Windows 10 Firewall Control (Sphinx-Soft) Discussion Thread

W10FC is separated in a service which is running the rules and the interface for configuring.
again: W10FC is a complete stand-alone Firewall and only get its arguments from BFC service. thats reason why there exists another xp-version because BFC is only available since vista.

you can use the built-in windows firewall too but it has no advantages.

 

so with w10fc.. in effect there are two firewalls?

 

yes. maybe i can handle the windows-wall same easy as w10fc, but i dont think so - i created my own zones and change easily for apps. i thinks that is not possible, same for secure connections. ofc any additional security software in windows may lower security and/or offer a primary target. i was not disappointed with it - and if they inserted a new feature or fixed a bug.

 

From Sphinx manual:

Sharing my trialing knowledge further: "Zone" thing had me baffled for a while. It's simply common groups of ports and protocols, just like, say, Outpost would do if you want them to make rules for an application. Very convenient, and editable, if you're so inclined. Pure firewall is nice.

As with all firewalls, some of the permissions are wider than probably need be. Reminds me or the built in Kerio 2.1.5 rules which we had to trash initially.

 

So W10FC creates its own firewall rules and not within Windows Firewall? So it is not exactly a "builtin firewall control"
Binisoft WFC lets you control built in windows firewall and create rules for it.

 

its nice to have some predefined zones and rules as a working example. feel free to modify - i expanded the default rule set of each zone and i created new zones. binisoft should also able o handle rulesets, IMO i read about.

btw on windows 10 it is necessary to have the windows firewall activated. otherwise some additional installed fonts wont work. whoever created such idea need some kickass.

 

Brummelchen can you give/pm me your rules that you edited because I'm sometimes in contact with the developer (he is a friendly person) so that we may all benefit from it.

Agreed about the Fonts (I guess you already mentioned this here or in another thread) but after reading this here, this was maybe a 'good thing'? But I don't know much about how this affects Windows/Firewall because front blocking doesn't affect MS integrated front's. I only know that some programs hardly need there own front's or you get very strange behaviors like crashes or unicode problems.

Btw in meantime I talked to him and in the latest beta we got my suggested improvements, one of them was to right click on an entry to open the file location, it's not life important but anyway small improvements which makes the life a bit easier for me/us.

 

i have the ability to extract the zone rules separately from registry but i wont refine between default and own, your job.
reason for own zones was that W10FC (and older versions) resets or replaces the default zones sometimes after update and i lost my settings.

the curious thing is if i change a zone W10FC asks me if i want to distribute the new settings to all programs. thats reason why the applist part in registry is larger than the zone list because the firewall copy all zone settings into the applist. i think that behavior was changed sometimes for me it makes no sense.

advantage registry export - i dont know if the xml export is complete - i can simply import and dont have to work from scratch when reinstalling.

btw are you talking in their forum? if so where?

dude, i cant send you anything - no such recipient!

 

It makes no sense to keep the built-in Windows firewall enabled if using W10FC. Both are based on Windows Filtering Platform, so using both and especially setting rules in both will result in conflicts.

You can see here that WFP is the core platform for the firewall application itself, used by both W10FC and the built-in Windows firewall.

 

Sr, that's wrong. Please read the manual and FAQ.

Especially the 'My Application is Blocked...' is interesting.

Which means you can leave it (built-in) enabled. I also not got any negative problems, except the 'Font problem' Brummelchen mentioned but that is something different.

Sr, directly via eMail but maybe via forum would be better so to see the ongoing discussion and the process because the author promised to work on the known problems mentioned in the forum.

 

since windows 10 theses thoughts are fail - i explained why earlier.

 

Okay so they don't conflict, and they work independently, but are you gaining anything by keeping the built-in fw enabled?

 

The real question is why you want to disable in-built, are you gaining something from it, because if action center got his notification that there is another Ffrewall running it acts like a fallback, if something is broken with the software you still have the built-in firewall. There is no need to disable it, even with Comodo and others it works well.

