Many of the components have shared code anyway. This reduces the attack surface by simply not running most services that would be available on a standard install. NoScript). I must say that installing it was a breeze, and modifying it is really easy. I have looked at both Monowall and pfsense. Simply looking at the number of vulnerabilities in Linux vs FreeBSD is not a valid comparison. • Only users with topic management privileges can see it. It was good at the time and was nice but PFsense is so much more advanced and it maintained. It's a long time since I ran Smoothwall, I'm not following their status that closely. It's been rock solid and I can't imagine using anything else at this point. Click here to see … And then. Cookies help us deliver our Services. If you're really considering a switch I think this recent tweet from Smoothwall founder Richard Morrell is telling: @ @gpryzby Reserved for people who let a good project die badly, thankfully #pfsense exists for those that want a better firewall. I started with Linux, learned about BSD, and never went back. Product information, software announcements, and special offers. Welcome to your friendly /r/homelab, where techies and sysadmin from everywhere are welcome to share their labs, projects, builds, etc. The LTM load balancer I am configuring runs Red Hat. pfSense is possibly the most feature-rich firewall distro out there, but falls down due to a lack of non-firewall-related extra features. I've been using it for a few years now and am very pleased with it. Add on packages are a major pain there, again users do what they can but support by the company is minimal and many packages are abandoned by their maintainers. You could argue that because more people are running Linux than FreeBSD there will be more people trying to find new exploits. My internet connection is running at 60/12. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you may not be able to execute some actions. Monowall vs. Pfsense. This reduces the attack surface by simply not running most services that would be available on a standard install. I had an issue installing PFsense recently, so I installed smoothwall...smoothwall worked first try. Hi, looking to help an NGO with no budget, they have 3 links an I want to do: -load balancing -failover -webfilter, time based maybe? By having less packages in the distro there are less patches to apply (due to newly discovered vulnerabilities) which means it's easier for maintainers to keep the distro up to date. By having such a reduced component list it is relatively easy to keep on top of vulnerabilities. And then. We believe that an open-source security model offers disruptive pricing along with the agility required to quickly address emerging threats. Juniper and F5 poured a ton of resources into that decision and both are running on a BSD platform. It does appear that they are working on an upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.1 but that has happened since I switched. Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. It is far overkill for what I use it for at home. ;), New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. 10:18 . Both Smoothwall and pfSense run heavily cut-down versions of their base OS. Or pfsense over monowall? Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. pfsense vs opnsense vs monowall vs smoothwall vs ? I run pfSense on an old Dell Precision T3400 with a Core2Duo e8400, 4GB Ram, and a 4x pci-e Broadcom NetXtreme dual gigabit ethernet card. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. 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. Smoothwall is Linux based and pfsense is BSD. Smoothwall, these days, is a large commercial outfit so you would hope this wouldn't be a problem for them. I can't say I have ever actually witnessed it utilize more than 10-15% CPU or actually reach 10% memory usage. Performance & security by Cloudflare, Please complete the security check to access. You sure F5 is operating on BSD? DNS server, DHCP server, VPN software, etc) if you use them. I just ordered a dual port nic and have been looking at setting up pfsense in my homelab. I use two dual port 100Mb NICs FWIW (WAN, trusted staticly assigned IPs LAN, wifi, and untrusted (windows) DHCP assigned LAN). On performance: This thing does wonders on a core2duo + 6 gbit Intel NICs. 82% Upvoted. It is more didactic and simple to use for new users. Keeping the OS and packages up-to-date is helpful but it's rare that such updates actually are relevant to the firewall as it processes traffic They are more relevant to secondary functions (e.g. Some alternative products to Untangle NG Firewall include FortiClient, Smoothwall UTM, and Check Point CloudGuard SaaS. Anyone have experience with these products and want to give their opinions on them? My point, I guess, is that neither pfSense nor Smoothwall should have any outstanding known vulnerabilities to an external attack. Looks like your connection to Netgate Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect. I was reading on some forums about smoothwall and after a little bit of research it sounds a lot like pfsense from a functionality standpoint. BSD as we know has waaaaaay less amount of vulnurabilities than Linux. Press J to jump to the feed. Cloudflare Ray ID: 5f78d30f8bd3741d You may need to download version 2.0 now from the Chrome Web Store. By having such a reduced component list it is relatively easy to keep on top of vulnerabilities. I still have SmoothWall loaded on a couple boxes but as I get better at using it they will be moving to pfSense too. Starting Price: $540.00 Compare vs. pfSense View Software Purely from the BSD vs Linux standpoint, I would go with pfsense. So I have been tasked with setting up a core router/firewall for the organization that I do work for. PfSense vs OPNsense - Duration: 10:18. This topic has been deleted. 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. which means cut-down OS has less vulnurabilities. So the question might sound loose but I'll try to explain better. Smoothwall is old. Beyond that, it comes down to potential exploits of the software running as root on the box itself (e.g. I have experience with pfsense, but none with smoothwall. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. If you are concerned with security, make sure you don't expose the system's webGUI to the public. Both Smoothwall and pfSense run heavily cut-down versions of their base OS. It shouldn't even be considered these days with stuff like vyos, untangle, sophos, pfsense, endian, ipfire. You can't go wrong with pfsense. Sad because they had a good base system back when  the company cared about building their reputation using the free version. The security of either is as good or bad as you make it. Right? If you load a vulnerable package on either one and open it up to the world, you'll have problems. Cyber Resistance 39,619 views. If you misconfigure firewall rules on either one, you'll have problems. I'm not really using it yet though, just a test install. Smoothwall SWG has many tools similar to pfSense but in my opinion I like the graphical environment of smoothwall swg more. Food for thought. The only thing I'll point out is that linux is a kernel, BSD is an operating system. Active users working on fixing problems haven't gotten much if any support from the company in the last couple years.