Windows Firewall Control (WFC) by BiniSoft.org

If Kaspersky somehow limits what is allowed through that proxy like Avast does (though it is not perfect in that limiting), I would not say that using a 2 way Windows firewall your outgoing protection is too much compromised by a local proxy software like that.

I sometimes run Avast with Web Shield and Mail Shield disabled and usually them enabled. Depending on browsers Sandboxied if disabled.

 

My experience with Kaspersky is that outgoing protection is totally compromised. Anything that has its outgoing connection blocked by firewall rules is allowed to pass through the Kaspersky proxy. I may have missed some trick, but at present I cannot see a way around this.

 

Panda Cloud or Avast! with Webshield off, plus SRP/Applocker or an anti-exec.

 

I'm using Microsoft Security Essentials together with the Windows Firewall/WFC.

 

Our main family's laptop setup:

We have NO realtime AV //
NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro (password protected,lockdown/advanced mode) //
Windows Firewall Control/Windows Firewall //
K9 web filter.

light as a feather

= total control/prevention

 

Look at my sig...works great with WFC

 

On W7 machine - Webroot SA, WFC, Appguard 3.5
All W8.1 machines - Webroot SA, WFC or just WFW, Waiting on Appguard 4


Use to be a big fan of Kaspersky before they locked it down and IMO ruined it.

 

- Emsisoft AM
- NovirusThanks Exe Radar Pro
- Apgguard 3.5

All work great with WFC

 

The primary protection I use is self-awareness of online security.

Secondary protection:
- Windows Defender in Windows 8 (similar to Microsoft Security Essentials)
- MalwareBytes Anti-malware Pro (for them drive-by malicious websites that come in ads and Google image results)

Both work flawlessly with Windows Firewall Control

 

There is any plan to include the groups feature like sphinx windows firewall control?

http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/zones.html

There is any way to assign several rules to a group?
It would be nice to be able to select several rules at the same time and assign them to a group

Is WFC able to protect himself (windows firewall) to be deactivate by another app/malware? I hope you can improve WFC in this direction.

 

Hi @all,

I still have problems with the Windows Update Funktion ( 8.1 ) and Windows Firewall Controll v4.0.2.0.

When I use the Medium Filtering Profile and search for windows updates, I get the error message code 80240438.

When I use the Low Filtering Profile and search for windows updates, there is no error and updates are displayed.

Switching back to Medium Filtering Profile -> error

There is no modification to the "WFC - Windows Update" rule.
TCP, Local: All Ports, Remote; All Ports, Remote Adress: Any, Dir: Out

Where is my fault ?

 

Hi,

SwissBIT is now Alpengreis ...

Yes, it works now!

PS: It exist a company name whit SwissBIT here in Switzerland - and now, with the new nick it should be no more a problem (hopefully)!
PPS: My combination is F-Secure Internet Security Suite v2014, Windows 7 Firewall with Windows Firewall Control

 

There is no plan to implement groups. Similar to this feature are these three locations in which a rule can be defined: Private, Public, Domain. Defining groups/zones will add useless complexity to WFC or the aim of WFC is to be easy to use and configure. The software that you have mentioned has a lot of features that 99% of users will not even use. I want to keep WFC simple.

Regarding the second question, WFC does not forbid the user to close it. There is no need to make it unstoppable because even if it is not running, the rules apply because they are defined in Windows Firewall. I can modify it to forbid the exit, but in the case of an error this can make the whole system unstable. Anyway, if a malware tries to disable something, it will try to disable Windows Firewall service, not WFC which is a front end and it is used by very few users.

It seems that Microsoft does not use anymore the service Windows Update to check for updates. The current rule that allows Windows Update in WFC is defined for svchost.exe and wuauserv (Windows Update) as the service. As a temporary solution, modify this rule and remove the service (set to Any) and allow all connections on remote port 443. Sometimes, it seems that it uses also port 80. I have created a rule to allow all connections for svchost.exe on remote ports 80,443.

Maybe some users have some new IP ranges that are used by Windows Update to create a more specific rule for it, instead of a generic rule that allows all connections to ports 80,443.

Everybody, please share here your working Windows Update rules, that actually work for you.

 

When I have the time,
Robert

 

Windows Firewall Control v.4.0.2.2 - Update

What's new:
- New: Added Local Addresses field in Manage Rules window. Useful for scenarios in which exist multiple network adapters on the same machine.
- Updated: The Properties dialog from where a rule can be modified was changed and rearranged into only one tab to see all properties in the same place.
- Updated: The recommended rule for Windows Update does work anymore because Windows Update uses a different service for checking for updates. It was updated with a generic rule for svchost.exe that will allow Windows Update.
- Fixed: Notification dialog is displayed out of screen if it is closed in a secondary screen and the screen is not connected anymore. Now, if a window or dialog from WFC contains at least one pixel out of the active screens, the default location will be restored. This applies to all WFC windows and dialogs.
- Removed: The self signed certificate was removed. Because of this certificate, a lot of connections were generated by the operating system to VeriSign and Microsoft servers in the name of wfc.exe and wfcs.exe. The connections were made to check the validity of the certificate by the operating system not by WFC, but a lot of users were concerned about WFC connection attempts which was not the real case.

Installation notes: Just use the updater to update to the new version. That's all. Note that the rule for Windows Update will not be automatically updated. You should delete any previous recommended rules and recreate them again from the corresponding button from Control Panel window.

Download location: http://binisoft.org/download/wfc4setup.exe
SHA1: 5b686d22f6ef609edba0a7def9368c8b63d09bd5

Thank you for your support and your feedback,
The developer

 

I just updated windows 7 x64 sp1 today with Windows Service bound to svchost.exe. I don't think there's a need for a windows update rule change other than adding remote ports 80 and 443.

WFC ver 4.0.2.0

 

I can confirm, that on my Windows 7 x64 sp1 the windows update is still done with wuauserv bound to svchost.exe, too.

 

Win8 Pro x64:

Malewarebytes Anti-Malware Pro
Windows Defender
AppGuard
WFC

Never had any problems.

Robert

 

I can confirm the same on my Surface Pro currently running Windows 8.0; haven't updated WFC yet, but I just began installing this month's patch Tuesday updates.

Ps. might be permanently on 8.0 'cause rumor has it that Microsoft has made 8.1 very NSA friendly; forcing all your data to the NSA cloud...

 

Ok I guess i'm having a blonde moment, I deleted the old rule for windows update so how do I create a new one?

 

1. Delete any rules prefixed with "WFC - ".
2. Press on the button highlighted below.
3. Refresh your rules in Manage Rules window.


Regarding Windows Update on Windows 8 and Windows 8.1, I managed to check successfully for updates only with the new rule. The old rule does not work. Anyway, these are details.

 

DONE! Thanks

Is it safe to delete any invalid rules?

 

I have a problem after updating v.4.0.2.0 to v.4.0.2.2, I am using Windows 7 64bit.

I will try to do a reinstall



The log reads:

 

Please run regedit and navigate to the following key. Delete any values you will find there. They will be recreated automatically when you run wfc.exe.

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\BiniSoft.org\Windows Firewall Control]

Try again to open WFC Control Panel and see if this solves the problem.



P.S. Before doing this, please make a screenshot of the value or note down the value of the PlacementControlPanel that you have. Please post it here to find the problem that caused this.

 

Yes it is safe. If they are invalid it means that they are for files that don't even exist on the disk anymore.