PFsense has everything but can sometimes be confusing with the vast options. IPFire is able to use all of them for routing, while pfSense is using just one. Never used IPFire but from what I've see about it, I would probably go with pfSense unless you hit the performance issue. pfSense/OPNsense are not the best options IMO, multiple security vulnerabilities over the years, runs web UI as root, and an old fork from BSD PF. It positively sips power, it’s faster than it looks, it has an insane feature set, and it largely behaves the same year after year, reducing training requirements greatly over time. But even with all the problems I still prefer it over something like SonicWALL. I'm not familiar with the BSD world, but doesn't OPNsense build off HardenedBSD? Solid team over there. I’m talking basically perfect, and the project considers it a legitimate bug to have flaws in its documentation. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Once done, reboot and you'll be given all the info you need to access and administer your new firewall remotely. They are close enough in codebase still that you can often refer to the pfSense documentation to configure OPNsense. My preference is pfsense. I think that iPfire has as many features if not more, but it is hard to tell. Press J to jump to the feed. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. The website has a handy hardware guide to allow you to choose a compatible device. Thanks. I agree with the rest though, particularly the tl;dr :). If you don’t have a fiber connection or a gigabit cable connection with DOCSIS 3.1, you likely have a ton of bufferbloat that fq_codel can handily mitigate. Really good article, but im little confuse with an feature. Posted by Pawel Suwala on Aug 27, 2017 Update 2019-02-10: It turns out it's possible to configure APU2 to run at full gigabit on pfSense, when using more than one connection. Just as importantly, why do you feel the ones you excluded didn't meet your needs? Additionally this will likely be the standard iptables supplied, even though less experienced users may struggle with it. APU2 achieves a full line throughput under IPFire. Security: I think this is a close race. The installation process allows you to configure your network into different security segments, with each segment being colour-coded. As most firewall distros are written for the stereotypical geek, it's nice to see a refreshing change in what seems to have become the de facto standard of 'cobble it together and think about the interface afterwards'. pfSense has more features. An easy-to-use firewall with some super-advanced features. The installation is painless and takes around 10 minutes to complete. Every update/upgrade was solid and seamless. Although Linux distros usually come with a free firewall application bundled with it, often this won't be active by default so will need to be activated. A bit more technical install then the others, but worth it. IPFire is specifically designed for people who are new to firewalls and networking, and can be set up in minutes. Search function too, so much easier to find something between all those menus. So if you are looking for the most robust solution, IPFire is the proper choice. My prior experience was several years ago with an old Dell Optiplex running Debian Sarge and Shorewall. I think scanning outbound packets is a crucial part of Intrusion Detection, especially when you have mobile users that go in and out of your LAN frequently. Here we'll feature the best in free Linux firewalls. … However, not all are free, especially when it comes to business applications. Pfsense has a package manager, it worked well but I found it somewhat confusing. I get torn between the two for different reasons. The more you dig and poke, the cooler Mikrotik’s RouterOS appears. Something that may be compelling is to consider escaping from these GUI abstractions almost altogether. The configuration add-on section for IPfire is the Pakfire system. The setup assistant will ask you to assign interfaces during the installation, rather than once you've booted to the web interface. alle Rechte vorbehalten c/o Thomas-Krenn.AG, Ein kleiner Schritt für die Menschheit, aber ein großer Sprung für den SEP sesam, Neue Prozessoren für Dual-CPU-Boards: Intel Broadwell-EP, Consumer und Enterprise SSDs im Vergleich: der entscheidende Unterschied. Not only has it been going for over 15 years but it is still very actively developed and supported, while other once popular firewall developments for distros have fallen by the wayside (such as IPCop and Smoothwall Express). Beide haben ihre Stärken und Schwächen, letztendlich hat mir die Logik von PFsense eher zugesagt und mich dafür entschieden. I wish there was an openbsd based firewall project with a webui. I do like the Proxy Log viewer that ipfire has available that lets you get a look a recent traffic. I would definitely try one. bandwidthd for individual ip traffic stats, telegraf -> InfluxDB -> grafana for all other monitoring, OpenVPN for client and site to site connections. I have been using IPFire recently, it works, but seems too simple. It turned out that pfSense 2.3.4 is the bottleneck, not the hardware itself. If you have any questions drop me a line. As we’ve mentioned already, the fork between these two projects was controversial and pfSense still has many loyal users. However, there are distros and applications out there that can cater for the less experienced user as well as the more advanced one, making it easier to setup and configure a firewall that works for your needs. It is popular opinion, especially from "specialists" who makes money on this. Winbox administration is kind of the bee’s knees, IMO, since there’s so much you can view in a single pane. IPFire does have Pakfire, which is IPFire's own package management tool, so IPFire is extensible. Configuration: If you like to just get into the setting pfsense is the winner. pfSense has more features, and has nicer user interface. You could check your processor model with the requirements on their site.