Discussion in 'polls' started by Circuit, Aug 14, 2017.
Is that setup link still valid for the current version? I only ask because it is from 2014.
Emsisoft is being very sweet about it - good PR I guess. The real reason is Windows 10 - Microsoft is enhancing it's own anti-malware engines and also now has enforced some new APIs for firewalls and their communications with Windows. A bunch of recent updates broke some functionalities with certain firewall products and it takes efforts on the part of the vendor to keep up. Enjoy a webroot representative's statement on the matter (again, may not be the whole truth):
A small white paper http://solutionfile.trendmicro.com/solutionfile/Titanium3/WP - Titanium 3 0 and the Windows Firewall v1.2.pdf from Trend Micro should also make it clear why companies are going in this direction. The same reasons are true for F-Secure, BullGuard, and others using the Windows Firewall now. It's basically, a cost-cutting measure that is marketed as giving a performance boost: The idea is to offload this functionality to Microsoft, since firewalls are technology-dependent and not necessarily database/cloud dependent.
However, I do Not care as I do Not use any Resident (Real-Time) AV.
EIS has never caught anything besides (surf protection) since they took over OA. That can be achieved by a host file or Adguard, Ublock.
The Firewall was the only good part left, and not as good as OA.
Double screwed from Emsisoft over the years.
Are you saying only surf protection is useful(you tested malware and it bypassed the File guard and BB completely) or that the other components can't do anything cause surf protection already protected you?
If it's latter, then it makes sense. Surf Protection is the first layer of protection.
I don't test malware. Like I said, never caught anything except a bad web-site, that could have been caught by a good host file.
I love EAM, I believe that it's one of the more powerful and effective av, but I think that - for likes to control internet traffic - it's better to have an all in one solution, firewall, av and eventually - for me definitely - HIPS integrated, especially to avoid conflicts. Anyway I think that Windows Firewall can work good with EAM.
Great company and they care for folks!!
The thing is if anyone makes a Firewall for Win 8, 8.1 or Win 10 the firewall will have to use the underlying firewall controls (API's) that are already built into the OS there is noway around not using them, that's why for a long time Webroot SecureAnywhere never had a full outbound Firewall controls but they have put the controls back in to WSA but they are still using the builtin OS controls within Win 8, 8.1 and 10. Win XP to Win 7 well that's a different story. So EIS would have to do the same with the said OS's and IMO it's fine.
Not much in the way of firewalls out there anymore. I am looking at possible Comodo FW or Windows 7 firewall with WFC4.
I guess Kaspersky didn't get the memo.
Neither did Zonealarm or BitDefender.
So true, and sad.
I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Did you wanted Surf Protection to let something through?
I voted "no" ... because ... just "no".
Don't you interest to control which program in your pc connect outbound ?
To update this post, I'll provide some additional info:
MS now recommends firewall developers to not disable the Windows Firewall entirely. Starting Windows Vista and going forward up to Windows 10, the firewall has been made modular. That means you can disable the components of Windows Firewall that clash with your product's functionality and leave the rest functional. Microsoft recommends to keep both firewalls running without conflicts using the Advanced Security APIs as it believes that will be a win-win from security perspective. For example, products should register with the appropriate API to Windows Firewall the "categories" which they wish to "take over" from the Windows Firewall, like Core packet filtering, or boot time protection, etc. MS does not recommend outright disabling the Windows Firewall, because it provides certain features like IPsec connection policy and boot time protection which may not be well-replicated by 3rd party products. Microsoft has been recommending this approach since the release of Windows 7 SP1, but in Windows 10 the "old" API calls by which Windows Firewall is "broken" and the 3rd party product is now registered with Windows Action Center/Security Center is now deprecated. The Creator's update creates several problems for firewalls still using the old method of registering with Windows and requires some significant development effort to fix. This pain was why many vendors have chosen to forego their firewall products in favour of developing modules to "assist" Windows Firewall or just going with Windows Firewall itself.
The only alternative is to use a firewall that provides all of the functionality provided by the Windows Firewall Services if in case WF is totally disabled. Very few firewalls could do this, e.g. Outpost or ZoneAlarm.....
LOL, I missed the closure of the poll by 25 minutes. I would have voted: Who the hell knows or cares?
All of this tech is way over my head: I care, but I don't know.
It is one more useless feature they can sell, which does nothing, like tons of other features, unlike Emsisoft, which is the only one of 2-3 vendors, who actually care about security.
I install only programs I trust.
What a surprise (used forTelemetry)
Why win10 is garbage.
Windows Firewall can be used to block telemetry. Post some proof to prove it is used for telemetry.