Serious Discussion Minimal Firewall

All rules created by Simplewall get removed after its uninstallation; to be on the safe side, just click disable protection icon before uninstallation.
Users reported blocked Internet access after uninstalling simplewall. Either way, this is not optimal. Personally I prefer WFC but I see its end inevitable. MB will either kill it or make it paid. But I predict they will just kill it. They recently incorporated it in their consumer and business products.
 
  • Hundred Points
Reactions: Parkinsond
MF blocked Defender signature updates without giving an alert. A big no-no. I uninstall instantly when things like this happen.

Built-in Windows protections work fine on their own.
After trying almost every single Firewall app, I started to think in a different way. What if I just create a rule in OSA to block new installers of created their rules in WF? This way the currently installed apps access Internet while new ones are not unless I explicitly allow them to?

I also believe this is also achievable via GP.
 
Users reported blocked Internet access after uninstalling simplewall.
This is because users don’t read manuals or instructions. Here’s what the developer mentioned about the uninstallation process on his GitHub page:
When you uninstall simplewall, all previously configured filters stay alive in system. To remove all filters created by simplewall, start simplewall and press "Disable filters" button.
 
This is because users don’t read manuals or instructions. Here’s what the developer mentioned about the uninstallation process on his GitHub page:

Well, thanks for sharing this, but what about explicitly asking user to disable filters during uninstallation (a checkbox with a warning maybe?).

Such a critical consequence should not happen without a warning.
 
Well, thanks for sharing this, but what about explicitly asking user to disable filters during uninstallation (a checkbox with a warning maybe?).

Such a critical consequence should not happen without a warning.
Your point of view is completely right, but in the installation process he mentioned that the user has to implement the rules, so it should be obvious that the user must remove them. Maybe the developer assumed all users are advanced users. 😅
 
MF blocked Defender signature updates without giving an alert. A big no-no. I uninstall instantly when things like this happen.

Built-in Windows protections work fine on their own.
WFC did the same when I deleted all default rules and started adding rules one by one with each prompt.
Even manually adding a rule to allow MD update did not work.

I uninstalled WFC, tired of the prompts for normal unsigned Windows file connections, etc. I don't do enough online or installing multiple apps, or of "unknown" apps for that level, IMO, of hand holding paranoia (PC's with F-Secure installed). I blocked PowerShell in WF, and I'm done.
 
Last edited:
Your point of view is completely right, but in the installation process he mentioned that the user has to implement the rules, so it should be obvious that the user must remove them. Maybe the developer assumed all users are advanced users. 😅
You're right. I can say with confidence the majority of SW users are advanced users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool