Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: gdiloren on April 30, 2011, 08:01:23 AM
-
Default in Vista and Windows 7 FW is troublefree but insecure. It denies incoming and allows outbound to get internet to work. I read in Wilder's forum http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=239750&highlight=windows+vista+firewall (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=239750&highlight=windows+vista+firewall)you have to put outbound to block and make exception rules but it is sooo complicated and doesn't work, I can't get internet anymore. I also downloaded Windows 7 Firewall Control from Sphinx (Free edition). Is it enough to achieve performance and good security??? Please elaborate ::)
-
Yes trying to setup the windows firewall for outbound rules is a real nightmare, much simpler to use and far superior is outpost, online armor or privatefirewall which are all free and have alot more to offer than the windows firewall imo.
-
Yes trying to setup the windows firewall for outbound rules is a real nightmare
+1 Very unfriendly.
In my personal opinion:
Comodo (http://www.filehippo.com/download_comodo/)
Online Armour (http://www.tallemu.com/free-firewall-protection-software.html)
OutPost Free Security Suite (http://free.agnitum.com//)
-
Yes trying to setup the windows firewall for outbound rules is a real nightmare
+1 Very unfriendly.
In my personal opinion:
Comodo (http://www.filehippo.com/download_comodo/)
Online Armour (http://www.tallemu.com/free-firewall-protection-software.html)
OutPost Free Security Suite (http://free.agnitum.com//)
I was going to mention comodo too but thought nah! it's almost as difficult to understand as the windows firewall is to configure and has lots of popups, plus there ethic's seem to be going south a bit more nowdays and anything that melih's got a part in i wont recommend.
-
Yes trying to setup the windows firewall for outbound rules is a real nightmare
+1 Very unfriendly.
In my personal opinion:
Comodo (http://www.filehippo.com/download_comodo/)
Online Armour (http://www.tallemu.com/free-firewall-protection-software.html)
OutPost Free Security Suite (http://free.agnitum.com//)
I was going to mention comodo too but thought nah! it's almost as difficult to understand as the windows firewall is to configure and has lots of popups, plus there ethic's seem to be going south a bit more nowdays and anything that melih's got a part in i wont recommend.
If you install the Comodo Firewall as Enterprise strength only, you get a good 2 way firewall with no popups for anything but connection attempts. Installed that way, the D+ component is not active.
-
If you install the Comodo Firewall as Enterprise strength only, you get a good 2 way firewall with no popups for anything but connection attempts. Installed that way, the D+ component is not active.
Exactly. What makes a firewall noisy is the HIPS component that some of them have, not the firewall core itself.
-
Can't understand Microsoft in not offering a better FW than that. Even Linux Ubuntu (which basically doesn't need any FW on it) has UFW FW which is far superior to Windows FW in fact you can both deny incoming and outgoing but put rules allowing ports like 80, 25, 110. What's so difficult??? Frankly it's hard to understand and you get "wacko" trying to follow the Microsoft FW philosophy :(
P.S.: They (Microsoft) are the "Leader" in the computing industry aren't they...?
-
Microsoft wants their firewall to protect against incoming attacks since that's where most bad things happen and they don't deal with outgoing because that makes it easier for the great majority of people to deal with it. Many applications need to have outgoing access to get updates or in some cases, to even function properly. Having to allow connection for everything is too much for a great number of people to deal with.
When you really think about it, if you have to worry about outgoing traffic, you're probably already infected and it's too late anyway. I have reverted to using the XP Firewall and so far I'm satisfied. I'm also behind a NAT router which handles most of the unsolicited incoming attempts anyway.
-
Can't understand Microsoft in not offering a better FW than that. Even Linux Ubuntu (which basically doesn't need any FW on it) has UFW FW which is far superior to Windows FW in fact you can both deny incoming and outgoing but put rules allowing ports like 80, 25, 110. What's so difficult??? Frankly it's hard to understand and you get "wacko" trying to follow the Microsoft FW philosophy :(
I can and I would have though that you would be able to see it too, 'anti-trust/monopoly' comes right to mind, if the windows (Vista, 7) firewall was great it would deal a great blow to many small firewall companies.
Some of which might well take it to court and the EU in particular isn't a nice area for MS, you only have to look at the Internet Explorer incorporation in the OS, becoming a monopoly and the EU stamped down hard on that.
