Is Windows Firewall enough?

[Guest]

Hi,

titlw says it all, I have default settings on Windows firewall is the firewall itself enough to protect me? I have Avast,Malwarebytes and Hitman Pro, which is decent virus and malware protection but will the firewall protect me? 

 

Should I install a third party firewall?

[Guest]

It's all about the person behind the keyboard. Do you feel like you do scary things? Do you stain your pants often? Get a 3rd party firewall. Otherwise, keep the stock firewall. It's good enough.

[JakeNTech]

It depends on what you do. For most people its more then fine. Firewalls don't do all that much for the end user anyway.  Also using three antivirus programmes isn't recommended. You may want to consider a network monitoring programme to monitor incoming and outgoing connections. 

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

the best defense is not letting it into your computer in the first place and firewalls can be more of a pain then help 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, fixitnow said:

It depends on what you do. For most people its more then fine. Firewalls don't do all that much for the end user anyway.  Also using three antivirus programmes isn't recommended. You may want to consider a network monitoring programme to monitor incoming and outgoing connections. 

Avast is an antivirus

Malwarebutes is both an antivirus and anti malware and can be used with an AV

Hitman Pro is an anti malware and anti malware scanners do not conflict. 

 

 

[JakeNTech]

Just now, Vielo said:

Avast is an antivirus

Malwarebutes is both an antivirus and anti malware and can be used with an AV

Hitman Pro is an anti malware and anti malware scanners do not conflict. 

 

 

ok, I still don't recommend using more then one. 

[VinZie]

48 minutes ago, fixitnow said:

ok, I still don't recommend using more then one. 

I don't see why you shouldn't use more then one? I use 5 personally and I use 2 different 3rd party firewalls. Not using more then one anti virus is like locking your door knob lock but leaving your deadbolt unlocked? Different AV detect different viruses.

[JakeNTech]

1 hour ago, VinZie said:

I don't see why you shouldn't use more then one? I use 5 personally and I use 2 different 3rd party firewalls. Not using more then one anti virus is like locking your door knob lock but leaving your deadbolt unlocked? Different AV detect different viruses.

I don't recommend using more then one as they tend to clash and "weigh down" your system. I wrote this yesterday for another post but it is somewhat applicable:(I can't remember where I put it but still had the txt file I made of it):

 

Different anti-virus/malwher/spywher/adwhere all have different features and different uses cases, some like advast  are designed to be fairly light weight but will still get the job done. Malwherebytes is designed to catch everything that the others might not pick up on. Different people have different views on antivirus programs, I used to install advast and then if needs be I use malwherebytes and will never touch hitman pro. its also what you are used to, If you are are used to one and it has done what you wanted it too then your going to stick with it.

Using more then one isn't recommended as they often clash,can cause crashes and in some extreme cases corrupt files. 

Antivirus programes all have there own databases of harmful files some are faster to update theres then others, and most programmes do flag files that are harmless as its not in there database yet. But all the databases will contain the most “popular” virus/infections. 

You also have to remember that there is a difference between a virus, malwhere and adwhere. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKxuKWsA_JI)

Many people also use network monitoring as-well/instead of antivirus programmes to make sure that there are no unidentified connections, programs such as little snitch for mac as an example.

To be honest you don't have to use an antivirus programme but just be careful what websites you visit, what you download and what you install. I have not been using one for years now,on the few windows PC's I own, and only install them in safe mode when I am suspicious about something on that installation of windows. Windows defender is also relatively good as its Microsoft's best intentions to make sure that you stay with windows and don't move any where else.

Avast now offers "Game mode" which is supposed to make it be "optimised" for when you are gaming but it probably makes no difference aside from not showing you offers or random facts. Different antivirus programs will contain different features to draw you in. They also try to make sure that they have covered every use case but they tend to fail on that. 

If you are ever suspicious about a virus then make sure to use your preferred scanner and websites,like  virustotal.com, or just google the files or suspicious activity. 

If you are really hot on security then windows probably isn't for you, which is why many people today are moving to OS X. Yes there are viruses for OS X but they are incredibly easy to spot and are relatively harmless as they can't touch the system files. Avast does offer a "Package" for OS X but its really useless all it really does is tell you that the website you are on is dodgy and may harm you computer. 

What I recommend for virus protection, if you don't want to go with out it, is avast for day to day tasks and then malwherebytes for suspicious activity or a yearly "clean" of you pc. 

Say what you will about different programmes but at the end of the day its personal opinion and saying on is superior then another is wrong, they are all designed to make sure that your system is secure as possible no matter what way there go about doing it. 

The fist thing to do when you suspect a virus is to disconnect from the internet and start scanning and backing up your stuff. 

In most cases once a virus hits there isn't much you can do anyway, aside from learn why you got it, how to be more carful and then reinstall windows. 

