OPNsense Reviews

I use it for firewall purposes and OpenVPN. Another use is to protect the servers inside my company. 

I am using its latest version. It is deployed on my own server.

It has an open license. It works very well, and there is an update every month.

Its interface should be a little bit better.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable. A month ago, I had an issue for two weeks, but other than that, it has been stable.

I don't need scalability. It is a small company. It is a small network. I just need a small firewall at the entrance of the network. I don't need to expand it. 

In terms of its users, it is the firewall to protect the company, and I am the only one to touch this product.

I have never contacted their support.

I used another one a long time ago. I don't remember the name. I went for this because it has an open license and a lot of people use it. I don't remember why, but I prefer this one over pfSense.

It is not so difficult to set up. You need to know the minimum things. I do it myself, and I am not an IT person. It is not my job.

It is open source and free.

I can recommend this product but only to people who are able to use it. It is not for everybody. You need to know how to manage it.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

It's open source.

There are a few weaknesses. For example, there is a lack of some features that I have in certain commercial products.

Some of the features include classified traffic and better blocking of newly registered DNS domains.

I have been working with OPNsense for about three years. I use it both in my company and at home.

OPNsense is very stable, rock-solid.

It is a scalable solution. We haven't encountered any performance issues.

The initial setup was easy. 

Overall, I would rate OPNsense an eight out of ten. There is still some room for improvement.

OPNsense it's a multi-platform operating system. So we can install it on PC platforms and do not need dedicated hardware.

The WireGuard VPN is the most valuable feature.

They should improve IPEs for security in the future.

We have been using this solution for about three years and are using the latest version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. We have 20 connections between sites, and about 100 users use the solution.

The technical support is very good.

Before using OPNsense, we used Cisco Fortinet. Other solutions are more expensive than OPNsense.

The initial setup was easy. There are no issues with performance.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten and recommend it to others.

OPNsense can be deployed in the cloud and on-premises.

I have used OPNsense in many different types of companies, such as financial and metropolitan.

I have been using OPNsense for approximately six years.

OPNsense is highly stable.

The scalability of OPNsense is very good.

I have approximately 15 customer companies using this solution.

The support for OPNsense is good because we have documents available on the internet. The support could improve a little.

I rate the support from OPNsense a four out of five.

The initial setup of OPNsense is straightforward. It took us a while to deploy the solution.

I rate the initial setup of OPNsense a nine out often.

I did the implementation of OPNsense in-house.

OPNsense is an open-source solution and it does not require a license.

I recommend this solution to others because in my country we have a limitation for buying any firewall.

I rate OPNsense a nine out of ten.

We upgrade our clients when they are ready for the newer versions of OPNsense.

We are one of the local cloud providers in Indonesia. We implement OPNsense for the VPN and IPSec. We also collaborate with Zerotier to provide SD-WAN.  

Our customers have solutions that integrate between on-premises and our cloud.

We provide this solution for several clients, in multi-location offices. We have several retail customers in the city and we provide OPNsense with plug-in remote access. 

We also use OPNsense for remote access, and IPSec gives them access to a cloud environment as well as on-premises.

OPNsense is easy to scale when running on the hardware.

The interface needs to be simplified. It is not user-friendly.

The bandwidth management is easy to use, but very hard to implement. The multi-provider internet is protected by OPNsence but the features are limited, and not stable.

The high availability feature is not feasible when the hardware fails.

I have been working with OPNsense since 2008.

Internally we are using the latest version. 

The stability of OPNsense needs improvement.

OPNsense is commonly used in large enterprise companies.

We have not yet contacted technical support. All of the technical issues are resolved within our company.

We are also using pfSense.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's an easy process.

It takes one hour to deploy.

We provide maintenance for our clients at a cost, however, 90% of our clients are familiar with the product and able to maintain the solution themselves.

We are implementors, and we provide this solution for our clients.

As an appliance, it's in the medium price range.

OPNsense is suitable for Small to Medium-sized companies.

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

I would rate OPNsense an eight out of ten.

