pfSense: Open source network firewall distribution
pfsense.org
pfsense.org
- Web panel allows root code execution on the device (every XSS is full RCE!)
- Everything runs as root
- No ASLR or other hardening flags because FreeBSD
- Lots of XSS and CSRF opportunities (probably got better with the new UI)
- Did not replace SSL certificate after Heartbleed (on packages.pfsense.org!)
- No package signing, either (not sure if this is still true with pkgng)
- Did not even have SSL on packages.pfsense.org until one or two years ago
I'm also missing the fq_codel queueing discipline on my home network (prevents bufferbloat).
I still use it since it's awesome, but I hope their security posture has improved since.
Most of the commercial vendors are even worse, but still.
> - Web panel allows root code execution on the device (every XSS is full RCE!)
Mostly, but not absolutely true, and being addressed.
> - Everything runs as root
Basically true.
> - No ASLR or other hardening flags because FreeBSD
And because SafeStack CPI is a much better solution, and our focus.
> - Lots of XSS and CSRF opportunities (probably got better with the new UI)
Work going into 2.4 to basically quash XSS / CARF.
> - Did not replace SSL certificate after Heartbleed (on packages.pfsense.org!)
I recall differently, but we were more focused on fixing pfSense and the four releases in that month.
> - No package signing, either (not sure if this is still true with pkgng)
2.3 got pkgng, and yes, we sign packages.
> - Did not even have SSL on packages.pfsense.org until one or two years ago
I finally had to take these parts over from the previous admin.
If you have more suggestions, I'm listening.
The Font Awesome icons used in 2.3 and forward are located in /usr/local/www/vendor/font-awesome
we can (and do) use the GUI when there is no WAN connection
Edit: any chance you're running a browser plugin that is blocking the font-awesome fonts?
FA started adding logos and stuff to the fonts and there are 3rd party lists you can use that are more aggressive and font-awesome is in some. https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/wiki/Troubleshoo...
Under Proxmox any kind of network load have an abnormal impact on cpu load, often almost freezing the host. On esx it's a bit better but at the cost of low throughput.
From what I've read it's an issue with offload/checksum with FreeBSD.
After lots of digging on the subject I gave up and switched to VyOS for my proxmox cluster. It doesn't have a nice web panel but the load of the host is now barely noticeable.
In order to do so, shut down your VM and edit the lines in the .vmx file with the virtual NIC to look like:
ethernet0.virtualDev = "e1000e"
After that performance should be fine.
I think at the end we just kept the VM running alone.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/10gFreeBSD/Router#Disabling_LRO_and...
While we try to move things upstream as much as possible, there are still patches in pfSense that don't make sense for FreeBSD.
> I don't on my FreeBSD hosts and haven't had any problems
TSO and routing/forwarding (and thus filtering) are incompatible.
pfSense already has codel, which can be used with FAIRQ.
That's not nearly as good as fq_codel, which is not the same as using fairq + codel.
pfsense uses FreeBSD's fork of pf, which is years out of date. They forked in order to add multithreading, ostensibly for performance. But the diff is too complicated to keep rebasing on top of upstream, so they're stuck with a pf from 2009.
Here are a few resources to get you started. You'll learn plenty about routing!
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html
https://www.22decembre.eu/2016/05/27/openbsd-router-en/
Compared to Linux, OpenBSD is starkly minimal. It can be a little bewildering when common programs seem to be missing, but the man pages are outstanding. And the system is very simple and reliable. Config files are almost comically short. My /etc/hostname.re0 config is just five bytes: `dhcp\n`.
OpenBSD and pf really is the best. As noted above, FreeBSD has wandered off into the weeds with pf for no good reason. There have been so many improvements to pf since 2009 that I wouldn't even consider using something that old.
I used pfSense years ago when I was first learning firewalls. These days the best GUI for me is no GUI but a CLI, but some people don't want to take the time to build a firewall. Granted, once you know how to do it, it doesn't take that much time to build a firewall, but it does take time to understand what you're doing and why. But really, not that much time, considering the aggravation it can save you down the road.
One is the past behavior of one developer who claimed to reverse engineer code that obviously wasn't.
The other is a mistake made in 2003, to which they've still not owned up.
You don't silently patch security issues, especially when they are discovered and fixed by someone outside the project.
