Kerio's (v 4.2.3) HIPS, NIPS, and App Blocking appear quite effectual, but are they redundant in lieu of my PG paid? Am I adding any protection, or would I be just as well off disabling Kerio's Intrusion Detection? Any thoughts?
A bit improper to ask a competetor whether their app. is better than the competetors? How are they working together? you might just have the best of both.
I'm not asking whether Kerio is better. (Appdefend is a competitor, Kerio is a firewall - not a competitor). I bought a PG business license some time back. Subsequently installed Kerio w/ it's own HIPs. I was merely wondering whether additional HIPs in Kerio is totally redundant, or does it add any additional protection. ie.: am I better off disabling it's HIPs, thus reducing some of the program's bloat.
It depends if you want fully granular and somewhat bloated application handling. Most of the time you will simply allow everything anyway, including execution by one program of another specific program - there are only rare cases where you could use it really effectively. Really paranoid users can either spend time configuring a complex setup in the HIPS, but can also take advantage of "Allow once" in PG. For a paranoid user, the occaisonal popup is no big deal.
BoB D, One of the things I liked about kerio and its process execution handling was that it starts prior to logging in. This is quite different to ProcessGuard which starts after logging in The reason I say liked is because I stopped using Kerio a little while ago mostly because it was a little bloated for my liking, but that was mostly a firewall issue for me. A whole firewall to offer just pre-login application execution control seemed a little excessive.... Maybe ProcessGuard will grow this feature in one of the future updates that have been proposed by DCS