I am currently working with OPNsense to see if I can learn it. This product is used in small to medium-sized businesses for security, UTM, and other similar operations. We are a solution provider and this is one of the security solutions that we implement for our clients.

Offering this solution has provided some of our clients with firewall protection and UTM, which basically just protects them from the internet.

The most valuable features are reporting, the Sensei plugin, and firewall capabilities.

The vendor should offer compatibility-approved boxes, or at least stock one with OPNsense already installed. This would make it a one-stop-shop, and people would not have to worry about sourcing the hardware separately.

I would like to see better SD-WAN performance. I think that could be a very good bonus because SD-WAN is all the rage these days. That is probably the big thing that people need to improve upon, in terms of combining two, three, or four links.

The interface should continue to improve, which would make things a bit easier. For me, it was already easy, but nonetheless, it is quicker to install a FortiGate firewall.

I have been working with OPNsense for approximately one year.

This is a very stable product and I've had no issues with it.

This product is very scalable. I always buy hardware that can handle a lot of connections and a lot of users. So, in terms of scalability, all you have to do is upgrade your hardware. Or, it is especially scalable if you use the VM version because you only have to provision more resources.

We regularly have between 20 and 50 users, although sometimes it is as little as 5 or 10.        

I have not been in contact with technical support. So far, everything has been good because I just use Google to find all of the answers and all of my solutions.

I primarily work with FortiGate, but I am currently dabbling in OPNSense to see if I can learn it. I've also installed Cisco in the past, as well as Sophos.

FortiGate is a better firewall but that is commercial software that you have to buy a license for. OPNsense is suitable for small to medium-sized businesses. FortiGate is definitely quicker to install because you just buy the appliance. It's also more user-friendly.

If you dabble a bit with OPNsense, it can do about 90% of what FortiGate can do, but FortiGate is more user-friendly. Of course, with OPNsense being open-source, it will always beat FortiGate on price.

I think that with FortiGate, it is easier to log a support call. I haven't really needed technical support for OPNsense, but I know that FortiGate has the score logging facility, whereby you can just quickly log a call. There's also support in South Africa and I know company people that I can just call for help with FortiGate. But with OPNsense, I haven't really had a complicated setup, so for me, it has been okay and it hasn't been an issue.

The SD-WAN is also better on FortiGate. I think that they are heavily focused on security, so they might have better application profiles and other things, such as application threat detections.

Although about 80% of our clients ask for FortiGate, some of our clients ask for Sophos instead. For example, there are some banks and commercial institutions that ask for Sophos.

The initial setup is straightforward and quite simplified. I work in a Linux environment so for me, it will be a bit easier.

OPNsense is an open-source solution and it is free to use. You need only purchase the hardware.

The suitability of this product often depends on the size of the company, although sometimes there are clients that just want FortiGate and they're not open for negotiation. Personally, I like open-source and it's always a bonus if I can get stuff for free.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is the main firewall for one of our locations. We use it for intrusion detection and prevention. We are using the latest software version, but the hardware is not the latest.

The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication.

Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls.

Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used. 

The only thing that I would like to see improved is the Insight or the NetFlow analysis part. It would be good to have the possibility to dig down on the Insight platform. Right now, we can easily do only a few analyses. If this page becomes more powerful, it surely will be a well-adopted platform.

I started to use OPNsense about three years ago.

It is stable, but for us, it is not yet so reliable. Our server is an old DL120 HP Server, which is from the year 2006. We have ordered another appliance. After we receive the new appliance, it would be more stable for us.

It scales well for our needs. I haven't tried any horizontal or vertical scaling so far.

I did not need any technical support.

I used pfSense two years ago, but I was not so happy with our system protection. I have also previously used Cisco ASA appliance. It was a 5505 model, but it failed because of the hardware issues. It was prone to hardware failure, and in one month, we lost both firewalls. It was also not so easy to see traffic with Cisco ASA. I could not easily identify traffic issues. 

The initial setup was straightforward. I also have experience with BSD services, so I had no issues at all. It took us half an hour to deploy it for 250 users.

