Netgate pfSense Reviews

• Firewall rules 
• Modules, e.g. Squid

It was very useful for our DHCP network (guests) and web browsing filtering.

I think the product has improved greatly, so I actually don't know.

I've used it for one year.

No, it's very easy to deploy.

Absolutely not, as the product is stable like a rock.

No need to scale in.

We've used the community version.

We have WatchGuard Firewall and pfSense firewall.  They are used together and not as a substitution.

We just had some small problems with setting up the modules.  However, there was lots of documentation available online so there were no problems at all.

We implemented it in-house.

Well it was great as I didn't need to buy a new firewal..

Close to zero, because we've used an internal server for it.

No other options were evaluated.

It's a good product, and it really could be a valid firewall solution.

Two particular features stand out to me:

1. The WAN load balancing feature
2. The product offers many additional functions such as router, WLC, and traffic analysis etc.

It has enhanced our organization because of its versatility. It doesn't need expensive hardware to build a robust firewall, therefore, providing a saving on cost. Also, its reliability is quite remarkable which allows IT to focus on other tasks, and how efficiently it manages our WAN traffic.

I think the dashboard/interface could be improved and the ability to manage it from a mobile platform.

I have used this solution for the past two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

I have never had to use customer service.

Technical Support:

I've never used it, but their technical knowledge base, and via online documents and forums, is quite good, but not excellent.

We didn't have a previous solution.

It wasn't straightforward but at the same time not complex. The only issue was identifying relevant static routes to move traffic in and out our network.

I implemented it myself.

The setup cost was practically zero because we had servers in stock. Also, there is no real day-to-day cost attached with it either.

No evaluation took place, we just looked at the initial cost to implement a solution using the hardware we have, and how fast it could be rolled out

Plan, research and test certain features and configurations in a lab environment first.

• Reliable
• Easily configurable
• Awesome plug-ins
• Very low maintenance

This product has allowed my current employer the ability to do what other firewalls seem to fail at, providing a reliable and secure point for allowing SIP traffic to pass. Training other admins how to use the features, and also creating custom user levels for various parts of access within the system has never been easier.

Some of the available plug-ins that work very well on older versions, and actually break the newer versions. If using a newer version of the software, then the list of available plug-ins should only list those capable/known to work with the version that you are running. Outside of that- it is a rock-solid firewall, now with support.

I have used this product for a very long time, over 10 years.

I have had very very few minor glitches in upgrading the product over the years. Most recently, I had the WAN side DNS change to default values. This is not a huge deal, but it took a little while to figure out why the external services were suddenly failing.

Stability is not a concern. I've enabled the HA features, and spread them across multiple ESXi hosts. The only thing that could take down my network, would be a lack of power to the hosts, or all of my ISP tanks at the same time.

I've had no issues. I am using this on multiple sites, with reliable VPN tunnels and the traffic seems to remain a constant.

Customer Service:

I have generally only used the forums. In fact, I don't recall *ever* using customer service, but that's only because this product rocks.

Technical Support:

I have generally only used the forums. In fact, I don't recall *ever* using Technical Support, but that's only because this product rocks.

I have merged pfSense with other products, but I have never chosen another product over pfSense unless I was unable to convince my client that free doesn't mean shoddy.

The initial setup has gotten to be much more streamlined. I think that for the average home user experimenting with networks, this *might* be a *little* hard to figure out at first, but the overall setup is generally a breeze. There shouldn't be any reason that someone can't figure it out in more than 15 minutes a BASE installation and network configuration.

I implemented it myself.

It's very high. I have replaced high-end Cisco, Juniper and Sonicwall systems with pfSense on very low-scale machines, and VMs. I have also created networks that are far more complex than any of those are capable of handling without some sort of annual license costing thousands of dollars.

My original setup cost was US$40 for a used x86 Pentium 2 machine, purchased through Boeing Surplus, and additional US$20 ($10 x 2) for two additional NICs to run LAN and OPT1 networks. So, $60 total for self-installation of pfSense v1.1.

I looked at low-end Cisco/Linksys devices for physical hardware, and I played around with a variety of free *nix based installations including customized IPTables, IPCop, SmoothWall, and Enodian.

If you want reliable, highly-customizable, and rock solid firewall, do not hesitate for one second to install/purchase this product.

• Open source
• Proximity security
• Content filtering

It has provided us with a low cost security solution using a quality router at a fraction of the cost of our previous solution.

• Testing prior to deployment
• Packages need better support

I've used it for eight years.

Rarely as long as the right precautions are taken during migration.

Sometimes there are issues with package deployment and one must refer to the forums for support.

Being open source, scalability is not limited. The limits in place, are only set by available resources and time.

Customer Service:

Customer service is available at a rate of $399 for 2 incidents, $899 for 5 incidents and $1,699 for 10 incidents. Most people refer to the forum and/or chat room.

Technical Support:

Over 10/10.

Yes, I have used many other routers but nothing offers the options pfSense does without spending a fortune. pfSense is constantly being improved on.

I switched due to router limitations and vulnerabilities.

It's straight forward for anyone that's installed an OS before, however, I wouldn't recommend it for the novice.

It has been implemented in house and at client locations. If implemented at client locations it does require some care if Snort (The proximity security system) is used as it needs to be fine tuned and touched up from time to time due to newly found vulnerabilities that cause legitimate sites to be blocked.

You can invest as little or as much as you want. Granted, some features require more hardware than others but some end users use old machines that no longer have a purpose.

It's between US$50 to US$1500 depending on the hardware that is used.

We also looked at -

• Smoothwall
• Moonwall
• SonicWall
• Netgear
• IPCop

Become familiar with the router before implementing it at customer sites. Realize that basic features require a basic amount of hardware. Advanced features require more RAM and if using an SSD, use the embedded installer to reduce wear and tear on your drive.

I would recommend having the following hardware as a minimum:

• At least 8GB for storage
• 256MB+ RAM
• A dual core 1.8Ghz CPU for single typical Internet connection
• The faster the internet connection, a faster CPU and more RAM are required
• If you run Snort and Squid it is recommended you have between 4GB to 8GB of RAM

• 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.

• MAC Filtered DHCP and DNS
• Captive Portal
• VPN
• Proxy Server
• Proxy Filter

It has provided us with secure internet browsing and a strong monitoring ability.

Proxy filters are not supported for the blocking of HTTPS sites.

I've used it for two to three years.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

Customer Service:

I have not gotten any support from the customer service center because I can get all the solutions on their web blogs.

Technical Support:

I think it is perfect.

I was using another product, but it didn't have a bandwidth controller and monitoring tool like this product does. I switched because I can find everything in one window.

Its installation setup & procedure is so simple that a layman could install it.

I installed it by myself and used Google for assistance.

It's positive.

I just downloaded the program from the website free of chard. The best thing is, this product can be installed on any machine.

No other options were evaluated.

It is recommended, as it is a stable product.

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.

pfSense is very good because it allows us to do what we want.

The solution could improve by having centralized management and API support online.

I have been using pfSense for a long time.

I have found pfSense to be stable.

We are providing support for our customers here in Sweden.

The initial setup of pfSense is simple.

The price of pfSense is reasonable. However, there is a free version available.

My advice to those wanting to implement pfSense is to start out with the free version before going with the appliance.

I rate pfSense a ten out of ten.