Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wat0114" data-source="post: 1101611" data-attributes="member: 91306">I have no problem paying for an actively developed application Windows firewall. I bought a license for Sphinx firewall some years ago, and I was very impressed with it, but they seem to have stopped development on it. [USER=98994]@Pico[/USER] I overlooked Simplewall and Fort Firewall. I will maybe check these out. Either that, or just stay with Linux and keep it simple. Thanks! [USER=67091]@Decopi[/USER] Yes, Windows firewall has some strengths, but the interface to create rules is cumbersome and time consuming, and the lack of support for wildcards in path rules is problematic. This is also something WFC can&#039;t address.My Linux UFW ruleset:[ATTACH]285460[/ATTACH]Ports&nbsp; 465 and 995 for email client, some remote specific IP&#039;s to insecure port 80 for Linux repositories, Cloudflare DNS to remote port 53, time updates to tcp 123, and the rest quite obvious, especially remote TCP 443. I also denied in to 0.0.0.0 because of some recent malicious attack on this IP from the browser. These rules, of course, apply to all applications requesting outbound comms.Finally, and because this thread is about Comodo, the firewall can be elevated to greatness, best of the best, if the developers can iron out some long reported bugs and make the firewall gui much easier to configure rules as per end user requirements. The documentation is, imho, excellent as well. An example of this:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://help.comodo.com/topic-72-1-284-3022-General-Settings.html?af=10978[/URL]Obviously a lot of time and effort went into this documentation, it is some of the best I&#039;ve seen for a Windows security application.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wat0114, post: 1101611, member: 91306"] I have no problem paying for an actively developed application Windows firewall. I bought a license for Sphinx firewall some years ago, and I was very impressed with it, but they seem to have stopped development on it. [USER=98994]@Pico[/USER] I overlooked Simplewall and Fort Firewall. I will maybe check these out. Either that, or just stay with Linux and keep it simple. Thanks! [USER=67091]@Decopi[/USER] Yes, Windows firewall has some strengths, but the interface to create rules is cumbersome and time consuming, and the lack of support for wildcards in path rules is problematic. This is also something WFC can't address. My Linux UFW ruleset: [ATTACH]285460[/ATTACH] Ports 465 and 995 for email client, some remote specific IP's to insecure port 80 for Linux repositories, Cloudflare DNS to remote port 53, time updates to tcp 123, and the rest quite obvious, especially remote TCP 443. I also denied in to 0.0.0.0 because of some recent malicious attack on this IP from the browser. These rules, of course, apply to all applications requesting outbound comms. Finally, and because this thread is about Comodo, the firewall can be elevated to greatness, best of the best, if the developers can iron out some long reported bugs and make the firewall gui much easier to configure rules as per end user requirements. The documentation is, imho, excellent as well. An example of this: [URL unfurl="true"]https://help.comodo.com/topic-72-1-284-3022-General-Settings.html?af=10978[/URL] Obviously a lot of time and effort went into this documentation, it is some of the best I've seen for a Windows security application. [/QUOTE]

Verification