Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Looking for alternative to Windows Firewall to block IP Adress
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Galadrium" data-source="post: 962343" data-attributes="member: 91632"><p>Ok I tested both out.</p><p>Strangely enough, I find that WFC worked while Tiny wall didn't. I tested this out after uninstalling Evorim Free Firewall.</p><p></p><p>Here is my test result with WFC in an attempt to block 202.138.178.80</p><p>[ATTACH=full]261475[/ATTACH]</p><p>You can see that the rule is enabled with MB WFC</p><p></p><p>However, if I disable it in WFC and try blocking the same IP address with Simplewall, it does not work</p><p>[ATTACH=full]261476[/ATTACH]</p><p>The rule is enabled in Simplewall and disabled in MB's WFC.</p><p></p><p>I find it odd that is this the case, or perhaps NormanF's suggestion is true?</p><p></p><p>Edit: Further tested blocking an IP range in MB's WFC</p><p>Blocking 202.138.178.0-202.138.178.255 works. I tried pinging several IPs within this range and they were all blocked</p><p>Blocking an even greater IP range of 202.138.0.0-202.138.255.255 also works</p><p></p><p>I am impressed with MB's WFC. It is just what I need</p><p>I am not really going for a per-program basis block because what if the attacker is relying on a masked IP forwarding service (like No-ip) and uses a range of IP but masks what program he actually uses. It's like playing whack-a-mole if I would try blocking on a per program basis. I feel there's more flexibility to block on an IP basis as he would eventually run out of available IPs to use.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Galadrium, post: 962343, member: 91632"] Ok I tested both out. Strangely enough, I find that WFC worked while Tiny wall didn't. I tested this out after uninstalling Evorim Free Firewall. Here is my test result with WFC in an attempt to block 202.138.178.80 [ATTACH type="full" width="851px" alt="R1.png"]261475[/ATTACH] You can see that the rule is enabled with MB WFC However, if I disable it in WFC and try blocking the same IP address with Simplewall, it does not work [ATTACH type="full" alt="R2.png"]261476[/ATTACH] The rule is enabled in Simplewall and disabled in MB's WFC. I find it odd that is this the case, or perhaps NormanF's suggestion is true? Edit: Further tested blocking an IP range in MB's WFC Blocking 202.138.178.0-202.138.178.255 works. I tried pinging several IPs within this range and they were all blocked Blocking an even greater IP range of 202.138.0.0-202.138.255.255 also works I am impressed with MB's WFC. It is just what I need I am not really going for a per-program basis block because what if the attacker is relying on a masked IP forwarding service (like No-ip) and uses a range of IP but masks what program he actually uses. It's like playing whack-a-mole if I would try blocking on a per program basis. I feel there's more flexibility to block on an IP basis as he would eventually run out of available IPs to use. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top