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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Windows Defender Firewall Critique Part 2
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 1100297" data-attributes="member: 67091"><p>Please, allow me to paste the same comment I made to your other similar post:</p><p>In general, I totally agree with your comment.</p><p>But comms is just the tip of the iceberg. If the device is infected, firewall can do almost nothing to solve the problem. Here a real modern antivirus/malware is needed.</p><p>Also, take the example of Comodo, an abandonware since 2017 + full of unfixed bugs... by default, Comodo Firewall allows comms for "safe files", where "safe files" is just an arbitrary list made by Comodo (last update 15 years ago). Under this category you will find SYSTEM, Windows Services, SVCHOST etc etc etc... I repeat, all allowed by Comodo default. And in real life, it's possible to find thousand of cases where virus/malware hijacked all these "safe files" allowed by Comodo, and managed to have comms. And considering that Comodo can't customize fiirewall rules for Windows Services, Svchost etc, "default deny" doesn't work here.</p><p>Again, I agree with you, I'm just complementing by saying that "default deny" is not the panacea, not for files, nor for comms. And average users have zero chance to deal with "default deny" strategies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 1100297, member: 67091"] Please, allow me to paste the same comment I made to your other similar post: In general, I totally agree with your comment. But comms is just the tip of the iceberg. If the device is infected, firewall can do almost nothing to solve the problem. Here a real modern antivirus/malware is needed. Also, take the example of Comodo, an abandonware since 2017 + full of unfixed bugs... by default, Comodo Firewall allows comms for "safe files", where "safe files" is just an arbitrary list made by Comodo (last update 15 years ago). Under this category you will find SYSTEM, Windows Services, SVCHOST etc etc etc... I repeat, all allowed by Comodo default. And in real life, it's possible to find thousand of cases where virus/malware hijacked all these "safe files" allowed by Comodo, and managed to have comms. And considering that Comodo can't customize fiirewall rules for Windows Services, Svchost etc, "default deny" doesn't work here. Again, I agree with you, I'm just complementing by saying that "default deny" is not the panacea, not for files, nor for comms. And average users have zero chance to deal with "default deny" strategies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top