 

 

[Qantumentangled]

I manage a domain with a lot of users ranging from 100% incompetent to clumsy front-end programmers and I use basically the same setup on all of them (the windows ones at least).

 

MalwareBytes: Do not run on boot, only run once every 2 - 7 days depending, full-scale.

 

Clam-Win / Clam-AV: Run at boot, it's mostly silent and just does it's thing. Usually just breaks malware & virus binaries until MalwareBytes actually cleans them 100% out. I've never seen anyone else use it but I swear by it.

 

CCleaner: Run once at boot to clean everything (stock settings), not run in the background.

 

And every month or so I'll check userland for what strange apps have been installed and do education where needed. With Windows Defender running that's really all I feel is necessary in userland for most business-ish users. Of course if you're Torrenting stuff and downloading things all the time you might want to tighten your timers down to daily & make sure you educate yourself on exactly where your network traffic is coming from/to at any given time.

 

Gotta be careful out there.

[bcguru9384]

12 hours ago, fixitnow said:

I don't recommend using more then one as they tend to clash and "weigh down" your system. I wrote this yesterday for another post but it is somewhat applicable:(I can't remember where I put it but still had the txt file I made of it):

 

Different anti-virus/malwher/spywher/adwhere all have different features and different uses cases, some like advast  are designed to be fairly light weight but will still get the job done. Malwherebytes is designed to catch everything that the others might not pick up on. Different people have different views on antivirus programs, I used to install advast and then if needs be I use malwherebytes and will never touch hitman pro. its also what you are used to, If you are are used to one and it has done what you wanted it too then your going to stick with it.

Using more then one isn't recommended as they often clash,can cause crashes and in some extreme cases corrupt files. 

Antivirus programes all have there own databases of harmful files some are faster to update theres then others, and most programmes do flag files that are harmless as its not in there database yet. But all the databases will contain the most “popular” virus/infections. 

You also have to remember that there is a difference between a virus, malwhere and adwhere. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKxuKWsA_JI)

Many people also use network monitoring as-well/instead of antivirus programmes to make sure that there are no unidentified connections, programs such as little snitch for mac as an example.

To be honest you don't have to use an antivirus programme but just be careful what websites you visit, what you download and what you install. I have not been using one for years now,on the few windows PC's I own, and only install them in safe mode when I am suspicious about something on that installation of windows. Windows defender is also relatively good as its Microsoft's best intentions to make sure that you stay with windows and don't move any where else.

Avast now offers "Game mode" which is supposed to make it be "optimised" for when you are gaming but it probably makes no difference aside from not showing you offers or random facts. Different antivirus programs will contain different features to draw you in. They also try to make sure that they have covered every use case but they tend to fail on that. 

If you are ever suspicious about a virus then make sure to use your preferred scanner and websites,like  virustotal.com, or just google the files or suspicious activity. 

If you are really hot on security then windows probably isn't for you, which is why many people today are moving to OS X. Yes there are viruses for OS X but they are incredibly easy to spot and are relatively harmless as they can't touch the system files. Avast does offer a "Package" for OS X but its really useless all it really does is tell you that the website you are on is dodgy and may harm you computer. 

What I recommend for virus protection, if you don't want to go with out it, is avast for day to day tasks and then malwherebytes for suspicious activity or a yearly "clean" of you pc. 

Say what you will about different programmes but at the end of the day its personal opinion and saying on is superior then another is wrong, they are all designed to make sure that your system is secure as possible no matter what way there go about doing it. 

The fist thing to do when you suspect a virus is to disconnect from the internet and start scanning and backing up your stuff. 

In most cases once a virus hits there isn't much you can do anyway, aside from learn why you got it, how to be more carful and then reinstall windows. 

 

 

use 1 firewall for ports 

1 for ip 

1 for programs

each firewal gets allowed rules in each of the firewalls but if port firewall then it has rule to block all ip/programs in or out but then has allow these ports out/in

if ip/program firewall it similiar rule structure

then the 1 "doorman" firewall has basic rules and when not sure sends to appropriate firewall

[Guest]

15 hours ago, VinZie said:

I don't see why you shouldn't use more then one? I use 5 personally and I use 2 different 3rd party firewalls. Not using more then one anti virus is like locking your door knob lock but leaving your deadbolt unlocked? Different AV detect different viruses.

Thats a bit overkill but it would not hurt I dont have that many protection products because I never go on sketchy websites I use Avast + Windows Defender + Malwarebytes + Hitman Pro UAC at max and Windows firewall with default settings I believe I am well protected. Correct me if I am wrong.

[JakeNTech]

10 hours ago, Raxzzer said:

That's bullcrap. If only opinions mattered and test results weren't important we wouldn't have independent labs running tests and antivirus vendors competing against each other in order to improve their product. Some products are simply better than others when the numbers present themselves. As a quick example you thinking Avast being the best is a personal opinion, though Avira, Bitdefender and Kaspesky testing better than Avast would be a result, which is based on data and not your biased and uneducated opinion. Since we're mostly talking about margins here that's not very important, but it should prove the point that it's not all opinion-based, especially on a forum where people are asking for advice on the best option and not just the single product that you've been using and decided is the best without actually referring to any relevant data. 

