vistafirewallcontrol.freeforums.org

[Oleg]

Hello.

I'm new tester for XP edition. My bug reports and suggestions:
1) When I've installed and reboot, I don't have internet in "Normal" and "Expensive/Insecure Connection".
It was only 1 alert for "System" and I've allow it for "Local System".
Anyway I've placed "System" to "Enable All" zone, Internet doesn't comes.
I've suppose, that is because my Ethernet adapter requires NetBIOS, and when I've turned off NetBIOS services in Windows, I have no Internet.
After this, I've switched to "Enable All" Mode and Internet was working, but some time later, when I try to surfing Internet in browser I've got hard reboot(without BSOD). I've PMed you my Minidump. Also I've connect to Inet over PPPoE.
2) As you see by tray icon, "Enable All" mode is set up

but checkbox is still on previous mode. Same with "Disable All", checkbox only can be in "Normal" or "Expensive/Insecure Connection".
3) XFCR... license is for first field or for second ?
4) Request - statuses of registration in About dialog "Unregistered" or "Registered".
5) Warning when built-in XP firewall is disabled or status of this event.

Sorry for my English.
Best regards, Oleg.

[VistaFirewallControl]

>1) When I've installed and reboot, I don't have internet in "Normal" and "Expensive/Insecure Connection".

Thank you we will try to reproduce.

>I've suppose, that is because my Ethernet adapter requires NetBIOS, and when I've turned off NetBIOS services in Windows, I have no Internet.

Most probably NetBIOS is not involved in the problem. It’s just a protocol bound to the same metalwork card.
Anyway the firewall filters TCP/UDP only and NetBIOS is not used in the world internet.

> I've got hard reboot(without BSOD). I've PMed you my Minidump.

Thank you. The problem is known since yesterday. Unfortunately the filtering driver is in alpha state still.

>2) As you see by tray icon, "Enable All" mode is set up

We will try to verify.

>3) XFCR....... license is for first field or for second ?

For the first. It’s the license code. The second one is registration code should be obtained online with the license code.
http://vistafirewallcontrol.freeforums.org/activation-required-popping-up-t14.html#p34

>4) Request - statuses of registration in About dialog "Unregistered" or "Registered".

We will hardly implement a sign of the “registered” status of the product.
The reason is simple. Any sign of valid registration is “target designation” for the hackers.

>5) Warning when built-in XP firewall is disabled or status of this event.

Windows is able to report the build-in firewall status on its own. Why do we need to duplicate that functionality, please clarify

[Oleg]

Most probably NetBIOS is not involved in the problem. It’s just a protocol bound to the same metalwork card.
Anyway the firewall filters TCP/UDP only and NetBIOS is not used in the world internet.

I've mailed you all my logs, you can see blocks for NetBIOS in "blocked.log"

We will hardly implement a sign of the “registered” status of the product.
The reason is simple. Any sign of valid registration is “target designation” for the hackers.

But how user can check his firewall is registered ? When registration popups is gone?

Windows is able to report the build-in firewall status on its own. Why do we need to duplicate that functionality, please clarify

I'm always disable notifications in Windows Security Center, status in firewall more useable.
BTW what about integration VFC in WSC ?

[VistaFirewallControl]

>I've mailed you all my logs, you can see blocks for NetBIOS in "blocked.log"

The log stated obviously the system core (broadcast to port 137/138) was blocked by Detection, DisableAll or Mode:Limited
So the workgroup computers (not the internet) was blocked by the settings.

>But how user can check his firewall is registered ? When registration popups is gone?

Exactly, no popups coming mean registered as explained in the Register dialog.

>I'm always disable notifications in Windows Security Center, status in firewall more useable.

The original question was why we would need to duplicate the functionally you already intentionally disabled.

>BTW what about integration VFC in WSC ?

The integration has been discontinued. The SecCenter actually is a control panel that does not detect any firewall presence.
To reflect a firewall state the firewall must report the state to the SecCenter on its own.
So nearly any program can report (the API is available under NDA from the manufacture) to WSC “I am installed”; we hardly believe the approach improves a firewall related security.
It probably makes sense for antiviruses mostly.
Even you personally would like to switch the notification off.

