Yes. It is actually called "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" and is very robust (government and business networks do rely on it). It's not at the bottom of the pile like Windows Defender "better than nothing"; it's actually at the top "why would I run something else?". If you visit a malicious website, that's an outbound connection; no firewall will help you. That's what web filtering is for. Also, that's what 'good sense' is for in that you stop wanting to visit risky websites. This wasn't always the case but, yes, WD options are disabled and you cannot even run WD with another AV product running.
OK, thanks, big thanks for this confirmation, but what do you mean to say about Windows Defender-you are trying to say that it is too weak to be relied on as protection against all forms of malwares or something else? This is why I will most likely install Avira with its own webguard on my new Windows 10 computer, just in case. Quick questions: If we talk about outbound connections than we talk about outbound firewall-and that's what Windows 10 firewall does possess! So, I don't understand how exactly outbound connections cannot be blocked by any outbound firewall (in this case Windows 10 firewall. And what web filtering I should use, Avira webguard, some extensions for web-browsers, right? I already have some of them on Firefox and IE, hopefully Edge will also have the possibility of increased web filtering... Of course I don't visit those websites too often, but sometimes, occasionally once a month I do make some trips to them. Yes, but the installation of another antivirus will automatically fully disable Windows Defender and all of its functions.
Too weak might be a bit strong but it is the weakest. AV tests compare products against WD as the baseline since it is the weakest and it does come with Windows. It is also mid-range in the performance category. There are free alternatives that do a better job and perform better doing it. I don't like nags, so that rules out Avira for me. Web filters aren't always tied to the product--you can run Bitdefender Trafficlight, for example, without BitDefender--though there may be integration between the web filter and the product that may be of value. Qihoo, for example, scans running processes when you visit a banking or shopping site. Outbound = from you to a remote destination; you initiate the connection Inbound = from another machine to you; you didn't initiate the connection but you may have an open port listening for connections Firewalls block inbound by default and only let what you explicitly open in. This is a bit less of an issue if you're behind a NAT router since those unsolicited connections will be ignored anyway--and it gets them constantly. Firewalls don't block outbound by default since outbound connections are initiated by you or by software you approved, so there's not much point in blocking those. The only exception here are sensitive networks that mandate hardened OS/configuration (like a Point Of Sale PC or classified networks), in which case a firewall rule has to be made for every outbound connection. This can get tedious/very annoying. Wife & I really like AdGuard. I like Qihoo's extension. We use Chrome with it's built-in malware filters and I use Norton DNS. I believe our using anything else would be redundant. Win8/10/Edge/IE already have Smartscreen but I don't have much faith in it. Use a virtual machine (VM) with a clean snapshot/checkpoint. VirtualBox is free and nice and user-friendly. Hyper-V comes with Win10 Pro and is speedy. This way, if a disaster were to strike, so what: you don't have anything on your VM to worry about. It's also handy way to test software without crapping up your computer with install/uninstalls.
Regarding inbound protection, let's suppose you don't have NAT router, is Windows 10 firewall inbound protection much more than enough, I guess it is, based on your original post, so the only thing is that I have to take care of outbound protection, but if it's true that outbound protection can be configured in Windows 10 firewall, that should be enough with some more additional web-filtering and that's it, right?
The common misbelief is that Windows Firewall with Advanced Security doesn't have outbound protection; it does. It just isn't configured to ask about every. single. connection. It asks when untrusted software wants to talk/listen on the network. GlassWire (GW) has a nice approach and is a nice GUI for Windows Firewall with Advanced Security. You can configure GW to notify only on new connection or to prompt you every time (sets outbound to block all by default).
wtf is WAF? I have rtead some of these forums and now I have found there is WAF? When all i thought was ok was call it a Windows firewall, easy and simple. WF for short not some stupid WAF.
WAF suggests Advanced Firewall Rules in the Windows Firewall. WAF suggests Windows Firewall with Advanced Security.
Thanks for the clarification. I was wonder about "WAF" too. It's helpful when people state the full name first and then switch to acronyms.
I am sure not the only one getting angry at this rolo142's terminology. It is Windows firewall. You can call it what ever you want but when confusion rises, it usually best to stay with common understood words. If someone wants to get into advanced settings, this does not make a firewall more advanced, it is still the same windows firewall.
