an excellent solution.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

Typically, we implement this solution on an enterprise-level for our clients and set it up for them as required.

The solution offers good value.

The captive portal on the product is excellent.

The solution has a very nice load balancer.

It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with. 

The user interface is very nice. It's easy to navigate around the solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

The solution could use better reporting. They need to offer more of it in general. Right now, the graphics aren't the best. If you need to provide a report to a manager, for example, it doesn't look great. They need to make it easier to understand and give users the ability to customize them.

I've been working with the solution for enterprise-level organizations for four or five years at this point.

Our clients use the solution across 100-200 computers. Some of the implementations are sizeable.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and have found them to be helpful and responsive. we have been satisfied so far with the level of support provided. They are easy to work with.

We implement the solution for our clients, so we have a good sense of what is expected.

As an implementer, our company can handle the initial setup for our clients.

We implement the solution for our clients. I've personally implemented the solution on five projects so far.

We work with the latest version of the solution, typically.

Our companies are typically mid-level enterprises. 

This product is the very best. Overall, I would give it a rating of ten out of ten.

We have internet limitations here in Sudan. The financial institutions that I am working with do not have a lot of services on the internet.

It is difficult but at the same time, we are safer and are not faced with any kind of compromised data.

This solution is suitable for small businesses and charity organizations. Security is not just about the firewall, you need policies and procedures in place.

The developers of pfSense follow the principles of open-source.

They keep it simple. It's simple and good.

The problem with open-source is that no one can take responsibility.

It needs to be more secure. Security needs improvement.

It's always better to have an agreement, an SLA regarding security. You should outsource your security to another company.

I have been using pfSense in my home environment since 2010. I have a small lab, a small environment.

We have also deployed it in my workplace.

It's a stable solution.

pfSense is scalable.

At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections.

I do not have experience with technical support.

I am also using IPFire. It's also open-source.

It's very stable, and it meets my business needs.

The initial setup is straightforward.

If you have solid knowledge and experience in IP tables, then it will be easy for you to deal with this product or any firewall. For example, Palo Alto or Fortinet. It's the same concept.

Depending on your activities, it can take a long time to deploy if you are new to this solution. For me, it takes less than one hour.

You have to understand the network technology and you have to understand what you are going to protect, and what service are you looking to protect. If you address these questions correctly, the installation is just a matter of a couple of clicks.

I completed the implementation myself.

We are using the open-source version, not the commercial one. 

It's very affordable.

I would continue to use pfSense if the decision was mine, but it is out of my area. It depends on the CIO.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

pfSense will not cost you any money.

It depends on your business needs. You have to address your business needs correctly.

I would say to go with pfSense. If you feel that it is not compatible, you have other purchase options such as Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

• Firewalling
• Routing
• DHCP
• Transparent proxy
• DNS cache
• VPN, etc.

• Outstanding support
• Great packages to expand the solution to your needs
• The same config can easily be migrated to better hardware when you need it.

• Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it.
• There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support.
• The strongSwan IPSec is a great implementation.
• Proxy features are excellent (except MITM).

• The central point of management, like the long-rumored pfCenter.
• Better parsing of logs: At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis. 
  

Our appliance is under constant heavy load by several services, and it's rock solid stable.

I had stability issues only with a GUI that used to hang. It didn't affect any services, but it was a little annoying that we needed to restart the PHP often.

pfSense scales well.

They are just fantastic. They usually respond super fast, and usually with a solution if you describe the problem correctly. In more complex situations, they will set up a personal lab environment based on the customer's case.

We used to use a lot of different solutions.

After comparing a lot of solutions, the choice was Netgate pfSense.

It is very straightforward and much easier than the previous Clavister FW. Config is easy. 

99 percent in-house implementation and 1 percent Netgate implementation. Netgate has the highest level of expertise you can get.

This solution was about $150,000 cheaper than the closest competitor over a three year period. 

All costs are low compared to other solutions. The hardware is stable and cheap.

There is no licensing fee except for the enterprise support, if you want it.

We evaluated Cisco, Fortinet, and Sophos.

If you don't have a policy that says "only proprietary software" in your company, there is no reason not to go for pfSense. If you are still in doubt, take the cheap (and excellent) Netgate academy course. It's only for two days, and you will learn how to manage pfSense at a comprehensive level.

We use it for the backup line for the internet. When the internet is disconnected, we transfer to pfSense.

We only use it for the backup internet connection. It is effective. We have not had any problems.

We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized.

I have been using pfSense for six months.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a seven out of ten for scalability.

I have not used their support.

The installation of pfSense is very easy. It took two to three hours.

It is easy to maintain. We did not have to do any maintenance of pfSense since we installed it.

It is free. It is open source.

We have not used the VPN capabilities of pfSense. We also did not have a need to integrate pfSense with any service.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

We mainly use pfSense at client locations where the client is looking for a free alternative for paid/subscription based Network gateway with enterprise grade features

Being free and open source, we replaced our network gateway with it. Works well on an old Pentium 4 PC with 1 GB of memory. Failover, URL Filtering, Proxy server, traffic monitoring features inbuilt with SNORT IDS/IPS is all we use and have never faced any problem for over 5 years now.

The most valuable feature for our company has been the extensibility of the platform which is great. It's a great solution and I have regularly been supplying it to my clients. 

The user interface could be improved, it's a bit clumsy and clunky.  

I've been using this solution for more than seven years. 

This solution is absolutely stable. With some systems there's a necessity to regularly redo the configurations inside the system. With Pfsense that's not the case. I have no issues with it at all. 

The solution is very scalable. It has a failover feature so it's highly skilled. 

Given that the solution is a free and open source product, it doesn't have any technical support center. We just have the online documentation which is not one of the best, but it's good. 

I previously used a solution from Cyberoam but we had issues with the licensing. That's the reason we mainly stick to Pfsense open source.

The initial setup is a little complex, of intermediate difficulty. It takes about a day. 
In terms of deployment, the entire system has been installed and configured to basically take care of a network of roughly around 35 to 40 computers. We have a dedicated physical machine which has been configured and installed throughout.

My only comment would be to suggest that if you wish to implement the solution read the documentation very carefully. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.