Other than these, I have nothing but admiration for the project and it's developers.
It is true that FreeBSD's pf lacks some of the recent improvements which have been made in OpenBSD's pf.
It is also true that OpenBSD's pf lacks some of the recent improvements which have been made in FreeBSD's pf.
(Frankly, I switched away from pfSense because I like the OPNsense developers and surrounding community better. I'm more confident that if they haven't already addressed those defects, they will soon or they'll welcome patches that do.)
That being said, if you haven't already, it's time to start learning NFTables and skip right to the chase.
Personally, I tend to not like abstracting firewalls away via guis or other methods like firewalld. It's more work sure, but I understand whats going on and have better control.
You can do more than pfsense with a plain old Linux box but it takes some dense reading to learn to manipulate the traffic control and routing tables yourself.
The reason why most open source router distributions with a UI are pretty basic is because everyone doing things sufficiently advanced knows how to manipulate the network stack directly and only needs command line
That's why having a nice UI adds already a lot of value :).
I wanted something under Linux and I ended up trying a combination of Shorewall and its Webmin plugin to have something similar, but a more holistic solution would be interesting.
In a previous job we used to deploy OpenBSD firewalls to provide site-to-site VPNs. We switched to PFSense because management was easier when you have 10-20 of them to deal with, and multiple people might have access.
That said, we definitely would have preferred an equivalent interface on top of OpenBSD instead of FreeBSD. There were some differences in the CARP implementation in FreeBSD that made some features of CARP we relied on with OpenBSD unavailable in FreeBSD, and thus PFSense.
You pretty much learn the commands while reading about how the stuff works. I've seen a ton of horribly configured psfense boxes because it exposes all this functionality to people that honestly shouldn't have it and don't know what they're doing.
It's like regedit for networking. If you know enough about the registry to be fooling with it you don't really need a UI but it's nice to have
I assume this is only true in the context of authenticated sessions within the web panel, right? If that's the case, is there really a lot of damage an attacker could do with RCE in an authenticated session that they couldn't already do with admin access in the portal? I could be wrong, but it seems the security implications would be roughly the same just by virtue of providing a web admin tool with the ability to perform almost any superuser-level action.
I agree that CSRF and XSS vulnerabilities - when combined with superuser-level access of any kind - are basically "game over" for security, but from what I've seen, pfSense has been reasonably quick to patch any such vulnerabilities in the past. XSS, while still applicable, is less likely in a system where very little third-party content is rendered in the browser. When it comes to CSRF, I believe most security-conscious administrators keep things like pfSense web sessions limited, logging out before resuming any other browsing (or better, using it only from a separate browser profile). That doesn't solve those issues, but it can limit the attack surface.
Not trying to defend pfSense's security as a whole; I'm just pointing out that RCE is somewhat irrelevant when we're talking about a tool that already allows so much access anyway. One should essentially treat a pfSense admin session as if it were a web-based root shell (because it essentially is that).
A web admin tool that can perform superuser actions is - and probably always will be - less secure than other alternatives. Security-conscious people understand that, and will skip tools like pfSense in high-risk environments. But for many others, those risks are reasonable to accept for the added convenience.
pfSenseHelpers.js (https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/f0136b178022cf3b04...) now contains code that intercepts clicks on anchor tags with the attribute "usepost" set. The target URL and the GET arguments are extracted from the event href attribute, and these are used to compose a new, temporary form with the previous arguments inserted as POST parameters.
Here is a simple example:
Before:
<?php
$id = $_GET['id'];
if ($_POST) {
if (!save_config($id)) {
$input_errors[] = "Something broke";
}
}
?>
<a type="button" href="system_something.php?id=<?=$id?>&user=<?=$pconfig['user']?> >
<i class="fa fa-save></i>
<?=gettext("Save")?>
</a>
After:
<?php
$id = $_POST['id']; // $_GET was changed to $_POST
if ($_POST['save']) { // The generic if ($_POST) is now if ($_POST['save'] to detect when the form is being saved
if (!save_config($id)) {
$input_errors[] = "Something broke";
}
}
?>
<!-- The "usepost" attribute is added to the anchor -->
<a type="button" href="system_something.php?id=<?=$id?>&user=<?=$pconfig['user']?> usepost>
<i class="fa fa-save></i>
<?=gettext("Save")?>
</a>
(There is a lot if "isnumeric()" stuff used around $id. I inherited this codebase.)
