Re: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall
I used Smoothwall at one time, and it was only three days before it was hacked into pieces. Reinstall, same thing happened again. Hopefully they have upped their approach to security a bit since then, which is now a couple of years ago. Switched back to IPcop, and never looked back. You might find Endian Firewall, www.endian.com, very interesting. It does most if not all of the things you mention + the Community version is free. It is as easy to install and set up as Smoothwall, if not easier. Exellent documentation, too. Current version is 2.2. From version 2.3 it's supposed to have an IPS. By default Endian allows only the usual stuff in outgoing communication, email, http, ftp, and so. Further rules can be added quite easily, since the web GUI is very smooth and organized. Please note that most *nix based firewalls using the Snort IDS in these weeks (or months) are updated to the new Snort engine, meaning new versions. I don't know if Smoothwall does the same, but probably. Several are releasing new versions during September and October. If it's for private use or for a school, Astaro (astaro.com) will throw a free license your way. /soren Robert Martin Jr. wrote: Anyone tried both of these and have any comparative info. Smoothwalls been around for a while and has some good plugins so will be my top pick unless there are some reasons pfsense would be better. The firewall box I'm going to put together has to have 1) good QOS 2) handles VOIP well 3) handles P2P (torrent/emule) throttles correctly 4) good blacklist plugins 5) NIDS capability Plus's would be 1) good filtering capability 2) timed rules 3) logging website use Any feedback on either appreciated. lopaka
Re: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall
I've been using pfSense for 6 months or so, and absolutely love it. The rules engine reminds me of more enterprise-class offerings, which coming from a Cisco/CheckPoint world, I find very appealing. It even supports stateful failover using CARP. I can't speak to application-level filtering capabilities, but it has a very robust rules engine that I know can use a schedule. It uses ALTQ for QoS, which from my understanding is one of the very best implementations available. There are a fairly large number of plugins to extend base functionality. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Robert Martin Jr. Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:49 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall Anyone tried both of these and have any comparative info. Smoothwalls been around for a while and has some good plugins so will be my top pick unless there are some reasons pfsense would be better. The firewall box I'm going to put together has to have 1) good QOS 2) handles VOIP well 3) handles P2P (torrent/emule) throttles correctly 4) good blacklist plugins 5) NIDS capability Plus's would be 1) good filtering capability 2) timed rules 3) logging website use Any feedback on either appreciated. lopaka
Re: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall
Thanks for the input Greg. Since I grabbed 2 of those 4 port embedded systems, I may do 1 smoothwall and 1 pfsense and see which one handles the load with less problems. I've never used anything other than hacked DD-WRT/tomato routers, so I'm hoping to have more options available to use without any slowdown since the boxes have a lot more horsepower and memory. I looked into running DD-WRT x86, but both pfsense and smoothwall seemed to have more to offer. lopaka --- On Wed, 8/26/09, Greg Sevart ad...@xfury.net wrote: From: Greg Sevart ad...@xfury.net Subject: Re: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 7:44 AM I've been using pfSense for 6 months or so, and absolutely love it. The rules engine reminds me of more enterprise-class offerings, which coming from a Cisco/CheckPoint world, I find very appealing. It even supports stateful failover using CARP. I can't speak to application-level filtering capabilities, but it has a very robust rules engine that I know can use a schedule. It uses ALTQ for QoS, which from my understanding is one of the very best implementations available. There are a fairly large number of plugins to extend base functionality. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Robert Martin Jr. Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:49 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] pfsense vs. smoothwall Anyone tried both of these and have any comparative info. Smoothwalls been around for a while and has some good plugins so will be my top pick unless there are some reasons pfsense would be better. The firewall box I'm going to put together has to have 1) good QOS 2) handles VOIP well 3) handles P2P (torrent/emule) throttles correctly 4) good blacklist plugins 5) NIDS capability Plus's would be 1) good filtering capability 2) timed rules 3) logging website use Any feedback on either appreciated. lopaka
[H] pfsense vs. smoothwall
Anyone tried both of these and have any comparative info. Smoothwalls been around for a while and has some good plugins so will be my top pick unless there are some reasons pfsense would be better. The firewall box I'm going to put together has to have 1) good QOS 2) handles VOIP well 3) handles P2P (torrent/emule) throttles correctly 4) good blacklist plugins 5) NIDS capability Plus's would be 1) good filtering capability 2) timed rules 3) logging website use Any feedback on either appreciated. lopaka
