External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Our most common use cases are for our corporate firewalls, and currently, I'm using it as our school firewall. So it's our perimeter firewall. So, we're running three firewalls on our network.
So we have separate networks each because we have, like, different use cases. So we're running three at the moment.
We've been running it for six years now, and so far, it's been good.
Netgate pfSense has been utilized to create and manage VPNs within our organization. So we're running pfSense with VPN on one of our private cloud providers. So we're using IPSec VPN on that.
For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution.
We were using an open-source endpoint solution for that. So we're integrating that with the one we have on pfSense.
The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.
We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.
Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.
For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model. This feature of pfSense would be great, instead of relying on a third-party module.
I have been using it for six years.
It's about 95% stable, not perfect, but quite reliable.
If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.
We have around 4,000 endpoints.
I reached out to support for an unusual CPU usage issue after an upgrade. They were responsive, and even though I ultimately found a solution, they were helpful in diagnosing.
Positive
We used Fortinet. We opted for pfSense because of budget limitations. pfSense was a more affordable solution for our requirements.
pfSense is easier to manage and offers modularity for features. With FortiGate, everything is there, but we might not need everything, and too many features can be challenging.
The initial setup is very straightforward and intuitive.
We use the pfSense software directly and install it on our rack servers. So, we're adding three instances of that.
I handle all the deployment processes. I am the core manager for the entire infrastructure, so I manage and deploy everything.
I consider how many users and gigabytes we expect on the network and try it on a test network first to validate before actual deployment.
Just my core team members manage the whole deployment, so that's enough for us.
Migrating the old one to the new one took around a month because we have many rules, and the new Netgate was quite different.
From the maintenance perspective, it is not difficult at all.
While configuring or maintaining pfSense, we had high CPU usage on one firewall, but the GPAC subscription provided a good response. The support team was helpful, and we resolved it in a few hours. So, we had good support because of the support subscription.
We just have the yearly support subscription.
I just found pfSense online. I just tried it out on a home lab and found it worked well enough for us. So, just started out, like, searching online and responded and tried it.
I would advise you to try to estimate your network first and do a test network just to have a proof of concept of what you want to run and check the routes you want to run against your network, making sure that your requirements are valid before deploying it.
Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.
We use Netgate pfSense for load balancing.
The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing.
Netgate pfSense needs to improve the configuration for a VPN.
I have been working with the product for three months.
I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.
I rate Netgate pfSense's scalability a seven out of ten.
I have used online documentation and hence haven't contacted the support yet.
Neutral
I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. Its deployment takes only a few hours to complete.
We did the deployment in-house.
I use the product's free version.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
I have used Netgate pfSense for a range of purposes. Initially, I employed it for VPN connections, mainly for personal and professional use. I also relied on it to maintain network equipment in a professional context. In the professional sphere, I have experience with both pfSense and Juniper, but eventually, I decided to phase out Juniper due to its high costs, especially for updates and the addition of new functionalities. pfSense's cost-effectiveness and the flexibility to transition to new hardware while retaining configurations made it a preferred choice. pfSense also stands out in terms of its rapid algorithm evolution compared to competitors like Juniper. Its scalability is another advantage, where adding a new box or reconfiguring can boost the firewall's capacity.
On a personal note, I use Netgate pfSense to connect to my equipment at the data center. Currently, I have a highly available installation that requires two instances of pfSense. While I considered pfSense for this setup, I had to assess whether OpenSense might offer better features for future requirements before delving deeper into pfSense.
It's worth noting that Netgate pfSense's performance is independent of the hardware it runs on. As I mentioned earlier, its scalability is a strong point. Most functions are readily available, and additional features can be obtained by downloading and installing plugins, which are generally free. When you compare this to the alternative of purchasing a firewall from a different supplier, you'll find that the latter option typically doubles the cost of the firewall itself. This cost increase is often attributed to additional licenses for deep inspection and similar functionalities. While configuring pfSense may require more time and effort upfront, the long-term cost savings make it a more cost-effective choice.
One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs. When creating IP lists, I've noticed that synchronization doesn't always function correctly. While it's not entirely dysfunctional, troubleshooting these synchronization problems can be quite challenging.
I have been using Netgate pfSense since 2015-16.
I've experienced certain issues with Netgate pfSense in the past, particularly with the previous version, which was 2.5. It posed several problems. However, the current version appears to be more stable. Nonetheless, I still encounter troubleshooting challenges. For instance, there is an issue where it initially blocks an IP range but releases it after ten minutes. This behavior is somewhat peculiar, and it pertains to IP filtering.
The support for Netgate pfSense mainly comes from online forums. These forums are populated by a significant number of individuals who are knowledgeable in pfSense and its related areas, making it a valuable resource.
The choice of whether to use Netgate pfSense often depends on the company's preferences. In some cases, particularly in Switzerland, there is a strong preference for open source solutions. This choice is sometimes motivated by the desire for open source alternatives and can also be related to cost considerations.
The Initial setup is very easy.
Netgate pfSense is a cost-effective option. If you're not using a VPN, you can acquire a decent embedded PC for around a hundred dollars and install pfSense on it, effectively creating a robust firewall solution. With this setup, you can achieve a throughput of two hundred to three hundred megabits per second without any issues, provided you're handling relatively simple rules. The level of performance depends on the specific requirements and tasks.
If you're considering using Netgate pfSense for the first time, I would recommend giving it a try. It's relatively easy to set up and use, especially if you have some prior knowledge of network and IT work. The user manual provides helpful guidance, and the basic configuration is straightforward. Just ensure you pay attention to the hardware requirements to make the most of it.
It can be rated as an eight for simplicity. However, as you progress and introduce complexities, such as enabling deep packet inspection, adding extra features, or installing multiple plugins, the configuration can become more intricate. I encountered some issues with iOS in version 2.5, but they are expected to be resolved or have been resolved.
I use the product to test firewalls and VPN solutions.
We could use the solution to connect with the firewalls remotely for security.
The VPN features are the most valuable. The product’s documentation is good.
The solution’s interface must be improved.
I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution.
I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.
I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.
The initial installation is easy.
The product is cheap.
Initially, the product was difficult. It gets easier with use. It was a good investment. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.
We use the product as a perimeter firewall.
We can run it on any hardware.
The product must provide integration with other solutions.
We have been using the solution for ten years.
The tool is stable.
The tool is not very scalable. That is why we are planning to switch to a different product. The solution is used by one administrator and 75 end users in our organization.
I have used SonicWall, Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco Meraki. The choice of product depends on the context. Netgate pfSense is suitable for small businesses and homes. It is not the best solution for large deployments or branch offices. Sophos and FortiGate would be suitable for large companies.
It is easy to install the tool. We need two weeks to deploy it. One person can deploy the solution. It is also easy to maintain. One person can maintain the solution.
It is an open-source solution.
Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.