OPNSense (fork of pfSense) is built on top of HardenedBSD, so there's ASLR, PIE, SEGVGUARD, all the things :)
I hope I am not going too far here, but ASLR might be an obsolete feature soon.
http://www.cs.vu.nl//~herbertb/download/papers/anc_ndss17.pd...
Once you grok the syntax, it is so much easier to directly update settings in pf.conf than the pfSense web GUI--especially traffic shaping rules.
That, and OpenBSD has great documentation, decent IPv6 support, and almost everything you need already baked-in.
Here's a basic set of config files for a home setup: https://github.com/BourgeoisBear/OpenBSDFirewall
If you need IPv6 or anything fancy, PM me.
The one thing I most envy is pfSense's multi-WAN failover support. I have a USB LTE modem plugged into my firewall. OpenBSD can see the device, I can use it as my default gateway for Internet access, etc. However, I only want to use it when my primary ISP is down, for some definition of "down" (e.g., major packet loss). I want the firewall to detect this condition; switch to the LTE modem as the egress interface/default route; reload a different pf.conf, tuned for the LTE modem; restart ospfd, ospf6d, and rtadvd; and then watch the primary interface until it recovers, at which point the firewall reverts to its primary config and restarts the routing daemons again.
It appears that pfSense supports this scenario out-of-the-box, via "gateway groups" and multi-level tiers [2]. OpenBSD does not -- its multi-WAN support is intended for load-balancing, and/or assumes a carrier-grade routing environment using BGP or equivalent. People have asked for help with this scenario on the OpenBSD mailing lists, and the answer is usually, "this is what ifstated is for, write a script"; which is fine, I guess, but it would be nice if everyone who wanted to do this didn't have to write their own bespoke solution.
Speaking of which, does anybody here do this with their OpenBSD firewall and has a nice, clean, well-documented example of how it works? I once trawled through the pfSense source code to see how they do it, and their implementation was all wrapped up in a bunch of PHP. Yuck!
For example, on my OpenBSD firewall I can write the following simple rules to restrict outbound Internet access to a specific set of IP addresses or networks:
# internal_if is the LAN-facing interface; isp_if is the ISP-facing interface, i.e., the Internet.
match in log on internal_if from <internet_allowed_networks> tag OUTBOUND
pass in log quick on internal_if tagged OUTBOUND
...
pass out log on isp_if inet tagged OUTBOUND nat-to (isp_if) static-port
If nftables supports something like this, I'll probably make the switch, as I prefer Linux in every other way to OpenBSD.
For me nftables changed the game for linux firewalls. From the almost incomprehensible mess that was iptables we now have a clean language that lets me be quite DRY, and is easy to work with.
1: https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Setting_pa...
If people are using marks for policy-based firewalls a la tag in pf, it doesn't look like a particularly common practice, based on a quick Google search. Anyway, it's a start. Thanks for the pointer.
You apparently never had to deal with ipchains or ipfwadm. iptables was a huge upgrade!
I find myself writing tiny little scripts to emit iptables syntax from something resembling a pythonic-pf, just because I make fewer mistakes when dealing with it.
They've also been very hostile towards the OpenBSD developers, and project. Despite the fact they've effectively built a business on OpenBSD innovations, like pf and CARP, even incorporating the name 'pf' into their trademark having not contributed a bit of code.. n̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶m̶e̶ (but perhaps some hw).
But feel free to keep using it.. no need to take my word for it.
But they did make one donation to this OpenBSD developer. They sent me 3 rcc-ve boards which I am still using for development: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/www/want.html#rev1....
They took much more than they have given (which the source code licence allows them to do, even if it's morally wrong). Claiming they never gave anything at all is incorrect.
I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?
That is - how can you complain when the license explicitly allows for this? If you (not you personally, of course - but the OpenBSD project) didn't want this to happen, then the license would need to be changed to prevent it.
Of course then, companies wouldn't be as willing to use the code, as we tend to see with the GPL.
But if companies are just going to take the code, modify it, and not contribute the changes back (or contribute little back), where's the loss by using another license?
