Great work. I have been using pfsense for 5.5 years now and it never disappoints.
PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#12In my last round of my linux firewall comparison I liked opnsense very much:
not affiliated, I just liked it. However the GUI is made of many php scripts (if they did not change meanwhile) - so it would be great if many more eyes would like to take a look at the code...
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#13With the crappy, underpowered consumer routers with gaping security holes pfSense is a god send. Last few years I've been running pfSense and the experience has been fairly great. I had a backup server running Ubuntu with ZFS which was always on anyways so I just had to install pfSense on OS disk and it imported the ZFS disks right away. So for a long time it was both my backup server and the router/firewall. But lat…
I recognized your reply from /r/pfsense. Dude, you are running unsupported scenario and using your pfSense as NAS. That is a big no no
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#14I'd really love to see an API or a unified configuration system. At $WORK we have a need for many small firewall appliances, but I refuse to use anything we can't deploy zero-touch, automate, monitor and back up/restore in a semi-sane way. Either it needs a configuration language like Cisco/Juniper than can be dumped/imported/configured over SSH, or a web API (supposedly on the roadmap for pfsense 3.0 ... ?). I can't…
pfsense was forked a year or two ago, their 2.3 is just to keep up with the new kid on the block opnsense. And guess what, they have an API ;)
https://opnsense.org/
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#15I'd really love to see an API or a unified configuration system. At $WORK we have a need for many small firewall appliances, but I refuse to use anything we can't deploy zero-touch, automate, monitor and back up/restore in a semi-sane way. Either it needs a configuration language like Cisco/Juniper than can be dumped/imported/configured over SSH, or a web API (supposedly on the roadmap for pfsense 3.0 ... ?). I can't…
I have had decent luck the few times I've just dumped the xml config from one pfSense box and loaded it on another.
But yes, I eagerly await the API in 3.0
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#16With the crappy, underpowered consumer routers with gaping security holes pfSense is a god send. Last few years I've been running pfSense and the experience has been fairly great. I had a backup server running Ubuntu with ZFS which was always on anyways so I just had to install pfSense on OS disk and it imported the ZFS disks right away. So for a long time it was both my backup server and the router/firewall. But lat…
I recognized your reply from /r/pfsense. Dude, you are running unsupported scenario and using your pfSense as NAS. That is a big no no
And I realized maybe it is not such a great practice to make your router/firewall double up as a backup server. So I virtualized the box using ESXi and ran pfSense and Debian in two VMs on it.
It sounds like that was previously the case, but the complaints above appear to be pfsense in a VM and debian in a different VM. Why wouldn't that scenario be supported?
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#17With the crappy, underpowered consumer routers with gaping security holes pfSense is a god send. Last few years I've been running pfSense and the experience has been fairly great. I had a backup server running Ubuntu with ZFS which was always on anyways so I just had to install pfSense on OS disk and it imported the ZFS disks right away. So for a long time it was both my backup server and the router/firewall. But lat…
I recognized your reply from /r/pfsense. Dude, you are running unsupported scenario and using your pfSense as NAS. That is a big no no
As I expected someone would, small world :) Just to clarify though I moved to VM based setup after that and had issues due to the hardware being weak.
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#18I'd really love to see an API or a unified configuration system. At $WORK we have a need for many small firewall appliances, but I refuse to use anything we can't deploy zero-touch, automate, monitor and back up/restore in a semi-sane way. Either it needs a configuration language like Cisco/Juniper than can be dumped/imported/configured over SSH, or a web API (supposedly on the roadmap for pfsense 3.0 ... ?). I can't…
pfsense was forked a year or two ago, their 2.3 is just to keep up with the new kid on the block opnsense. And guess what, they have an API ;) https://opnsense.org/
I don't really see what OPNsense has done too much differently, other than commence re-writing the UI in a different PHP framework and Bootstrap it.
To look at it, you're largely looking at pfSense.
I couldn't find a clear map of what has been changed or added to.
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#19In my last round of my linux firewall comparison I liked opnsense very much: https://opnsense.org/ not affiliated, I just liked it. However the GUI is made of many php scripts (if they did not change meanwhile) - so it would be great if many more eyes would like to take a look at the code...
They took those PHP scripts and rewrote / are rewriting them in a different PHP framework, for better, or worse.
Re: PfSense 2.3-Release Now Available
#20Hmm, it looks like pfSense doesn't support the one requirement I have of any router: per-IP (not _interface_) statistics. Is this really such an unusual thing to want? I want to know how much traffic each device on my network is producing, in each direction. Ideally also: for suspect devices, I'd like to know _who_ they are talking to.