Windows Firewall Control (WFC) by BiniSoft.org

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by alexandrud, May 20, 2013.

  1. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    897
    Location:
    UK
    I got no problems, I am still on an older version :) But I wanted to make sure there is no issue before I updated. :)
     
  2. Roberteyewhy

    Roberteyewhy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    US
    alexandrud, I just noticed that I have a bunch of Enabled Inbound rules (Domain, Private and Public) in Windows Firewall with Advanced Security. Are you saying I should delete them ALL and start over with just WFC's recommended rules?

    Or, just delete all the Allow Inbound rules in WFC All rules no filter?

    Should I Restore Windows Firewall default set of rules THEN Restore Windows Firewall Control recommended rules and start over?

    Which is best and easiest? Hate to have to start from scratch!

    Thanks,
    Robert
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  3. JimboW

    JimboW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Posts:
    271
    I'm still a fan of this software since it's initial release. Was great back then alexandrud should really be proud of this. Can't believe Microsoft still hasn't implemented something similar since XP SP2. Keep up the good work! :thumb:
     
  4. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,761
    Location:
    Romania
    You don't have to start from scratch.
    1. If you have a standalone computer without no need to connect to your computer from another computer (remote desktop connection, files sharing, etc) then you can remove all inbound rules. ALL of them.
    2. If you only want to connect to the Internet (browse, chat, etc) you can also remove all default outbound rules. The ones that come with Windows Firewall by default. However, for Internet access, you will still need some svchost.exe and System rules, which are part of WFC recommend rules. Just recreate these rules from right click context menu in Rules Panel.
    3. If you have custom rules created by you (chrome.exe, firefox.exe, game.exe, etc) you just keep them so you don't have to recreate these rules.

    The rules cleanup will take you less than a minute. Good luck. If you think that you may break something, first make a backup and if something goes wrong just restore your rules from your backup.
     
  5. Roberteyewhy

    Roberteyewhy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    US
    Thanks, alexandrud. Did #1 and #3. No problems and like you said, "...takes less than a minute."

    What I should have done from the very beginning was delete ALL Windows Firewall default rules then install WFC with recommended rules and build from there. Too lazy to do that now as do not want to deal with all the notifications.

    Such a superlative product WFC is AND the advice that you provide!:thumb:

    Thanks again,
    Robert
     
  6. MaxXP

    MaxXP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    Had a strange issue. Windows 10 Creators Update and running WFC.
    Firefox was real slow to load although I keep Internet Explorer for those times may need it but it would load fast.
    Uninstalled/Reinstall Fox and tried everything in Fox guides but nothing helped.
    Finally I switched WFC to No Filtering and Fox started loading fast. Bumped it up another notch still loading. Finally put it on Medium where I run it and all was fine

    I recently had done an in place upgrade to Creators Update where it kept all the apps. 2 days later or was it 1(not sure) I was getting that black icon on WFC and went in and restarted the services and rebooted. Shut it down to go to work and next day when this started with Fox slow loading.
    Don't know why this happened but just FYI in case someone else gets it.
     
  7. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,174
    Location:
    Denmark
    I'd use this, if it wasn't for the paywall.
     
  8. _CyberGhosT_

    _CyberGhosT_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Posts:
    457
    Location:
    MalwareTips "Your Security Advisor"
    It's how they feed their families and fuel innovative improvements, I am glad to pay the "small" price for admission. ;)
     
  9. Alpengreis

    Alpengreis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Switzerland
    I could do without some software but certainly not without WFC. These 10 USD were and are a very good investment.

    And the support from developer (Alexandru) is ALWAYS really excellent!
     
  10. clubhouse1

    clubhouse1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Posts:
    1,123
    Location:
    UK
    Certainly is worth the $10, its constantly refined.
     
  11. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,174
    Location:
    Denmark
    I like to try things out before spending cash. Hiding notifications behind a paywall, instead of letting people try it for a week or so, is not something I'm going to support.
     
  12. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,761
    Location:
    Romania
    It is your choice. Thank you for your opinion.
     
  13. clubhouse1

    clubhouse1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Posts:
    1,123
    Location:
    UK

    It is freeware if you want to try it..Just some features become available after a one off $10 donation.




    Program Features FREEWARE

    √ Intuitive user interface which is easy accessible through a system tray icon.
    √ Full support with standard user accounts. Elevated privileges are required only at installation.
    √ Disable the ability of other programs to add Windows Firewall rules.
    √ Integrated support of creating, modifying and deleting Window Firewall rules.
    √ Multiple and easier ways of creating new rules in Windows Firewall.
    √ Lock feature which can disable the access to the settings of the program and Windows Firewall.
    √ Shell integration into the right click context menu of the executable files.
    √ Automatically display invalid rules for programs that do not exist any more.
    √ Possibility to find and display duplicate firewall rules.
    √ Merge multiple similar rules or duplicate existing ones.
    √ View recently allowed and blocked connections and create new rules from the Security log.
    √ Import and export of partial sets of rules.
    √ Protection to unauthorized uninstallation.
    √ Possibility to restore previous settings at uninstallation.
    √ Global hot keys are supported and various shortcut keys are available.
    √ And many, many more. Just try it out.