If the loss is "but the code then won't be used in the greater ecosystem", why complain when it is?
Again - I'm not trying to cause a flame war; everybody has their license and needs. I'm just trying to understand why there is complaints when code isn't contributed back under the BSD license, when it explicitly allows for this.
Furthermore, I am wondering if there is anything we can do about it, that doesn't cause the kind of ire to rise when the GPL is invoked instead. Perhaps there isn't a solution, but I'd love to hear ideas on the subject.
Plenty of companies simply avoid the gpl because it complicates things, and stick to more permissive licenses for their open source efforts.
Plenty more just do what the fuck they want regardless of what the gpl says.
Indeed, and this is why the same thing happens in the BSD world. There are many examples of large and small companies, competitors, working on the same parts of FreeBSD.
Enlightened companies contribute to Free and Open Source software because it's in their best interest, not directly because of the license. Conversely, there are countless examples of companies who don't think it's in their interest, and willfully violate the GPL.
Of course I'm speaking generally, I don't know the backstory here so there might be some other things causing the bad blood. But I would prefer we as a community would not attack people/companies just for not contributing.
I've addressed openbsd elsewhere in this stream.
I can legally walk down the street cursing at everyone I meet. I can try to learn things about people, and then use that to make them feel terrible. I can start a business that intentionally preys on people in bad situations in ways that will make them worse off.
I'm allowed to do all that. I believe doing any of them are varying degrees of morally wrong.
One should never confuse law and morality. They are not the same, and what's worse than confusing them is trying to make them the same.
Because even if I buy you a 'free beer', I can still think you're a jerk if you throw it back in my face.
Choosing not to do so may still shine a light on your character.
As in "one beer"? More like the mythical free beer river.
Anyway, your point still stand. It may not be a "moral thing to do", yet one could appreciate others not to pee in the mythical free beer river.
Because laws and moral codes differ. As an absurd example, it is legal (in most countries?) to cheat on your spouse, but it's not considered morally okay (otherwise it wouldn't be called "cheating").
But none of that is public before now.
Kind of like Greg Hartman fussing about Canonical not doing kernel contributions, as if that's the sole metric for being a Linux distro.
None of the original people are involved anymore. I left last year for Ubiquiti.
Glad I no longer have to defend things. I'll leave it at that.
I don't see Solar or IoT cameras/switches/power strips saving Ubiquiti either, the fiber CPE might buy your company a few months of runway, if supply issues don't strangle it tho.
Anyone who's actually paid attention to the history wouldn't respond with that vitriol.
Can you provide some links to some of these interactions? Would love to research alternatives if that is indeed the case.
I've run it on everything from tiny, Atom-based machines to kitted-out HP DL385s, and even on ESXi virtual machines. It works great in all scenarios.
You can do so many things easily. For example force all local chromecasts via a VPN for netflix.
[1]: http://h20564.www2.hp.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_...
Except for cloud VOIP. Neither 8x8 nor Shoretel worked worth a darn through this firewall. We even paid for the gold support and opened more than one support case with no luck. It appeared to be a RTSP issue, SIP didn't have any trouble. And it was intermittent. Most of the time it would work, occasionally it would not. Eventually we replaced pfSense with a Cisco router for our phones and it worked fine.
I have always wondered if building pfsense on a modern linux kernel + selinux + BPF with something like nginx/lua scripting (for addon packages) would make more sense.
http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for-linux...
It looks like maybe this project forked after the purchase by Brocade.
As a side not Vyatta is the base OS in many of the Ubiquiti Networks routers. It's quite nice for small office/ home office.
I'm running a VyOS machine (old desktop with a couple of NICs) which handles the traffic for our Copenhagen office. That's ~15 CI boxes, and 30 people. This is on a 100/100 connection.
For Ubiquiti, I'm a fan. I helped our co-working space setup a network on another floor, and we used an EdgeRouter Lite to handle the 200/200 connection. The ERL handles it without breaking a sweat. That's for 60 people on a daily basis.
For another building, I just finished setting up an ERPro (the 8-port rack-mounted version). It's again on a 200/200 connection, and for roughly 150 people on average, with a maximum around 300-500.
