News and Reviews > Mini-Reviews by Members

Windows Firewall Control - Mini Review

<< < (4/5) > >>

4wd:
@IainB: I know it's my fault but when I first saw your post I spent 30 minutes doing a nice rational reply regarding perceived faults in WFC before I realised you were talking about WFN.

Any chance you could highlight the difference a bit more in the opening sentence, (font size, colour, something), since while the names and operation are similar they are two completely unrelated programs.

I suppose I must update my WFC review at some point, v4 added a few more nice features.

IainB:
@4wd: I think it could be an easy mistake to make. I was concerned to make the difference clear as well, but evidently did not do a good enough job!    :o

I made an edit to my post above, to emphasis the difference between WFC and WFN, and that the problem described was with WFN.

TaoPhoenix:
Broadly, this program behavior bothers me immensely, and you have done (part of?) a service towards us in general!

The details of this next bit are certainly sideways enough to spawn off into a new thread soon, but you just gave me an idea for a very low level anti-malware tool!

"Assume incompetence before malice", let's assume that it *wasn't* a prank or malware, but just disastrously made and a grouchy developer. What if there was a very low level tool that simply blocked any process except white-listed, from having more than one process instance at a time? Going into Task Manager, the only ones I always have are svchost.exe, and there could be a rule that allows two instances because either browsers, or even reg programs like my copy of chessbase tend to open twice if you keep trying to open while the machine is busy doing something. But then no un-whitelisted process should need three or more!

Anyone have quick ideas before I make this a general thread discussion?

IainB:
...and you have done (part of?) a service towards us in general!
______________________________
-TaoPhoenix (June 19, 2015, 12:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, that was the general idea. I had been responsible for earlier making a comment about WFN in this thread, but did not mention any problems with it, as I had experienced none, at the time. It was when I took a look at the next/latest Alpha release that I got a shock and thought I had better alert readers to that.
In much the same vein, I alerted readers to the evident potential lack of permanence in so-called "security" in the Tresorit Terms & Conditions of Service, for users of the "FREE" version.
However, the two cases probably need to be distinguished by their differences:
(a) the WFN episode would appear to be "mistake" - maybe (say) "bad" programming, or similar.
(b) the Tresorit episode would seem to be attributable to apparently deliberate and arguably sharp practice in the wording and warnings in the Ts&Cs, and which certainly misled me - and have probably misled other users for all we know.

mouser:
I'm only 5 years late to the party, but I'm checking out the app now, and I'm liking what I see.  Thanks for the review.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page