Outpost Pro

Windows firewall is not good... Windows firewall does not do... you have never watched or understood the WF configuration for most.

 

It's good for the average person. Blocks inbound attacks silently and no popups.

 

When I install pgms and have FW turned to alert for any outgoing info., I can then decide if I want that particular pgm to be able to connect home. When I install a pgm, if no pop-up, I then click on 'check for updates' and then get a pop-up and can either allow always or once, or block always or once. But besides that, if the pop-up comes without my having initiated contact, at least I know what is going on. An antivirus pgm doesn't catch that. I would never run my PC without a FW that doesn't detect outbound.

 

You are talking to whom with this statement?

If its me you are talking to, you are incorrect. I know what windows firewall, or any firewall, software or hardware, is capable of and how to make it do what I want.

Your statement is causing reactions because for many, windows firewall is ok as a firewall, but either lacks features that others want or as in my case, is just too bare-bones. I would say that for many people here, they buy a 3rd party because they just want more than what windows firewall provides.

If you don't want more than what windows firewall provides, then it works just fine. Its a preference is all. Same with all security tools, its all preference. There are 100 ways to make your system secure, but not one of the them is the "right way".

Sul.

 

Wilders security people free yourself!


The leaktests there is merde, it is a test on site, so as a network attack is remote.

Multiply the tools there is nothing, antivirus + "HIPS" + sandboxie + spybot, MBAM + + +... the drivers are in conflict, result? nothing.

Filter output serves a little at the level of discretion with a healthy PC, it is used a little more when your PC is corrupted, but it is too late, and as you dont know to do so, let fall.


Here is the way, a good antivirus, java adobe flash and Windows Update, UAC enabled, Windows firewall, and XP out, think little, think well.

 

Not to take take sides or engage in dispute, but from experience, Windows firewall w/advanced security, as well as the very antiquated Kerio 2.1.5 are probably the most stable and predictable of all I've tried. Just sayin', no exaggeration

I think I remember the final version of 2.6 as being the "classic" for me. No matter, they are a very good team of Russian developers and first-rate people all around

 

Translated as

Here is the thing - you are stating that firewalls other than those included with the OS are useless. That is just not the case, I am sorry. I agree that it is good enough if you like it, and I also agree that many buy a firewall when in fact WF would suffice just fine. You can certainly like WF more than all others, but there are many good firewalls that will do the exact same function, some free some paid. As I said earlier, its all opinion - user preference - whatever.

If you want to know how people filter thier processes, it is best to do so in a thread devoted to just that. I have found over the years here that even threads devoted to specifics get diluted with everything but the topic. Everyone, myself included, like to "talk shop", so it happens all the time as the conversation winds "hither, thither and yon". Personally, I don't use anything but my pfSense box and a little bit of Sandboxie. I do use Outpost for its logging and viewing, which WF has absolutely nothing to compare with to Outpost. In fact, I even looked at different methods to get info from WF, but they were all disappointing.

As you speak French, some of what you try to communicate is likely taken the wrong way by those who don't speak French. I don't feel like you are trying to be argumentative really, just that you hold an opinion and are for some reason trying to convince everyone else it is the only right way to look at things.

At some point all of us who have a decent amount of experience have to come to the realization that not everyone (or anyone) is going to be interested in how we do things. And thats OK, as there are so many ways to achieve the same goal there is not one way. All we can do is offer our input and suggestions. At least thats what I do, and I think most of here do the same. We just have to remember its never going to be "my way or the highway" because as a wise Jedi once said, "You can't win, but there are alternatives" lol.

@Disney
Actually I do know jack. Actually, quite a few of them really

@wat0114
Understood. Theres nothing to take sides about. Its all about using the tool that you like best that does the job. If it doesn't do the job, then one has some decisions to make, eh?
EDIT: oh yeah, I forgot. I agree 100% with your evaluation of WF wat0114. It does work great, and does what a firewall should do without all the extras. I like that part. But it sucks royally at giving you information like 3rd party firewalls can, although many of them aren't much better IMO. I don't like some of the side-effects 3rd party firewalls can bring with them either, but the right tool for the job gets it done

Sul.

 

ot posts removed

 

Agreed, the logging, which I think can only be enabled in Pro or Ultimate versions (member Sparviero explains how to enable it here, is terrible. The information is more or less there, but it's presented in a very user-unfriendly way

 

Mostly, out of curiosity, as I use the windows firewall and no third party firewalls, and not for seeing malware presences, I use the command to view the active processes with the associated networking connections. The command can be used for logging the process with the associated network connections to a text file.

Third party firewalls are okay but these are often freeware (with gentle persuasions to buy a pro edition) or payware with nags for buying to update/upgrade to the newest version.