We deployed it ourselves. There was no need for a consultant for the deployment. We have two engineers for its deployment and maintenance.

It is not an expensive product. Basically, I deployed it because it was the fastest solution to satisfy our needs in open source.

We plan to continue using this solution. Right now, we are settling our networks. We plan to expand its usage, but I don't think it will happen until 2022.

It has a good user interface. Its configuration is simple but requires a little planning. It is much simpler than the Cisco ASA configuration.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate OPNsense a nine out of ten. I am happy with it.

The primary use case of this solution is to detect and block malicious traffic, malicious files, and malicious links to protect the internal network from any external malicious website that may contain a virus or malware.

The most valuable features in OPNsense are reporting and visibility. 

The visibility is awesome. With the visibility, you can see the data source, data destination, the source port, destination port, protocols, the most used, the malicious files that have been detected and blocked, the countries the customer has visited, and the IPs based on Suricata.

OPNsense also has ClamAV, which is a great tool.

I have some issues with OPNsense. I have created a virtual machine that I've lost connection at times and I am not able to connect to the gateway or ping the internet. When I started with OPNsense, it worked right away. It may be an issue with the virtual machine itself. I am currently setting up the protection on all of the virtual machines so they will connect to OPNsense and the internet, or anywhere they need to access.

I have tried to download some malicious files or a virus and it should dump the files and prevent the download, but I don't seem to get any notification or warnings.

It may be an issue with the configuration but I am not sure.

I would like to see improvements made to connectivity and alerting.

I wanted to deploy this solution in our organization and some of the workstations from remote sites but it's not reliable enough to do that yet.

In the next release, I would like to see real traffic monitoring and more visibility. Also, for the antivirus, I would like to see the files protected by ClamAV. 

I would like to see intelligence in OPNsense and have the option to apply it or not.

They need a threat intelligence tool similar to the one they would find with Cisco. It will show you the file hashes, all of the IFCs, the niches, the address information, and more.  With all of this information, you can be proactive and block the malicious file hashes, all of the malicious IP addresses, and the public IP addresses. It should help you be proactive.

It would be helpful to have OPNsense be one of the plugins, and they should include traffic capturing. With Palo Alto, you can monitor and specify which interface you want to monitor, the source IP, or you can specify the network and see the traffic that is coming from the VLAN, the destination, and any files being transferred over the network.

If you apply security profiles you can see the signatures.

I have been using OPNsense for five months.

There are issues with stability and reliability.

I set up two different virtual machines. I used a virtual box, I installed it and configured higher visibility for both. One was a master and the other a standby. 

I had a virtual machine installed on Windows 10 and put the gateway for it as OPNsense, which was the master. 

I tested and shut down the first one, which is the master. When I check to see if the second one would take over, it failed. 

I couldn't connect to the internet or any destination.

We have not explored the scalability. We are only a small lab with two to three workstations.

I have a colleague working with me, together. We meet weekly to share the progress we have.

I use the enterprise version daily. It's scalable, stable, they have proper documentation and support. We get daily updates from the vendor.

OPNsense is a great tool but it lacks information that you need before deploying it.

I have reached out to the community for support, but they haven't seen anything like the issues that I am experiencing. 

I have not contacted OPNsense directly.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

It took 30 to 45 minutes to set up and deploy OPNsense.

I did not use a vendor to implement this solution, I did it myself.

OPNsense is a well known open-source tool.

I am currently evaluating and searching for open-source enterprise firewalls and doing a comparison of the features between all of them. I am assessing the pros and cons of vendors. 

I am looking for something that will give me a report on the comparison of features, capabilities, the different vendors, and the different open-source solutions that are available.

I am also doing a comparison on Palo Alto, Cisco Firepower, and Fortinet Fortigate.

I don't have any information on the bandwidth and what it can handle, or how many workstations can work with it. This information is very important, but I can't find any resources for this information.

The reporting is amazing. You can export reports, you can set the parameters, and export reports based on your needs.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.