At home, I have an ERPoE, which handles my home lab just perfectly. I'm only on a 100/100 uplink at the moment, but will be upgraded to 1000/500 soon, and I know the ERPoE will handle that just fine as well (thank you hardware offloading ;)). 5 VLANs with full firewalling and routing between them, native IPv6 with prefix delegation, mDNS proxying between VLANs, OpenVPN handled by the router. I could do a lot of this with OpenWRT on an Archer C7, but the ERPoE is simply miles ahead.
The UI is nice for newcomers, and the CLI is amazing. I fell in love with the CLI on VyOS, and am very happy to see the same in the UBNT products. For $100, they are amazing devices. VyOS is my go-to choice when I need to have a virtual router.
i currently have pfsense running on a mini quad NIC box (https://m.aliexpress.com/s/item/32670582442.html)
do you think vyos will run on this stuff. in your opinion are pfsense and vyos generally at par?
The ERL is $100, and comes with Ubiquiti's EdgeOS, which is largely based on VyOS (or something like that), and simply adds a (decent) web UI, and hardware offloading. This means that the ERL which runs on a dual core 700Mhz MIPS CPU can route 1Gbit/s, and not even break 30% CPU utilisation.
Where VyOS shines is when you need to cobble together a bunch of things. If you just need a pure firewall, I would probably stick with pfsense, as that is, after all, what it is good at. VyOS only offers iptables with some lipstick (which is well enough for a Swiss-army knife setting)
I guess VyOS would run on that box. I can't see specs, nor know what network chipset it is rocking, but I don't see why not.
It was forked in 2013 (renamed VyOS) and is under active development as a free open source project.
That said, my own general preference is to use OpenBSD (which means having immediate access to pf plus all the other goodies like relayd/httpd, OpenSMTPD, etc.) in all possible situations, and only resort to some other OS (like GNU/Linux) when actually necessary; thus, I can't really relate to a need for things to be the other way around :)
They could have used kqueue, but didn't. They could have used accept_filters, but didn't, they could have adopted jails instead of creating i've lost count of how many "container" technologies, but didn't.
So basically they will toss iptables eventually and write something similar but not quite as good as pf.
The Unix world in general would be very grateful to see Linux adopt current tech rather than constantly reinventing the wheel in a "its just good enough unfortunately" incompatible way.
The "many technologies" are mostly user-level wrappers though. What actually happened in the kernel: they've added unshare(2) early on, but it only isolated filesystem mounts at first. Later they started gradually adding more things for it isolate: network, PID, IPC and users. The "users" part arrived really late and is kinda bad… that's why for a very long time you weren't supposed to give people root in a docker container, and I think it's still not recommended. That's quite hilarious, considering that jails' main purpose literally was "containing root", and it fucking worked great since the early 2000s.
> they will toss iptables eventually and write something similar but not quite as good as pf
nftables is precisely that :D
(I'm not saying thats a bad thing, I really have no opinion on that, I'm just curious!)
I wonder what other projects I used to use have grown this much :)
Several have really deep telecommunications equipment / router vendor experience.
Plus gnn, whom, as you say is a consultant. If we're going to include him, we should include Patrick Kennedy, who has done work on libuinet for us.
My home router is basically this https://linitx.com/product/linitx-apu-2c-3nicusbrtc-pfsense-... with a ubiquity wifi AP and it works beautifully and it's rock stable.
In the long run, it doesn't matter all that much, pfSense is still 'free' as in beer, and you can still get to the sources, and forking is still possible. Only protection of the name 'pfSense' as a brand has gotten somewhat more intense.
On top of that, they are powered by their hardware sales and service subscriptions, of which the former is probably a more important source of income. It seems they either 'are' netgate, or are a subsidiary, and also partner with ADI engineering. Some hardware seems almost purpose built for pfSense, like that tiny uFW micro firewall, or the modified Turbot board (Intel) with two Gigabit Ethernet NIC's. There also seems to be a uBMC in the works, a somewhat 'universal' BMC with IPMI etc. running BSD as well, most likely pfSense-based. I suppose those would be commercially interesting but not that much consumer-oriented but more the bigger ODM's and OEM's since it requires a bit more integration. So those hardware things are a lot more 'commercial' than the software project ever was. I suppose that naturally overflows into pfSense itself.