Limited or standard user account with UAC on newer windows along with common sense and an antivirus is secure and avoids the need for bells and whistles that third party software firewall provide for the average consumer.

Common sense includes disabling specific plugins for browsers if there are exploits for that application or if the applications are untrusted.

As far as seeing as to what is freshly installed and then calling out, question is then is why is it getting installed if the software is untrusted?
I install only trusted applications from trusted servers.

 

Here is what outpost FW offers that Windows FW doesn't
- outbound protection
- antispyware
- active element/adblocker
- HIPS - not just anti executable

There is no native Windows 7 software that takes care of these problems. So the argument that Outpost FW is some kind of marketing scam is simply flawed.

 

Well Windows does have outbound prot if you enable it ,
applocker is kind good hips.
Adblocker is best to use with browser own ext/tool really.

 

sure but you need 3rd party software to actually optimize it

never heard of this default windows 7 tool. where is it installed?

also not default windows 7 tool

The point that the other OP made was that default windows tools can replace Outpost FW which is a complete nonsense because Outpost is more than just a FW...

Sure there are other apps that when combined can replaced Oupost. For example MBAM for Antispyware, Applocker for HIPS, ABP for ad blocking, etc...

 

Applocker is only present in Ultimate and Entreprise version of Windows 7.

Excellent details here :

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1604627&postcount=1

Rules.

 

Yes. I have 7 pro. Thats why i didnt hear about it.

 

Technically speaking, the Internet Explorer always has had filtering/blocking for activeX, java ,vbs, etc blocking built in. Whether or not consumers understood this and how to use these features is another issue.
Of course now there is ad blocking readily available built into the newer version of Internet Explorer, just as adlblocking is available for other third party browsers.

 

All windows firewall log events are also logged in the WIN 7 event log. Just open up the event log via Control Panel -> System and Security and click on View Event logs. Then expand Audit failure and click on an Event and it will show you all blocked entries with plenty of detail.

 

How do you enable the outbound control in windows firewall please?

 

Right, the Event Viewer method is explained in the link provided by Sparviero. There is a lot of detail there, agreed, but it's not presented in an easily readable format as as most 3rd party firewalls such as Outpost provide.

Actually "terrible" is a poor description I used earlier. It's just that it's a poor format, especially for beginners, and then going to the Event viewer for firewall logs makes things more labour intensive. It can also be difficult to know what process was blocked because there's no pop-up alert for specific process that are blocked, so one has to filter in the Event viewer ID 5152, then scroll through the blocked entries to find the blocked process.

in the following "Allowed" entry:

Code:

ProcessID 340 
  Application \device\harddiskvolume1\windows\system32\svchost.exe 
  Direction %%14593 
  SourceAddress 192.168.1.68 
  SourcePort 63733 
  DestAddress 192.168.1.254 
  DestPort 53 
  Protocol 17 
  FilterRTID 87732 
  LayerName %%14611 
  LayerRTID 48 

One has to know that %%14593 = outbound (%%14592 = inbound) and Protocol 17 = UDP (6 = TCP). The rest is, in fairness, pretty self-explanatory, and the last three lines aren't really important.

 

No, I'm pretty sure "terrible" is the right description LOL. I know what you are saying though, but lets be honest - almost any 3rd party firewall is going to make it easy to see what is going on or what has gone on. It isn't for beginners, its simply showing whats happening.

But lets be fair to M$ too They make a lot of tools that have terrible interfaces, not to pick on WFW alone. The plus about using WFW is that it works without much chance of borking things. If only they would create better interfaces to things...
Sul.

 

I agree with you on that one. It's simply terrible.

I'm a former Outpost user, and I've chosen that firewall back then, mostly for the same reasons as you did - nice, detailed logs. Something WF won't offer.

I've been using Windows own firewall for the last years, and simply because there was a bug in Outpost that would make it not load the network drivers or something like that, hence wouldn't do its job. I may retry it at some point, as I got a lifetime license.

Instead of wasting time with their Metro nonsense, and screwing Windows 8 for the desktop/laptop.

 

I have seen a number of different issues over the years and versions. Sometimes it is due to hardware, sometimes software, sometimes system settings and sometimes the version of Outpost itself. I've given up needing a firewall for use as a firewall. If I needed a firewall I would use WFW. If you don't need a firewall but want the logs, try Outpost again and turn off all the extra components and allow all traffic. If you are tracking down some connection you can always enable Rules Wizard mode and get exact details.

Sul.

 

I too have a lifetime license and can testify that there are no problems with my current version of OP. Give it another chance.

 

if i wanted to use the free version then how would i best do it?
use the old standalone firewall or install the free suite and just install the firewall.

 

I suppose if MS adds too many features, it might hurt sales of 3rd party vendors