 

How intense is the CPU usage with this firewall?

 

Depends on your definition of intense.
Windows 10 constantly is doing something, so it's rough to judge.
Normally, on idle, <0.01% to 0.56%. I've seen peeks of 3-6%, but I don't look often since I don't feel any impact.

 

After further consideration, how can the two not conflict with one another if you configure the built-in fw for "Outbound connections that do not match a rule are blocked"? Remember, they work independently from one-another, so how can there not be a conflict if they are both enabled and you by default block outbound connections from the built-in Windows firewall? There is no mention of either Sphinx or built-in Windows firewall superseding the other.

I can easily create a typical path rule in built-in Windows firewall for, let's say, firefox.exe to connect outbound on TCP, from any IP, to any remote IP address to remote ports 80, 81-82, 443, 554, 1755 and 1935, so if I were to create similar - but different rule - in Sphinx firewall: allow outbound TCP, from any IP, to any IP address, to remote ports 80, 443...how can there not be a conflict??

From my POV, it makes all the sense in the world to use only one firewall or the other! Do not lose sight of the fact they are both acting upon WFP platform.

 

let the windows firewall untouched and all will be fine. simple as that! if you mess up with both - your problem, you have been told.

 

No, actually my original point about disabling the built-in firewall to avoid conflict with its rules - especially outbound - is correct!

 

then delete existing rules or reset to default. not sure what we start discussing about - absolutely pointless.

 

Agreed it's pointless because a simple check if there exist already a rule and then in case nothing is there show a popup is not a conflict, this is a simple check. Firefox also not need to be restricted because it comes with it's own port blocking mechanism.

In meantime I contacted the developer and gave him the link to this thread here, I hope he may response because it seems the FAQ on his page confuses people or it should better mentioned that Windows own firewall can leaved be turned on, I know it's already mentioned but seems this needs to be somehow marked to stop/prevent such a discussion.

For me the latest beta still works well, I switched to it because my mentioned DNS problem which isn't by design fixable via WFC firewall (because DNS Client is set to off) - but see on WFC thread for more information, on w10f I don't get such problems. I'm quite happy with it.

 

I think so too. I just did an experiment.
Windows Firewall is ON, all OUTBOUND is allowed by default. In Sphinx I set EDGE to deny everything.
Then I came here using EDGE. I was reading few threads with no difficulty. Got a popup about the block, and Sphinx event log shows a blocked connection to Wilders. So something or my understanding isn't correct. See the screenshot.
EDGE-Block-ButDidnt.png
What we need is a truth table of those two firewalls. What's the processing sequence? What were the rules in each firewall? What's the expected result? What came out?

EDIT:
Perhaps one example in this interesting thread explains something but not for me:
http://vistafirewallcontrol.freefor...windows-service-block-on-enable-all-t511.HTML

In a way the thread says to have both firewalls on but they must have identical settings. Otherwise Win firewall takes precedence and therefore they do conflict.

 

« Otherwise Win firewall takes precedence and therefore they do conflict »


Why « therefore » ?… Windows firewall takes precedence, nothing else.

DNS UDP inbound outboud for svchost.exe is authorized in W10FC, but...

2016:03:09|13:22:26|Blocked|2|IPv4 UDP 192.168.1.14:49445(53)|Processus hôte pour les services Windows|WindowsFirewall: WSH Default Inbound Block Incoming|C:\windows\system32\svchost.exe



ONE firewall in Windows > WFP, two GUIs.

One firewall in Linux > Netfilter, UFW GUFW etc are GUIs.

 

Hello! Please explain me if I use unregistered version of W10FC (e.g. Plus) then the only disadvantage I got is these molesting registration prompts? Or some functionality is disabled as well?

Thank you.

 

No you can according to the page/FAQ use the Plus version as FULL trial.

 

Thanks a lot!