Well, Smoothwall says it will work with that set-up ...I would be real interested to see how it does.
On the other hand the memory and disk space may be a little lacking for snort ( especially if you want a nice GUI interface ).
In this case I would run that 133 on a Linux 2.4 kernel distro with NO GUI, minimal set-up, which is how I set up firewall boxes anyway. I've used similar boxes in the past set up this way.
But if you don't know Netfilter, maybe Smoothwall is the way to go, and as I said I would be real interested in how it works out. Then look around for someone discarding another box for Snort.
April 23rd, 2005, 04:37 AM
I used Smoothwall for quite some time here and was quite pleased with its performace. It is, however, lacking in the support area -- severely. Don't count on getting any support emails answered shoud you need it. I had quite a frustrating time trying to get Smoothwall to connect with DSL. None of my emails were ever answered, which certainly slowed down the process of getting the box online.
I would suggest IpCop instead. It is in fact designed by folks who got fed up with Smoothwall's lack of support and so left and started their own distribution. The interface is just as easy and intuitive as Smoothwall's and the security is just as good. The support has been great. There were some problems when I upgraded to a 2.6 kernel and their help sped things up considerably.
April 24th, 2005, 11:03 AM
I'll take that in consideration, thanks a lot for you help :)
April 24th, 2005, 11:36 AM
You don't need the router, i think that the firewall that are in the routers are not that secure, because you can't create rules(most of them), with Smoothwall you can, and run other security programs, such IDS, sniffer, Log analyser, etc. and its cheaper :)
Its better for you to try first Smoothwall, test it all, and if it doesn't suit your needs, consider to buy a router