Windows Firewall with Advanced Security is familiar terminology. Windows Firewall is made more advanced for that user's preference by the addition of powerful rules. eg: HowToGeek
Well, if it's true that Windows 10 firewall is very robust (robust so much that even (government and business networks do rely on it, than it is useless to install other top-level software firewalls like Comodo or Kaspersky, Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro and etc., that was my question, and the answer is: yes it is, so I don't need to install any of those top-level firewalls on Windows 10 in the future, since Windows 10 firewall is at least as good as top-level software firewalls are when it comes to security and protection. I'm sure that other users will agree that Windows 10 firewall is at least as good as all of the top-level software firewalls, when it comes to security and protection. Cheers.
The point with Windows firewall is that is not likely to get you any issues or performance degradations. You can make it control outbound too if you feel inclined to do so with 3rd party programs. It is the same firewall that has been since the sordid Vista version I think. Patched maybe with updates as MS does. But it is not windows 10 firewall exactly, just comes with it too. And I like it with TinyWall controller. About controllers, there is a pay one with binisoft one. I read TW works also in windows 10. Anyways I would not go to use some 3rd party hips firewall as WF gives what is needed in packet filtering.
Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro does not work with Windows 10 and as of this post there has not been an update to it to make it compatible.
But it will be, like all other firewalls, I was talking about when they all be available for Windows 10, Windows 10 firewall with advanced rules, or Advanced Windows firewall is at least as good as top-level software firewalls, that was my point.
I understand, but when it comes to pure firewall abilities is Windows firewall in this case Windows 10 firewall exactly as effective as top-level software firewalls?
Yes it is in terms of those abilities. Knowing how paranoid you are and myself just a normal user with no knowledge of hacking etc. I might still get you on toes with reading Karoly's http://tinywall.pados.hu/features.php mention on the 3rd point about firewall technology. I have no idea how easy WF can be disabled though.
Not sure why no one is talking about Windows 10 Firewall Control by SphinxSoftware: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-firewall-control-sphinx-soft-is-upcoming.373420/ That one has a prompt for outgoing connections and uses the Windows firewall API for the most part, which keeps the app tiny and resource-friendly.
OK WAF is confusing (if one completely ignored context, I suppose) since it means "Web Application Firewall", which is a completely different thing I've been working on. I apologise and I edited the post for clarity; I will try to do better, lest I trigger the emotionally unstable among us.
rolo, the manipulation going on was felt and someone had to step in, I did. You can of course call people what they want, but editing your posts is quite dishonest, right?
I don't know what you're talking about. What 'manipulation'? If you think I've done something unsavoury, be specific and we can talk about it. I don't recall calling anybody anything. I do call getting angry and lashing out over an acronym not normal. It's not dishonest since I pointed out that I edited my post when I edited it. I think this personal vendetta has gone far enough; if you have a beef with me, by all means send me a private message and let me have it. Lest my point get lost: Windows Firewall with Advanced Security (WFAS, WAF, WF, WFA, WinFirWall, WiFiAdSec...whatever you want to call it) is a high quality firewall included with Windows that's hard to beat and there are a lot of misconceptions about it that lead users to buy products they don't need and risk making their system less secure. Adding a GUI or notifications to it would meet users' needs who want that sort of thing.
And as I've mentioned before, WFN (Windows Firewall Notifier http://wfn.codeplex.com/) is a free open source one, that's working for me on Windows 10. I wonder if anyone has compared the various controllers for the built-in Windows firewall? I've only tired WFN and Tiny Wall. It's been a long time since I used Tiny Wall, but I think I stopped using it because it and avast! antivirus' web shield or something wasn't 100% compatible. But I stopped using avast! a long time ago also. I agree that they may be unnecessary, and even confusing or counterproductive, to users who won't know what connections are needed or not, but I kind of like to feel like I'm in control and taking fuller use of the capabilities of the Windows Firewall, and I like to see what's requesting outbound. Sometimes there are settings on even trusted software that I miss, and I can go back and stop them from auto-updating or whatever if I want when I realize what's going on. On the other hand, I can't think of any time it's saved me from any kind of a major security threat, so it's probably more of a personal preference.
WFN was quite unstable and was eating memory big time when the same connection attempted to connect and the outgoing prompt was being displayed. Tons of error reporting processes were being loaded in the background when this happened. TinyWall was too basic for my needs. Since it doesn't offer an outgoing prompt, I needed to get into its configuration window too often, to the point that it was annoying me. You can also check out my mini-review of Sphinx's WFC here, which has a brief comparison of similar firewalls: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/posts/2512887/
I'm using version 1.9.2.9 and with no problems and haven't tried the alpha. I didn't even realize the version I had was still considered beta. The download for both are on the same page. I haven't experienced anything that Pasmal is reporting, and I've used it at least a couple of years, I think quite a bit longer.