    Registered Users Features $10 donation

    √ Notifications System which provides notifications for outbound blocked connections. Two modes available:
    Display notifications - Display notifications for all outgoing connections that were blocked.
    Learning mode - Automatically allow digitally signed programs. Notifications are displayed only for unsigned programs.
    Disabled - Notifications are disabled.
    √ Create temporary rules which are automatically deleted when they expire or on program restart.
     
  14. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    897
    Location:
    UK
    I am surprised the commercial model has been criticised, its better than other security products where you pay for "each" machine and "per year",

    It allows people to pay what they can afford for the product.
     
  15. _CyberGhosT_

    _CyberGhosT_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Posts:
    457
    Location:
    MalwareTips "Your Security Advisor"
    +1 :thumb:
     
  16. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,534
    Location:
    USA
    Has anyone tested to see if WFC blocks EternalBlue Exploit?
     
  17. alexandrud

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,761
    Location:
    Romania
  18. full_inu

    full_inu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Posts:
    3
    Location:
    Russia
    I have a problem with WFC and Windows 10.
    I create an allowing rule for svchost.exe, but in log i see that secured connections (TCP, 443 port) still blocked.
    How can i resolve this problem?

    This is not the only problem, for example - installing Twitter from the Store, it couldn't connect anymore (due to the same or similar 443 problem), I tried to disable WFC service and reset Windows firewall rules to default, but it doesnt see internet anyway.

    Windows 15063. x64. Pro build. WFC version is 4.9.8.0.
     
  19. solitarios

    solitarios Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Posts:
    107
    Does the program have the ability to block hosts domains like Windows 10 firewall control?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  20. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,534
    Location:
    USA
    I'm patched. I was just curious if WFC was capable of blocking it. Eset Firewall uses Windows Filtering Platform, but is somehow able to block EternalBlue. Maybe they use some additional network filtering i'm not aware of that's not offered by Windows Filtering Platform. Do you think it's possible to block EternalBlue using Windows Filtering Platform?
     
  21. MaxXP

    MaxXP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    No it doesn't. I find multi layer security is a better choice so I use MVPS HOSTS That with Hostsman
    Throw in WFC with Windows Defender and Malwarebytes in the background

    I used the Sphinx but it messed with some of my games so dropped it
     
  22. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,534
    Location:
    USA
    If it's that simple then all AV Suites should be blocking the Exploit, but many still are not.

    Edit 5/31/17 @ 11:01
    Port 445 has to be allowed for Windows services so just blocking the port is not an option.

    Edit 5/31/17 @ 11:08
    Disregard, I was thinking of port 443 that Windows services uses, like Windows update. I'm not sure that port 445 is actually needed other than for SMB, and for Printer & File Sharing. Many users, and pretty much all Business Networks have to have this though.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  23. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,534
    Location:
    USA
    Sorry, I made another edit to my post above. I just pointed out that blocking port 445 is not an option for many user, but many home users will be able to get away with blocking it.

    I will give your link a read.
     
  24. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,534
    Location:
    USA
    I have SMB 1.0/CIFS File Sharing Support disabled. This was one of the options recommended by Microsoft for combating EternalBlue.

    Well, I don't want to hijack this thread so i'm going to end this discussion with this post unless there is something you think should be continued in this thread. My reason for originally starting the discussion was my curiosity in what filtering WFC offered. I considered using it if it had IDS protection.

    My apologies to the developer if it seemed like I was trying to hijack the thread!

    regards,

    CE
     

    Attached Files:

    • SMB.jpg
      SMB.jpg
      File size:
      75.4 KB
      Views:
      19
  25. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    8,286
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Admittedly, I consider my current PC Security arrayed in such a manner with a small but formidable enough (and available) layered apps approach with which I hope is a short balance of basic protections all working in unison quite well so far on my production workhorse of Windows 8.1 which I really grown to accept as stable and buttoned down.

    But one area I so fail at is the most critical stage of them all I think and that's the firewall. Question for you bright guru's well experienced with them is would it be acceptable to combine BOTH the WFC application (which I will purchase in a heartbeat because it's well supported and just plain works together along with CFW 10's firewall or is it recommended to used one or the other?

    I am sold on Comodo's Containment feature with file ratings etc. and would like to have it a part of a new setup with RansomOff (once out of beta) filling in the gap just as a safe precaution some mysterious event where a new ransomware might manage an outside small chance to happen to find a way to bypass.

    Can the two peacefully coexist to your knowledge or is there a potential conflict that might be too much with both on the same machine?

    Or better yet maybe just turning off Comodo's and rely on WFC. I am impressed as I can be with what I have seen so far. Thank You Kindly.
     
Loading...
  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.