pfSense 2.3 Released With New Web UI

[stiiixy]

Dudes....pfSense's Certificate Authority is Comodo..... Just saying....you've been warned/reminded.

I've just read a bit more about the OPNsense split; pfsense doesn't look a reasonable solution for what it's supposed to be doing (blocking naughty traffic, not allowing it), and this certificate issue is another bullet-point. I'm not interested in all these companies (Comodo in this case) that move to the US either in light of all the security issues, and government influence on software and hardware.

This article is a starting point for why for anyone interested: https://docs.opnsense.org/fork/thefork.html

[caligula]

pfSense is in a league of its own. It crushes the likes of OpenWRT and DD-WRT.

Like how? On MIPS? Do the higher moral standards of BSD help when the OS won't even boot?

[aht0]

Dudes....pfSense's Certificate Authority is Comodo..... Just saying....you've been warned/reminded.

Wrong. by default it's offering self-signed certificate. You can add your own valid and trusted certificate (if you have one) and stick to using it.

OPNSense's ARM support is dependent on FreeBSD's own ARM support becoming Tier1. I remember seeing it mentioned somewhere in OPNSense's forum. Also I remember from pfSense forum (before it's overhaul) that some guy managed to compile pfSense from source for his MIPS platform board (put pfSense on some mikrotik board since he didn't like RouterOS at all)

If you are paranoid, they are both (pfSense and OPNSense) open source. Both. OPNSense is trying to get close to FreeBSD's code again, pfSense is pretty much tons and tons of custom patches on top of custom-compiled stripped-clean FreeBSD.

[FuturePilot]

Like how? On MIPS? Do the higher moral standards of BSD help when the OS won't even boot?

What about MIPS? Those consumer grade PoS routers that tout 64 MB of RAM as a feature aren't worth the money. Good luck putting any of those things under any kind of network load. They just choke and crash. This has nothing to do with Linux vs BSD so I don't know why you're bringing that up. It's simple, pfSense offers way more control and a much richer feature set than anything else. If it was based on Linux I would still be saying the same thing.

[caligula]

What about MIPS? Those consumer grade PoS routers that tout 64 MB of RAM as a feature aren't worth the money. Good luck putting any of those things under any kind of network load. They just choke and crash. This has nothing to do with Linux vs BSD so I don't know why you're bringing that up. It's simple, pfSense offers way more control and a much richer feature set than anything else. If it was based on Linux I would still be saying the same thing.

You might wish to update your data about the routers. Even middle range routers from 2013 had 128 MB of RAM, as an example the TP Link Archer C7. Those are just fine for 4 x gigabit LAN, 802.11ac and 300/100 MB internet, even with NAT and a firewall. Most users don't need faster hardware.

[aht0]

AFAIK pfsense needed 256Mb of RAM.. Not sure with the 2.3, they changed a lot under the hood (new UI, new www server)

[FuturePilot]

You might wish to update your data about the routers. Even middle range routers from 2013 had 128 MB of RAM, as an example the TP Link Archer C7. Those are just fine for 4 x gigabit LAN, 802.11ac and 300/100 MB internet, even with NAT and a firewall. Most users don't need faster hardware.

That's still a piddly amount and not sufficient for anything other than browsing and email.

[aht0]

That's still a piddly amount and not sufficient for anything other than browsing and email.

are you browsing/reading email using the router itself or what?

[caligula]

That's still a piddly amount and not sufficient for anything other than browsing and email.

Not sure if trolling. You get > 950 Mbps switching speed per interface on the LAN and the WAN-LAN bridge can do HW accelerated NAT at 300-400 Mbps, the 802.11ac can easily transport 100-200 Mbps at application level. Sure it's not that good if compared to 1 or 10 gigabit connections. You might also run into issues if you run several instances of bittorrent at those speeds, at the same time expecting decent QoS for video conferences and online gaming.

[FuturePilot]

Not sure if trolling. You get > 950 Mbps switching speed per interface on the LAN and the WAN-LAN bridge can do HW accelerated NAT at 300-400 Mbps, the 802.11ac can easily transport 100-200 Mbps at application level. Sure it's not that good if compared to 1 or 10 gigabit connections. You might also run into issues if you run several instances of bittorrent at those speeds, at the same time expecting decent QoS for video conferences and online gaming.

Not trolling. Time and time again I've seen these cheap routers with 64 or 128 MB of RAM choke and die with a simple bittorrent connection because they can't handle the large number of connections for bittorrent.