vistafirewallcontrol.freeforums.org

[wernerapnj]

I thought that this app was named Windows Firewall Control for a specific reason....
It appears that it does not actually control the Windows Firewall but just adds to it.
Please clarify what the purpose/interface is.
I look at the Advanced Windows FW settings and there are entries there that seem to have
no relation to this App. Conversely I look at the setting in this app and the Windows rules seem
not to be 'Controled'

My assumption was that this app would provide a GUI into ALL the Widows Firewall items.

[VistaFirewallControl]

Please read the F.A.Q
----------
Windows 7 Firewall Control and the Built-in Firewall (WindowsFirewall)
Windows7FirewallControl is completely based on Windows Filtering Platform (WFP), the security core introduced in Windows Vista. The Built-in Firewall is based on the same WFP as well. The both products work entirely independently. Due to complete product independence you can switch the Built-in Firewall ON or OFF at your option.
------------
So the both WindowsFirewallControl and WidowsFirewall are independent GUIs to WFP, the both do not show the filtering rules of each other and do not manage the rules of each other.
WFP has layered structure; WidowsFirewallControl and WindowsFirewall operate on different layers.

[wernerapnj]

Ah - OK, as I understand you - the Windows Firewall and W7FC are in series and are both looking at traffic against their own sets of rules ? However the notification pop-ups reflect both processes ?

If that is the case Its obvious that this can cause confusion and problems. I had always thought it is recommended to use only one utility at a time (ie one firewall, one virus scanner, etc) and not place redundent systems in series.

Why not have W7FC inherit the rules from WF and then turn WF OFF - wouldn't that be a much better approach ? All this time I thought I had full controll of all rules through W7FC, but that is apparantly not the case.

[VistaFirewallControl]

> the Windows Firewall and W7FC are in series and are both looking at traffic against their own sets of rules ?

“In series” is a bit simplified impression. The rules processing sequence/priority is more complex, but “both looking at traffic” is correct

>However the notification pop-ups reflect both processes ?

This makes the entire network management/diagnostics more predictable.

>to use only one utility at a time (ie one firewall, one virus scanner, etc) and not place redundent systems in series.

Understanding the genuine reasons of the recommendation should be helpful.
All the previous firewalls and all AVs are based on their own kernel drivers. The kernel driver compatibility is not guaranteed. Moreover some firewall creators wanting to be on the top of the traffic processing chain “manipulate” with the other drivers in the chain (if any) making the entire system crash more probable. However some firewalls successful co-existence is known.
W7FC does NOT include any kernel drivers, so there is no reason for such recommendations.
W7FC is compatible to any other firewall as any average App-1.exe is compatible to any other App-2.exe


>Why not have W7FC inherit the rules from WF and then turn WF OFF - wouldn't that be a much better approach ?

Hardly. The initial W7FC versions only implemented the approach but we decided to rearrange because of
- WindowsFirewall rules are intended for different purpose – protecting against incomings only. We provide with outgoing security as well
- WindowsFirewall has many applicationsless rules blocking the incoming traffic to the entire system, it’s against W7FC’s application centric concept.
-WindowsFirewall rules are not protected, any other program (typically games) can easily manipulate with the rules on its own. W7FC rules are protected.
- Possible simultaneous editing of the same rules from W7FC and WindowsFirewall applets would be hardly more successful than editing a text file with two separate text editors at once.