Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. It is more didactic and simple to use for new users. Monowall vs. Pfsense. Upgrades if you have packages installed can be a huge hassle, uninstall everything, update, reinstall everything. It does appear that they are working on an upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.1 but that has happened since I switched. Smoothwall, these days, is a large commercial outfit so you would hope this wouldn't be a problem for them. Food for thought. Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. 82% Upvoted. If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware. 34 comments. Also pfSense lacks the … I've been using it for a few years now and am very pleased with it. This thread is archived. Your IP: 104.236.78.88 Smoothwall SWG has many tools similar to pfSense but in my opinion I like the graphical environment of smoothwall swg more. The maintainers of any distro have to try and keep up to date with newly discovered vulnerabilities in the many, many packages that they contain. Simply looking at the number of vulnerabilities in Linux vs FreeBSD is not a valid comparison. The only thing I'll point out is that linux is a kernel, BSD is an operating system. It was good at the time and was nice but PFsense is so much more advanced and it maintained. I would argue that lesser security is not a good argument for pfSense over Smoothwall, though I guess it might depend on what you're protecting. Performance & security by Cloudflare, Please complete the security check to access. I'm not really using it yet though, just a test install. If you load a vulnerable package on either one and open it up to the world, you'll have problems. So I have been tasked with setting up a core router/firewall for the organization that I do work for. Both Smoothwall and pfSense run heavily cut-down versions of their base OS. Many of the components have shared code anyway. The LTM load balancer I am configuring runs Red Hat. The free version of Smoothwall seems see little attention form the company, users have tried to support it, even forking to add features and fix problems. So the question might sound loose but I'll try to explain better. Press J to jump to the feed. However 'security through obscurity' has long been seen as a bad idea. It shouldn't even be considered these days with stuff like vyos, untangle, sophos, pfsense, endian, ipfire. Both Smoothwall and pfSense run heavily cut-down versions of their base OS. pfSense is possibly the most feature-rich firewall distro out there, but falls down due to a lack of non-firewall-related extra features. • Anyone have experience with these products and want to give their opinions on them? After reading through this...I'll be giving PFsense another shot soon. Sad because they had a good base system back when the company cared about building their reputation using the free version. By having such a reduced component list it is relatively easy to keep on top of vulnerabilities. Thoughts. PfSense vs OPNsense - Duration: 10:18. Passively Cooled Quad Core 4 port Gigabit NIC pfSense box from protectli review - … I use two dual port 100Mb NICs FWIW (WAN, trusted staticly assigned IPs LAN, wifi, and untrusted (windows) DHCP assigned LAN). I had an issue installing PFsense recently, so I installed smoothwall...smoothwall worked first try. The only main difference I saw was that smoothwall is based on linux while pfsense is based on bsd (which in my mind is basically just a more secure version of linux). This reduces the attack surface by simply not running most services that would be available on a standard install. I still have SmoothWall loaded on a couple boxes but as I get better at using it they will be moving to pfSense too. You could argue that because more people are running Linux than FreeBSD there will be more people trying to find new exploits. NoScript). Not necessarily. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. This means applying patches and releasing updates. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you may not be able to execute some actions. My point, I guess, is that neither pfSense nor Smoothwall should have any outstanding known vulnerabilities to an external attack. Click here to see … Smoothwall is old. As far as the difference between linux and BSD - there's plenty out there to read up on. Anyone have experience with these products and want to give their opinions on them? share . This reduces the attack surface by simply not running most services that would be available on a standard install. © 2020 Rubicon Communications, LLC | Privacy Policy. I just ordered a dual port nic and have been looking at setting up pfsense in my homelab. Product information, software announcements, and special offers. Have you used either? A package like Snort is mandatory in a production environment and it is not well maintained until Bmeeks came along. This topic has been deleted. Starting Price: $540.00 Compare vs. pfSense View Software save hide report. You may need to download version 2.0 now from the Chrome Web Store. Both Smoothwall and pfSense run heavily cut-down versions of their base OS. Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property. On upgrades: Releases are 1 click upgrades. Smoothwall is Linux based and pfsense is BSD. And then. ;), New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. I use pfsense for my home use on an old P3 933 1GB system (i386), and it uses less than ~10-20% resources with a 60/6 cable connection maxed out.