Recommended Posts

Having used Sygate for years until it was bought over and killed by Symantec I then moved to Core Force. Sadly neither are in development or work with Windows 7.

If anyone could recommend a good alterative (Free or Feeware) it would be a great help?

It must have -

  • The ability to open inbound / outbound ports to specific applications and protocols

  • Have a secure setting that blocks everything and prompts for access via popup that can be selected to "remember" the setting

  • The ability to port forward i.e. 80 to 8080 inbound

  • Ideally not have any other junk installed with it, i.e. AV, Malware Scanner etc

  • Ideally not have a gui thats desiged for idiots that dont know what a firewall really can do.

So far the closest thing I've found in Zone Alarm Pro (Free does some of the above). I wasnt a fan of Tinywall or Comodo either.

Anyone got any tips please?

"The ability to port forward i.e. 80 to 8080 inbound"

So this software also has to do NAT? or are you using the built in internet sharing for this?

I would never in a million years connect my windows 7 box directly to the internet - it would be behind my border router/firewall, I currently run pfsense on VM. It provides all the firewall features you could need.

Host firewalls have there uses to be sure, for boxes that roam to different networks - but stationary computers, I see little need of host firewalls unless the network they are connected to is hostile.

Its much easier to manage your network at the border, use of IPS if so desired -- The built in firewall seems more than sufficient as a host based firewall if you ask me. You will find that most of these software/host firewalls cater to selling to the uneducated and use scare tactics to sell their product.

I am curious if your using your windows7 box as your border device or is it behind a nat router already? The use of the term port forward lends me to believe its your router/gateway to boxes behind it?

"The ability to port forward i.e. 80 to 8080 inbound"

So this software also has to do NAT? or are you using the built in internet sharing for this?

I would never in a million years connect my windows 7 box directly to the internet - it would be behind my border router/firewall, I currently run pfsense on VM. It provides all the firewall features you could need.

Host firewalls have there uses to be sure, for boxes that roam to different networks - but stationary computers, I see little need of host firewalls unless the network they are connected to is hostile.

Its much easier to manage your network at the border, use of IPS if so desired -- The built in firewall seems more than sufficient as a host based firewall if you ask me. You will find that most of these software/host firewalls cater to selling to the uneducated and use scare tactics to sell their product.

I am curious if your using your windows7 box as your border device or is it behind a nat router already? The use of the term port forward lends me to believe its your router/gateway to boxes behind it?

God no its not directly on the net, it sits behind a hardware fw in a different segment. Its just internally I dont like to open standard ports (when I can avoid it) sorry i guess I should have said 8080 to 80 on a one-to-one relationship rather than NAT one-to-many for example.

TBH the main reason I want a host FW is to be able to block specific applications from having internet access but still having local network access on my "lan". The moment someone writes an agent that can sit on a host and set the config on a dedicated FW to block src, dst, port and application (executable) I'd buy it straight away rather than have multiple host fws with different policies etc.

Currently im in the middle of trying to get an ESXi box built so I can do pretty much exactly what your doing with something better than the cr@p FW built into the router, but still doesnt get round my .exe requirement.

Hope this makes this a little clearer?

"8080 to 80"

What? That is still a forward on a nat.. If its just the host, then you would have the application listen on said port ;) Or you would have your border router forward 8080 to 80 to your box listening on 80, etc.. That statement still makes no sense.

As to blocking exe -- I fail to see a reason this is ever required other than circumvention of some phone home licensing scheme.

If you don't want something talking on the net, then you shouldn't be running said exe in the first place. Once a exe runs all is lost to be honest, what keeps said exe you ran from just turning off said firewall and or opening up the ports it needs on the local firewall. Sure a firewall can keep legit software from talking on the net, but its not a valid security method for preventing malware, etc. You don't run the malware in the first place is the idea ;)

So are there hostile boxes on your local network segment? If not - I still not seeing the need for host firewall. All of mine are off -- it makes management more difficult for no reason. My network is secure at the trust border (internet) All devices are trusted and managed/secured by me that are on my network - ports that would be used in transfer from one machine to another machine if a worm did get in are open anyway. Since I file share between machines. Services I do not use are not running in the first place. I only run software that I trust, and have a IDS running so that if for say any weird exe did slip through and started sending weird traffic I would be notified, etc.

Good luck in your search, but the firewall that came with your box is more than sufficient for a host firewall. Why should you trust or think that some 3rd party could hook into the OS better than the maker of the OS?? I never got that mentality. Funny how in the linux world there is no firewall prevents exe from talking on the net. They all just do what they should do an block protocol and ports, or you can block a specific userid - I don't know of one that works on say a hash of the exe that is trying to talk on the network. Now you could secure the box with SELinux or use Apparmor and lock down applications from doing things they should not do - but that is not a firewall. In windows you could use applocker, part of the OS to limit what exe can run in the first place. This seems like a better approach then letting the exe run - and then either blocking or allowing its network access. What I have seen with these sorts of firewalls is the user just allows everything that pops up, or they block stuff that they should be allowing ;) Have seen where they blocked box from being able to get dhcp address or even lookup up dns because they did not understand what some exe was doing.

I have been asking for years and years around here for an example of why you need to block exe from talking to the network, when said exe is something you choose to run in the first place. If not something you choose to ran, blocking it from talking to the network is pointless and a defeatist attitude in security. Now if you want to lock your box down to NOT run applications you have not ok'd, I get that - and that is good policy. But trying to just block network access and allow anything that you click on to run or that tries to run on its own is looking at it the wrong way if you ask me.

edit: Here is something that might help, you seem interested in something that tells you what is trying to go outbound, and then allowing you to block or allow said application. Take a look at this - this uses just the built in firewall to accomplish what your after

http://www.howtogeek.com/113641/how-to-extend-the-windows-firewall-and-easily-block-outgoing-connections/

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!