Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with pfSense.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
ClamAV AntiVirus can cause some crashes. That service should be improved.
We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs.
This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing.
I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic.
Some suggestions for improvement of pfSense are: * Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great. * With regard to the Community Edition, when I installed it, we use Proxmox as an equivalent of PMWorks and I installed the Community Edition in Proxmox. That was very difficult to get to work at first. A lot of tweaking. That is very, very not easy. * When I'm inside of my network and I go to a URL, the URL points to a server inside my network. It doesn't hang, but I don't get a response. It just stays blank. * I can imagine that inside my network, I am going outside, and it points to the public address, so I can reach it. With eSoft, without any adjustment, it worked, and I was able to do that. I went to search pfSense for an option, and I had some documents open to read about how it is done, but it isn't clear enough. It's not that easy. I would appreciate it if I could get easy help on that.
It has everything I need, but the main drawback of pfSense is that it's not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly. I would also like to see some documentation that can help with use cases or that has advice and tips. I have found some documentation available but it's usually from an earlier version. If they develop this, pfSense will be the best. The only thing that Fortigate is better than pfSense is that they have 24/7 support. pfSense also needs improvements in the intrusion detection area.
While I agree spam filtering is not included or an option with the system, I don't necessarily hold that against the product as there are a number of other services that do it far better than a firewall could. If you use Office 365, Microsoft's implementations are likely to be far superior to what you'll get from a firewall. However, with that said, the one item I wish it included, even if it was a subscription-based service, is the inclusion of an AV and/or threat intelligence. This would elevate the solution well above other alternatives.
* I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces. * It would be useful to manage firewall policies on a source interface and destination interface basis.
* The central point of management, like the long-rumored pfCenter. * Better parsing of logs: At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis.
Layer 7 filtering has been taken away from pfSense. They would like us to use Snort, which is a good thing, but I would like them to make the Layer 7 thing easier. The one reason that we did not go with pfSense is that it is not centrally managed like Meraki, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. This is the only reason why we are going with Meraki. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses.
A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion. There are a few features not included, and when you have to use those features, you have to pay for them. I know that I should change the current pfSense solution. I should change it because we have only one key port on it. Our internet access also has a key port now, I should have two key ports, one to the LAN and one to the WAN. Therefore, I want to change it, because it gives us less speed. I could provide the speed, but there are not two key ports on it. Therefore, I now have to choose a new pfSense solution, or I could look at another vendor similar to what we have.