Windows Firewall Control (WFC) by BiniSoft.org

Sorry for the late response. I am on holiday and the Internet access is very slow where I stay.

Security - I did not receive any email about this problem. Also, I did not receive anything on PM. So, I have no clue if it was or if it is something serious.

Bug reports - I will look into these when I get back home. I did not have time to investigate.

To Do - I will implement both these things as soon as I get home from holiday and I will include these improvements in the next version.

Suggestions - Many users have requested them to be there, only one user "complained" about them. They stay there.

 

@Alexandrud

No problem, enjoy it!

OK.

All right!

All right!

OK, then of course, they must be stay there!

Thank you!
SwissBIT

 

Great idea to make it optional! I personally get and set all the name details right at the notification window, so, I barely ever see the need to change the names of the firewall rules.

FYI, the "WFC - Windows Store (svchost.exe)" recommended rule still seems to be missing some connection attempts by the Windows Store app. As I stated earlier here, the connection attempts get blocked when loging into Windows Store and/or when I attempt viewing the details of a Windows Store App. So, I have changed that rule to the following I suggested b4 and so far, have yet to bump into those blocked connections problem:

Name: WFC - Windows Store (svchost.exe)
Program: C:\windows\system32\svchost.exe
Service: Any <- Strangely, setting the service to Windows Store still blocks the connection attempt, so, Windows Store is using some other service for user login and to display app details...
Location: All
Protocol: TCP
Local Ports: All Ports
Remote Ports: 443
Remote addresses: 65.54.165.0-65.54.188.0,131.253.61.60-131.253.61.89
Direction: outbound​

 

Why does twitch.tv not work when medium filtering is activated? What is the firewall blocking?

 

Thanks, MrElectrifyer. That fixed Windows Store connections. Had the same problem and could only connect by turning WFC to 'No Filtering'.

Robert

 

There's an issue with WFC that's been grating on the nerves a bit --

When a WFC notification pops up, any subsequent notifications for that application get subverted, not being shown or signified at all. This makes it seem that there are other problems sourcing the issue.

You then have to assume that WFC is blocking other connection attempts that it's not reporting and dig into the "Recently Blocked" list, scanning to find any other subsequent blocks for the respective application, and then create another rule (or adapt the preliminary one).

Could we please get an option to disable this behavior? I realize it's probably there in lieu of convenience for users who don't want to be nagged with more than one attempt, but it's a big inconvenience to have to trudge into the "Recently Blocked" list almost every time a new program has triggered a first connection attempt, as most applications connect over port 80 and port 443 (and others).

 

@Stukalide I recall having a discussion of this. To better understand your situation, might I ask for what application are you looking to have that much restriction over its internet connection? As a power user, only applications I can think of are torrenting and web browser applications…both of which are better managed by a software like PeerBlock.

 

Hi, I am a new user. I have two small suggestions.

When you click on the "Manage Rules" link in the corner window, the program could automatically close the small corner window. When I'm using the manage rules window the corner one always gets in the way and I end up closing it anyway.

Also, could you possibly add a confirmation message to the "Clear List" option in the Recently Blocked section? I accidentally pressed the wrong button when I was trying to refresh the list and it deleted everything. Just something like "Are you sure you want to delete the log?".

Thank you for this software.

 

Great idea, but best made optional. Also, instead of closing it, minimizing the main window could be an option.

Small but mighty, I could see this saving me time in the future...

 

I will add both these improvements. Thank you. I am back from my holiday and I will start coding again.

 

Hi
The program consumes too much memory, that is normal?

wfcs -> ~30mb
wfc -> ~70mb-100mb

http://i44.tinypic.com/15nnk0g.jpg

tks

 

That's way high, here's mine

 

http://i40.tinypic.com/2vkydew.jpg

 

Process hacker shows it higher

 

This was already answered in page 2 of this topic. Just take a look at my answer there:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2232778&postcount=31

There is nothing more that I can do about this, this is how NET Framework works. From your screenshots, only private set matters, this is the actual memory used that is allocated only to WFC. The difference is the shared memory (NET libraries) that can be freed up anytime if there will be no free memory on your system. The management is done automatically. Don't expect NET applications to consume resources like Windows 98 applications.

 

My 2 penneth re: memory.

I never feel WFC running on any of our PC's, despite what process monitors say.
Allocation of memory is so misleading these days, especially when 4gb is standard for most machines.

WFC feels so much lighter than using any 3rd party firewall
Keep up the great work

 

I tried to give a donation.
But PayPal will not pay.
Anyone with the same problem?
Other payments are no problem.

I cannot activate now.

 

I succeeded after a lot of trouble with PayPal.

But it is ok now.

 

I bought this and gave up to be frank, as one example I set it to medium filtering, ie block anything that doesn't have a rule set for it...Now I know that spywareblaster is a legit and very good software but when I tried to update it I expected WFC to alert me that it was attempting to call out, I had created no rule!...However it allowed it to update....Now with Comodo firewall set to 'create custom rule' using spywareblaster and trying the same manual update it alerted me that it (spywareblaster) was attempting to call out...Given that I don't completely trust WFC's responsiveness I have removed in favour of Comodo.

 

@clubhouse
I am sure that you already know that, but just to be certain:
Comodo has its own filtering engine, while wfc is just a front end to the internal Windows' firewall. So we need to make sure that there is no "allow" rule in the Windows firewall.
1. Please look at the wfc list of rules - is there any listing of of spywareblaster?
2. If negative, this can be a cause for a concern - could you please look at the raw rules of Windows firewall (run wf.msc from the Start Menu's Run command) to see if there is an "allow" rule for the swblaster program?
3. If no "allow" rule there either, last thing to try is to disallow all applications in wfc - including the Windows' svchost types, and check swblaster passthrough again.

The above will let us know if the problem lies in a mis-configured rule or in a weakness/bug of wfc.

 

Had Spywareblaster installed before I did a clean install of OS. WFC on Medium Filtering.

* Installed it.
* Ran the update.
* WFC poped up.
* Change local port to all.
* Keep remote port to 80.
* Keep remote address to 108.161.189.192.
* Hit allow.

Never had a problem with updates again.

Robert

 

I have a problema with WFC 4 on Windows 8.1 Pro, after i installed WFC, the windows update dont work, and has a rule with all permission for WU. then i need to disable windows firewall for get windows update working again.

Without WFC i have not problem with WU.

 

If the updater could connect even if there was no rule to allow this, it is possible that something from your system to interfere with Windows Firewall. Remember that WFC does not block or allow anything, Windows Firewall does, based on the rules that it has. There are two possibilities: this software has created a rule at installation and it was already allowed, or, you have used some sort of software proxy (Avast WebShield, Avira Webguard, NDIS driver, etc) that are incompatible with Windows Firewall and which make the rules not apply.

The rule named "WFC - Windows Update" should be enough to allow Windows Update. Do you have a rule (different than the recommended ones) that blocks entirely svchost.exe ? Block rules have higher precedence over the allow rules, and if svchost.exe is fully blocked, then any other allow rules for it will not apply. If you switch WFC to Low Filtering profile, not No Filtering, does it work ?

 

Try disabling the block rule for Akamai.

 

Here is the rule of windows update.



Here is the rules blocked, only 4 are blocked.




Then. selecting the Low Filtering, windows update back to work, but is strange because in windows 8 (not 8.1) use without problems the medium filtering that is set as "recommended".