So it does a none to bad a job, but has outbound protection disabled by default and is none to user friendly, which is why some use other more user friendly firewall solutions.
P.S.: They (Microsoft) are the "Leader" in the computing industry aren't they...?
There are some 'Apple' who would give you an argument on that and this comment is also where the care about anti-trust/monopoly issues come from, they are the world leader in the OS marketplace. So what they tag on 'free' in the OS package could well come in for some stick if it encroaches into another areas market share.
-
So what they tag on 'free' in the OS package could well come in for some stick if it encroaches into another areas market share.
This is also true. I'm sure they would love to include MSE as part of Windows but they can't because of antitrust issues.
-
Instead they stick in sodding Windows Defender, which you 'can't uninstall' in windows7 and boy does that get right up my nose.
-
Instead they stick in sodding Windows Defender, which you 'can't uninstall' in windows7 and boy does that get right up my nose.
That's because you are not familiar with Windows 7. ;)
Even Logos knows how to control Windows Defender. 8)
-
Instead they stick in sodding Windows Defender, which you 'can't uninstall' in windows7 and boy does that get right up my nose.
That's because you are not familiar with Windows 7. ;)
You really are a total fool, you can disable WD but you can't uninstall it in windows 7. What part of uninstall don't you understand. You won't find it in add remove programs, a.k.a. Programs and Features.
-
YoKenny, why are you being sarcastic at the same time with David and Logos?
Isn't this the you-know-who behavior that we're trying to avoid in forums? ;)
-
YoKenny, why are you being sarcastic at the same time with David and Logos?
Isn't this the you-know-who behavior that we're trying to avoid in forums? ;)
because he's got nothing to say or do on the forums, except trying to bash other users with cheap (very cheap) "jokes" and "sarcasms"... while being a 100% incompetent in any technical field here.
@Yokenny: up yours as usual ;)
-
@DavidR you can't uninstall WD in Seven but you can neutralize it (options/admin uncheck "use").
-
Shame on Microsoft! Another application bundled inside of the OS >:(
-
@DavidR you can't uninstall WD in Seven but you can neutralize it (options/admin uncheck "use").
I know that (did that ages ago), it is YoKenny that obviously doesn't know, it can't be uninstalled only disabled and he has been using win7 for ages, so I guess he doesn't know much about it :P
-
Shame on Microsoft! Another application bundled inside of the OS >:(
yeah no big words ;D ... that's probably the last time since when W7 was introduced, MSE wasn't out yet. There won't be any bundled security software in Windows 8... well at least not WD. Could still be that they bundle MSE but I doubt it, they got enough issues with market dominance abuse in the past so...
-
They got enough issues with market dominance abuse in the past so...
They seem to never learn about their own past... ::)
-
I installed back again Comodo FW. Strange because I went up to check the pre-defined rules after install and it is set quite exactly as the Windows FW, i.e. to let all outbound permitted (I guess they don't want problems). Has someone been successful in playing with those rules in order to be more "secure"? :'(
-
I installed back again Comodo FW. Strange because I went up to check the pre-defined rules after install and it is set quite exactly as the Windows FW, i.e. to let all outbound permitted (I guess they don't want problems). Has someone been successful in playing with those rules in order to be more "secure"? :'(
I didn't see it as quite the same as windows fw.
Under firewall behaviour if you have it set to safe mode then it will only alow outbound traffic from applications it knows are safe. All other traffic is alerted.
By default it no longer creates rules for safe applications, but you can tick the box below to have it do that if you want.
I imagine it would treat any of the major browsers as a known safe application.
-
I installed back again Comodo FW. Strange because I went up to check the pre-defined rules after install and it is set quite exactly as the Windows FW, i.e. to let all outbound permitted (I guess they don't want problems). Has someone been successful in playing with those rules in order to be more "secure"? :'(
I didn't see it as quite the same as windows fw.
Under firewall behaviour if you have it set to safe mode then it will only alow outbound traffic from applications it knows are safe. All other traffic is alerted.
By default it no longer creates rules for safe applications, but you can tick the box below to have it do that if you want.
I imagine it would treat any of the major browsers as a known safe application.
Thanks!!! How stupid of me, it's re-assuring though, thank you! ;)