#Where to download pfsense 2.3 install#
#Where to download pfsense 2.3 upgrade#
#Where to download pfsense 2.3 full#
#Where to download pfsense 2.3 software#

There are a lot of posts that are either incomplete, not secure enough for my liking, or are very outdated.

#Where to download pfsense 2.3 full#

But I am just trying to understand the whole situation and the decisions made.After struggling, reading, researching, and testing we finally have a full site-to-site OpenVPN tunnel from home to the Proxmox cluster I maintain at a local colocation facility (see infrastructure post - not written yet). I can praise you guys for all the effort put in pfSense. But what to think about the impact? I am hearing and reading critical comments and posts with regards to 2.4.4. And I also guess this has been discussed internally. I guess this matter has your attention (and the team's attention). What I would like to know is if my viewpoint is correct (or at least understood). My conclusion is that we are dealing with a break in backwards compatibility and the critical remarks and posts do not surprise me at all.

Looking at this - please correct me if I am wrong - it might have been wiser (but not intrinsically better) to have had a different branch for what currently is 2.4.4 now. In my opinion it is obvious that it would break backwards compatibility. My guess is that the packages are being stored in en repository which is being used by the pfSense branch 2.4.x. Looking at this, it makes sense (to me) that packages have to be updated too (and that this creates a break in backward compatibility).

#Where to download pfsense 2.3 upgrade#

What I did understand - whilst reading the release highlights - is the upgrade to PHP version 7.2. I am not sure if security is the main reason/focus for not maintaining or publishing one or two previous versions of pfSense in light of version 2.4.4. I am pleased with keeping security standards as high as possible. I appreciate the hard work of the team and I also appreciate pfSense very much.

There are a few minor exceptions to that like maybe one issue only affected a specific version between A and B but even so, given that each release fixes quite a large number of problems - especially in the base OS and packages - yes, all past releases are insecure in some way. Hopefully moves like this is not the future of pFsense/Netgate as pFsense is a pretty good product compared to some of it's competitor's but there are trade offs that one have to consider when companies do dumb things like said in Where to download old versions:Īny time we put out a release that contains security fixes, all previous releases are known to be vulnerable to the issues fixed in the latest release.

#Where to download pfsense 2.3 software#

Moves like this will just drive Netgate's customers to other competitors software and hardware. This just shows that Netgate and it's employees does not have the best interest of it's users and customers at heart. The old versions should have remained available for at least a minimum of 30- 60 days after release of 2.4.4 incase there were issues that folks needed to work out.

Not even companies such as Apple and Microsoft that are know for doing dumb things removes the old version of their software on the day they release the newer version. This is a stupid, irresponsible, move by whoever made this decision.

#Where to download pfsense 2.3 install#

We no longer publish the older downloads as they are known to be insecure, and we prefer people not to install versions of pfSense with security vulnerabilities.Īs said, any 2.3.x release is unlikely to behave differently on that hardware. Like I say, it's not a permanent solution: it will be carrying traffic just while I reinstall the main firewall box (which has a 64-bit processor) with said in Where to download old versions: So as a next step, I'd like to try a 2.3.4 or earlier image to see if that will work. Ubuntu 16.04.5 server installs and runs just fine on this hardware.

There's a mini-COM port but I don't have the appropriate DB9 adapter. The error message is visible for only a second or so before the machine reboots, which I can't capture. The 2.3.5 (32-bit) installer completes successfully, but the kernel crashes on start-up so does the nano image, when booting directly from USB. In case you're interested in the reason: I'm trying to build a temporary firewall as part of a migration, and I have a couple of FitPC-2i boxes to hand. Is there anywhere else I can try? Or was the /old/ directory made protected unintentionally? These directories give 403 Forbidden errors: I'm trying to get hold of an older pfSense version.