Currently, pfSense seems to have been 'branded' as a 'community edition'. There doesn't seem to be a 'commercial edition' anywhere yet, but I can imagine a model similar to GitLab where you have a common core and a paid version with enterprise extras. It also seems to be showing the serial number or platform UUID in the web interface, I guess that's somehow going to be tied into the non-community version of pfSense to use with an activation system for the 'more-than-community' version.
I do believe that there is already at least a special version for VMWare on their 'market' or whatever it's called, and a possibly modified version that runs on the pfSense or netgate branded hardware since it needs special software support to function due to it not being simply a 'standard x86 PC'. The uFW is ARM, so a working ARM version of pfSense is out there too!
Notice: a lot of this is just observation and speculation on my part, but it might help you dig for clues on the interwibble.
OpenBSD.
No, seriously. Don't bother picking a third-party repackage of pf, when you can actually get the a secure OS built by people who actually put security above everything else. If you care about security, there's no reason to go elsewhere.
I did see people hating on it here, and while I cannot/will not speak to their specific issues, I look at it as a much better tool than the integrated hardware units you can buy online for ~$100USD, with also integrated back-doors, courtesy of the development effort.
I know perfectly well that I could build what I need using IPtables ... but have you used IPtables? I'm a CLI guy, and heck ... I want a GUI for IP tables ...
I've not yet played with the nftables, and frankly, I am looking for a generally simpler model of putting some of these things together. pfSense does a pretty good job of this.
One note on the php on the stack ... yeah, this is a concern for me as well. So I don't generally expose the admin access to the interwebs. And I lock that aspect down pretty hard (only specific addresses are allowed to even connect to the admin port). This isn't perfect, but its far better than setting up a web port, and suddenly presenting the pfSense gui out (yeah, this sorta happens by default if you don't move the gui to a different port, and do some other config).
This all said, it is pretty good for what it does, and a few of my previous customers have bought the support for it directly from the team.
I've also used this in a retail chain in DC/MD/VA. Each location used pfSense for site-site VPN (OpenVPN). We also used the asterisk package to handle VoIP.
Overall, pfSense is a robust UTM.
Edit: yeah it is:
> The pfSense project is a free network firewall distribution, based on the FreeBSD operating system with a custom kernel and including third party free software packages for additional functionality.
From https://pfsense.org/getting-started/ see also https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Installing_pfSense
You can click your way to high availability with sub 5-second failovers (even including NAT state synchronization) in a morning starting from no pfsense or bsd knowledge.
We've used it for about a year now. Had several power outages. The pfSense box is still running like a champ, no problems whatsoever.
Turns out my client actually wanted an email spamfilter though, but our mail is hosted in another country so I had a little trouble explaining why our internal pfSense couldn't help us there. Oh well.
I experimented with Vyatta which was based on Debian - open source fork now used by Ubiquity networks in their devices, and pfsense a couple of years ago and I found plain linux on its own delivers better performance. The recent series of Ars articles on building your own router confirm this with some benchmarks [1]
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/numbers-dont-lie-its...
Global infrastructure and Meraki APs just made it easier to go with their ecosystem, despite the licensing costs.
I like pfSense but I chose it to easily configure usually complex networking stuff, not a DHCP or DNS. We are trying now to configure IKEv2 on an Ubiquiti device using UniFi with a load balancer and doesn't seem to be trivial.
2.3 (which got Strongswan), but yeah.
2.4 isn't released yet.
A few months ago.
I've had to integrate with several telcos via IPSec (mobile money processing), and it's always fun to try and figure out what they're saying when all they can do is describe the [incredibly generic] settings in the Cisco ASA WebUI.
Then you finally figure out the ipsec.conf settings to make it work, and they come back to you a month later asking for a copy of your file to give to another company who's trying to integrate.
Sure, how much are you going to pay us? Oh, nothing? Well, I remember how much help you gave us when we were banging our head on the wall trying to figure it out. So, hire competent people and figure it out yourself!
No API means no automation, no Chef/Puppet/Ansible/Salt or other kind of scripts. Everything in the head of the person who clicked through the web interface.
Are there automation friendly alternatives?
I also think the pfSense CEO has a massively inflated ego and pays little homage to the roots of his software. Does pf really need a GUI?
edit: clarity.
The Netgate CEO is a woman.
(I am not the CEO.)
The person who has been CEO since September 2012 is a woman.