 

Some products also require additional knowlegde where you'll have to make a decision yourself based on what the program offers you. An example would be uploading a file to VirusTotal, which very often retuns a false positive. That service is useless if you can't interpret the resulting output, and you should ask someone for help if you're not steady when it comes to separating false positives from malicious files (which can actually sometimes be a bit of a pain).

Again its what you are used too. I don't care about the tests that they done on them as I use AV's that have got the job done for me. Let put in in other words for a moment. If you had enough money to go out and buy a super car using numbers you wouldn't buy one as its too expensive, bad on road tax,bad on fuel economy,bad insurance and will cost an arm and leg to fiix when it goes wrong. So using numbers you would end up with a suzuki. but the lancia delta is better

.Numbers don't really mean much to me as most of the time those numbers are extremely hard to replicate for the end user, and most youtube videos are made in such away that they seem untrue and would seem quite bias. 

Beleving what test results is like believing what a poliaticiton says, or going back to the car thing again, like believing that you car will actually hit that MPG number on the handbook. With MPG tests the cars are allowed to have there breaks freed off, they are placed on a rolling road that can counterbalance weight, there is no air flow,cornering or aceltating in those tests; all they do is get a computer set it to a certain speed and then wait for it to run out, while different thats similar to how they get numbers for computers, unless its a benchmark for a GPU or CPU. 

I think advast is better as I have used it forever and it has protected me for about 5 years now and I have never had any issues with it not detecting viruses, nor have I have any viruses. 

It's opinion based as different people have different views on security. For me I am not too bothered as I don't use windows any more, but other people are really hot on it and will run enterprise grade software because it gives them more protection, and as I said windows defender will do for most people.

I give my opinion of forums as it allows others to draw there own conclusions for it, and in fairness that post was meant for another thread where people where asking what AV to use. I also hate to point it out by the definition of a forum is "a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." surly that means opinions? And this is a thread that has the tittle is "Is windows firewall enough?" And that is opinion related as there is no definitive answer as there are many different use cases where it may not be enough. So I think that there is nothing wrong with expressing my opinion on a forum, especially when an opinion is being asked for. 

But I totally agree with the last sentence of your post, but that tool allows you to determine what it actually is as some AV's may pick it up others won't, its like the AV's them selves it just a guide. 

I don't really care what you think of my AV methods. I have been using that config for years and have never had a issues from it. 

You can use more than one but I have had a bad experience of it and don't Recommend it. 

Firewalls for the end user don't rally matter anyway, the default windows one is good enough for most people. 

If you are hot on security and are running 5 different programs then windows really isn't for you. 

10 hours ago, Raxzzer said:

Not entirely true. Different products will also have different definitions of that they consider to be a threat. Malwarebytes for example will be more aggressive towards PUP than for example Norton or Kaspersky, which may not even consider some of those threats malicious. Also remember that an antimalware product is more than just definitions. You'll have to consider elements like heuristics engines and behavioral/pattern analyzing algorithms which are very important for detection of stealthy malware in addition to firewall software and removal capabilities.

 

They still have databases with "bad" files in no matter how they get to it

10 hours ago, Raxzzer said:

I have a feeling that you've either misunderstood quite a few things or genuinely just doesn't know what you're talking about. Only antivirus-products that incorporates real-time protection will create conflicts and slow down your system in combination with other products that also incorporates real-time protection. It's only when you have several antivirus programs going around, flagging each other's processes and competing about quarantining elements you'll end up with slowdowns and unpleasant things happening. 

I have had adwhere decterors that aren't even running clash with avast. Those processes are still there.

10 hours ago, Raxzzer said:

Malwarebytes(free) and Hitman Pro aren't "antivirus" programs like in the more traditional sense. They only run on-demand, and won't any any analyzing or disinfecting unless you've specifically asked for it. They're antimalware scanners, and not antivius programs, most used as second-opinion scanners in order to back up a proper security suite that incorporates the proper real-time defense mechanisms. They won't slow down your system unless you tell them to perform a scan, and even then they won't cause any conflicts due to the fact that they're developed with antivirus compatibility in mind. 

 I suggested  that you install those in safe mode if you are under the illusion that your pc is "infected", once you have disconnected your self from the internet, but that was in a different post on another thread.

I guess its juts the experience that I have had with av's viruses etc. that makes be think what I think, its an opinion, an what I have learnt/been tought in my few years of computing. 

10 hours ago, Raxzzer said:

which is based on data and not your biased and uneducated opinion

the biased bit fair enough;every one is biased about everything, but uneducated no, thats your opinion and from your own post we should not be taking about what we only think.