[Oleg]

The original question was why we would need to duplicate the functionally you already intentionally disabled.

Hmm, I don't know, something like "Visibility" or "Controllability" for users.

[Oleg]

I've switched to 3.6.1.2

1) Very very low internet speed, in "Normal mode", I've try to disable logging, but nothing changes, sometimes webpages are get only blank page.
In "Enable All" is Ok.
2) Why applications must be restarted to get network access(after allow), this is very uncomfortable.
3) When I click "Other Rules", get this error

[VistaFirewallControl]

>1) Very very low internet speed, in "Normal mode", I've try to disable logging, but nothing changes,

3.6.2 has all the logging switched off. 3.6.1 had only user-mode logging switched off.

>sometimes webpages are get only blank page.
>In "Enable All" is Ok.

Please realize “a program causes a problem” is very hard to investigate.
Is there a site with more or less stable reproduction of the problem?

>2) Why applications must be restarted to get network access(after allow), this is very uncomfortable.

Any initial access attempt of non-listed applications are blocked. Evidently it happens only once per application Almost any modern application “understands” if a connection is failed automated retry is required.
Some application however requires retrying manually. There are also rare old fashioned applications (old IE for instance) have to be restarted just to reestablish the connection.
If you find a lot of application relying on the 100% internet connection success only we would consider to implement “waiting-for-user-permissions” logic.
Actually “initial-access-is blocked” approach is realized in Vista/Windows7 product branch and causes no problems usually.

3) When I click "Other Rules", get this error
Fixed in 3.6.2

[Oleg]

Switched to 3.6.2

Is there a site with more or less stable reproduction of the problem?

1) Ok, now I've found problem:
This happens when Browser in "Web+FTP Zone"(Default). When I've place Internet Explorer 8.0 to "Enable All", restarted browser, all goes Ok.

Evidently it happens only once per application Almost any modern application “understands” if a connection is failed automated retry is required.
Some application however requires retrying manually. There are also rare old fashioned applications (old IE for instance) have to be restarted just to reestablish the connection.
If you find a lot of application relying on the 100% internet connection success only we would consider to implement “waiting-for-user-permissions” logic.
Actually “initial-access-is blocked” approach is realized in Vista/Windows7 product branch and causes no problems usually.

2) I don't know, but most of tested applications are the same thing, for example IE 8.0, LastFM also must be restarted.

3) I've found strange application behaviour, I've "allow all" for it but connction to database failed and after restart application also.
It begin to work only if I restart W7FC or switch to "Enable All" mode.
App is Portable, so you can reproduce it.

[VistaFirewallControl]

>1) Ok, now I've found problem:
This happens when Browser in "Web+FTP Zone"(Default). When I've place Internet Explorer 8.0 to "Enable All", restarted browser, all goes Ok.
We expect the keyword is “restarted browser”. Could you please try.
>2) I don't know, but most of tested applications are the same thing, for example IE 8.0, LastFM also must be restarted.
We were unable to find LastFM standalone application. Most probably you did mean IE navigated to lastfm. So as the above.

>3) I've found strange application behaviour, I've "allow all" for it but connction to database failed and after restart application also.
>App is Portable, so you can reproduce it.
Are there any other samples, some Trojans are detected in the applications; we would not like to run such entities on developers machines.
Could you please check (send us) the blocked.log. All the blocks were probably strictly registered.

[Oleg]

> We expect the keyword is “restarted browser”. Could you please try.
What you mean ? Without restart - browser is very slow internet. All is Ok only in "Enable All" zone.

> We were unable to find LastFM standalone application. Most probably you did mean IE navigated to lastfm. So as the above.
No, I mean LastFM scrobbler. I think it will be cool to options like "Block first access" and "Wait for application".

> Are there any other samples, some Trojans are detected in the applications; we would not like to run such entities on developers machines.
Could you please check (send us) the blocked.log. All the blocks were probably strictly registered.
No, it is 100% clean. http://www.virscan.org/report/a28b4e637 ... 1af89.html (Flase positives)
Anyway, I've found real reason - any W7FC rules are not work, if there non latin(english) letters in the path.