Is firewall needed if SSM's network rules are enabled?

[bellgamin]

I have a NAT router for incoming. I am using Kerio 2.1.5 for outgoing.

If I enable System Safety Monitor's network rules module, do I need Kerio any more?

In other words, will using SSM's network rules module provide outgoing protection which is approximately equivalent to that provided by Kerio 2.1.5?

[cprtech]

-{ Quote: "I have a NAT router for incoming. I am using Kerio 2.1.5 for outgoing.

If I enable System Safety Monitor's network rules module, do I need Kerio any more?

In other words, will using SSM's network rules module provide outgoing protection which is approximately equivalent to that provided by Kerio 2.1.5?" }-

Personally, I still adhere to the concept of a HIPS doing the job of a HIPS and a firewall doing the job of a firewall, so I keep SSM's network module disabled. I just feel that a firewall, including Kerio 2.1.5, does a better - more thorough - job of controlling outbound network communications. Besides, Kerio has no appreciable impact on mosy systems' performance.

[farmerlee]

Nah i'd say you don't really need kerio 2.1.5 anymore. Your router takes care of inbound connections and ssm takes care of outbound connections.

[Paranoid2000]

This has been raised before (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=154057) - if you only want basic yes/no network access then SSM's firewall feature should suffice. However it is not (yet) adequate for handling limited access (i.e. restrictions by address or port) since you only have trusted/untrusted zones which are applied to all applications.