another Windows Firewall Control?

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by moontan, Feb 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    medium then enable learning mode :D
     
  2. roady

    roady Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Posts:
    262
    Dunno about faster,but definately lighter! :thumb:
    I registered to unlock it's full potential en installed it on my netbook,which is equipped with an Atom N450 and a meager 1 GB DDR,and I really feel the difference,compared to other firewall's....I tried Outpost,Comodo,Rising,to name a few,with hips disabled and they all had their impact on the system....
    I know that it's not so advanced as the forementioned,but it's doing it's job while my netbook responds much better,and that's the most important part for me....:D
     
  3. Seven64

    Seven64 Guest

    I just tried out the new version and got duplication notice for the very first program that wanted an outbound connection (Stardock Fences pro). I clicked always block and it asked twice after that, clicked block again it said something like, cannot add rule already added.
     
  4. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    2,064
    Location:
    Romania
    About your problem with Windows Firewall Control 2.9.6, please provide me a little more info about your computer:

    1. Which operating system do you use ? Vista or 7 ?
    2. x86 or x64 ?
    3. Do you use WFC from a standard account or from an admin account ?
    4. What is the main language of your OS ? The one from the setup ? English or other one ? Also, do you have installed or use any language pack ?
    5. Only with that program do you have this problem, or with all of them ?
    6. Your Windows is installed on C:\ or a different drive ?
    7. Do you use any antivirus/antimalware program that could block WFC from accessing the registry ?
    8. The rule that you created and then it pop-up again appear in WFC list of rules ? It is also created in WFwAS ?

    Thank you.
     
  5. Seven64

    Seven64 Guest

    Windows 7 64bit
    admin account
    English
    I don't use and try not to install other language packs.
    Just tried it out to see if it was fixed, after the stardock fences problem went to another snap-shot.
    No firewall or anti-virus was installed when WFC was installed.

    8. The rule that you created and then it pop-up again appear in WFC list of rules ? It is also created in WFwAS ? Don't understand.
    I did not even see any option to see what was already blocked in this new version, only what was allowed.
     
  6. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    2,064
    Location:
    Romania
    UPDATED TO VERSION 2.9.7

    What's new in version 2.9.7
    √ Fixed the path recognition errors on some systems where users are not allowed to read Security Events due to limited privileges.
    √ Fixed the path recognition for executable files that have no file description.
    √ Added support for Learning Mode for Windows that is in traditional chinese. This was a tough one. :)

    A new good news is that I have already started to develop Windows Firewall Control as a Windows service and a separately GUI interface. This will fix all problems related to standard accounts that have limited privileges. Until now, is just in alpha stage, but I will make it finally. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2011
  7. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,808
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Thanks but Learning is grayed out here. Is that reserved for registered users?
     
  8. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,051
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    Yes, it is.
     
  9. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    2,064
    Location:
    Romania
    What do you think. Should I develop WFC as a service and a separate GUI, or should I keep the current operating mode but add to it a new menu item, called "Install as a Windows service" ? In this way, users that don't want to install a Windows service still can use the program as until now. Are there users that would choose the first choice, or maybe there are still a lot of you which not want to install new Windows services, and you want that WFC to be still just a simple exe file ? Thank you. :doubt:
     
  10. Greg S

    Greg S Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,039
    Location:
    A l a b a m a
    As of now, makes me no difference long as it works. What are the benefits of the service/GUI package? At first glance, I'm leaning toward leave at as is. Windows 7 Firewall Control uses services which at times gave me conflicting issues with Win 7 services. Mainly Base Filtering Engine service for some reason.
     
  11. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Service + GUI, when this helps to operate in user mode
     
  12. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486
    Is this firewall available on softpedia? If not, then I don't trust installing it.:thumbd:

    And using the exact same name as Sphinx raises ALARM BELLS!!!
     
  13. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Whichever way creates the least overhead, while still allowing to run in user mode.
     
  14. JRViejo

    JRViejo Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    69,196
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  15. Yanick

    Yanick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    274
    Il second to that! :thumb:
     
  16. mnosteele

    mnosteele Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    191
    Location:
    Chesapeake, VA USA
    I agree.
     
  17. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,051
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    I would vote for a service and a separate GUI. :thumb:
     
  18. burebista

    burebista Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Posts:
    223
    Location:
    Romania
    As long as author is Romanian and Softpedia is an Romanian portal and he has a topic on Softpedia Romanian forum I'd say it's safe to use it. ;)
     
  19. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    Umm, how can I do this? :D Allowing system to connect through windows firewall.
     
  20. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    2,064
    Location:
    Romania
    Start a command prompt (cmd.exe) and run the following command: ping binisoft.org (or any other website)
    Make sure that you use Medium Filtering and Learning Mode is enabled. This will pop-up a notification about SYSTEM. After this you can create a rule for System.
     
  21. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486
    Why is this called Firewall Control, the exact same name as Sphynx are using.

    He can get sued by Sphinx for using that name, and it seems like a lot of people will buy it for $10 falsely believing it's the Sphinx version.

    ALARM BELLS ARE ACTIVATED:ninja: !
     
  22. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486

    That link you gave is asking me to pay $10US for the firewall and the “Lock Application”, “Shell Integration” and “Learning Mode” are extra feature you need to pay for to unlock; this does not fit very well with the “donationware” label the developer is trying to promote.:thumbd:

    You have to donate $10 in order to unlock its full functionality.

    Surely there is a FREE alternative?
     
  23. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    You should tell that to the AVERT guy, and all hell will break lose.
    Seriously though, the names are a bit different. Sphinx is using Windows 7 Firewall Control.

    It has a feature-limited free version, like most other freeware. Sphinx Windows 7 Firewall Control is the only alternative that I know of.
     
  24. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    from what i have read here at Wilders this Windows Firewall Control is older than Sphinx's.
     
  25. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    2,064
    Location:
    Romania
    "Windows 7 Firewall Control" is the name of the product created by Sphinx Software.
    "Windows Firewall Control" is the name of the product created by BiniSoft.org

    They are different names, they both are using common nouns, like windows, firewall, control. Get sued for what ? Do you think Microsoft sued the creators of Media Player Classic for the reason that they have created before a product named Windows Media Player ? I don't think that people will pay by mistake for a product instead of other because the name. These are two different piece of software, with different options, not a clone software.


    Nobody forces you to use this software, it is only your will to use it, if you don't like it, or the usage terms, you are free to uninstall it. Also nobody forces you to pay for nothing. You have the alternative to puchase Windows7FirewallControl Plus which costs 29 euros, almost 42 USD dollars. Maybe this offer will suit your needs more. Or maybe neither of them, or maybe you are just angry because you want a free product and nobody will provide this free of charge. Try to develop a complex software, stay hundreds of hours of documenting, write thousands lines of code, spend 14 hours a day in front of your computer, and then please blame us for our shamelessness of requesting 10$ for our hard work.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.