a new Vista firewall

[CZ]

FYI:

I have been testing the "VistaFirewallControl" firewall program in Vista
RTM.
http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/index.html

It offers outbound app control in a manner similar to ZA free.
I use it with Vista's firewall enabled.

No problems so far.

Technically, it functions as an application gate rather than a packet filter
type of firewall.

 

[Daze N. Knights]

Interesting. I can't believe that I haven't had a chance to fool with it
yet. But I'd read a review earlier that said the outboard was turned off
by default and somehow rather problematic to use . . . ? I am well-used
to ZA free, so if it's similar to that, it shouldn't be too difficult, I
would think. Thanks for your report.

 

[Daze N. Knights]

Hmm. Please ignore my response. I misunderstood what CZ was saying . . .

 

[Richard Urban]

You are a bad as the trolls that are constantly complaining about how poor
they think Vista is.

Anything can be improved upon!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[CZ]

Why would any person desire polluting the most incredibly Secure OS as Vista
by installing a third party application as you describe?

Respectfully expressed, don’t you think if what you describe was factually
important it would be included within Vista?

Firewall:

MS cannot cover all desired features in an op system for several reasons
(i.e., anti-competitive lawsuits, time constraints).

I do not consider any software product as "incredibly secure". IMO, MS
produces good products that required corrective patches, and whose
functionality can be enhanced via third party products.

Many users value the outbound application control that a program like ZA
provides, that Vista does not provide.

 

[Daze N. Knights]

It was my understanding that the Vista firewall *does* provide outbound
protection, except that it comes turned off by default and therefore
would need to be turned on. ?

 

[Roscoe]

You are one sarcastic SOB........

CZ,
Why would any person desire polluting the most incredibly Secure OS as
Vista
by installing a third party application as you describe?

Respectfully expressed, don’t you think if what you describe was factually
important it would be included within Vista?

 

[Roscoe]

Thanks CZ. Good info.

Why are you using it with the Vista Firewall? Do you perceive that Sphinx
can't go it alone?

JT

 

[Dale]

So it can be used to stop WMP 11 from phoning home and replacing my album
art?

Dale

 

[CZ]

Why are you using it with the Vista Firewall? Do you perceive thatcan't go it alone?

Roscoe:

There are different firewall (f/w) technologies.

The VistaFirewallControl program appears to function as an application gate
f/w only.
The Vista RTM firewall appears to be a stateful packet filter with
application gate functionality.

Generally, an application gate by itself is considered to be a weak f/w
overall (but it can still be very useful).

The VistaFirewallControl program is much easier to configure for outbound
app control than the Vista f/w. Also, generally for the initial outbound
attempt by an app, the VistaFirewallControl program will display a dialog
and block the attempt until you select an action (the default is to block),
whereas Vista's f/w will not prompt you (and the default in the absence of a
rule is to allow).

The above comments are general, as I was waiting for the Vista RTM op system
before probing Vista's f/w. Once I take the time to probe it, I will post
my comments.

Summary: specific answers to your question:
I use VistaFirewallControl to have notification of an app's initial outbound
attempt & a default of blockage.
I use Vista's f/w to have stateful packet filtering.

I would not run VistaFirewallControl with Vista's f/w disabled unless I was
behind a NAT-router.

 

[CZ]

Re: VistaFirewallControl

Dale

It should be able to stop the WMP 11 program from phoning home.

 

[Roscoe]

can't go it alone?

Roscoe:

There are different firewall (f/w) technologies.

The VistaFirewallControl program appears to function as an application
gate f/w only.
The Vista RTM firewall appears to be a stateful packet filter with
application gate functionality.

Generally, an application gate by itself is considered to be a weak f/w
overall (but it can still be very useful).

The VistaFirewallControl program is much easier to configure for outbound
app control than the Vista f/w. Also, generally for the initial outbound
attempt by an app, the VistaFirewallControl program will display a dialog
and block the attempt until you select an action (the default is to
block), whereas Vista's f/w will not prompt you (and the default in the
absence of a rule is to allow).

The above comments are general, as I was waiting for the Vista RTM op
system before probing Vista's f/w. Once I take the time to probe it, I
will post my comments.

Summary: specific answers to your question:
I use VistaFirewallControl to have notification of an app's initial
outbound attempt & a default of blockage.
I use Vista's f/w to have stateful packet filtering.

I would not run VistaFirewallControl with Vista's f/w disabled unless I
was behind a NAT-router.

Thanks for the explanation. I look forward to you comments.

 

[Richard Urban]

Bitlocker is not a firewall.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"Factually, Vista’s BitLocker is indeed the newest most high tech Firewall"
Incorrect

You need to read a little about BitLocker and firewalls.
They are not the same at all and one does nothing to replace a need for the
other.
BitLocker:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/hwsecurity/BitLockerFAQ.mspx

Windows Firewall:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0106.mspx

About the only thing they have in common is they both are security measures
for your data.
You can also search Google for more information on both.

 

[Guest]

Richard,

As you are fully aware, BitLocker fully Encrypts the OS. EFS fully encrypts
user defined files and/or folders, and consider the benefits provided by DEP
(no, DEP is not encrypted).

My definition of Vista's 256 encryption is simply an acronym because the 256
cipher is a "Firewall" that hackers can not prostitute.

Sincerely, if you are aware of an online method for penetrating Vista's 256
encryption, please share your knowledge with me.

 

[Guest]

Jupiter,

As you are fully aware, BitLocker fully Encrypts the OS. EFS fully encrypts
user defined files and/or folders, and consider the benefits provided by DEP
(no, DEP is not encrypted).

My definition of Vista's 256 encryption is simply an acronym because the 256
cipher is a "Firewall" that hackers can not prostitute.

Sincerely, if you are aware of an online method for penetrating Vista's 256
encryption, please share your knowledge with me.

--
Firewall

"Factually, Vista’s BitLocker is indeed the newest most high tech Firewall"
Incorrect

You need to read a little about BitLocker and firewalls.
They are not the same at all and one does nothing to replace a need for the
other.
BitLocker:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/hwsecurity/BitLockerFAQ.mspx

Windows Firewall:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0106.mspx

About the only thing they have in common is they both are security measures
for your data.
You can also search Google for more information on both.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[Richard Urban]

Again, it is an encryption methodology - NOT a fire wall, whatever "YOU" may
choose to call it.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!