hi could you help me haw can i block an application on my window firewall
thank you
Inbound connections are blocked by default.
Outbound ones are enabled by default.
The first ones will ask for permission.
For the outbound ones, you need http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/index.html
Whilst this should really be in the General forum as it is unrelated to the avast 4 home/pro.
None the less you don’t say what windows firewall you are using as XP has no outbound protection at all, so you can’t block an application.
The Vista one you have to enable outbound protection (off by default) and its user interface is none to friendly. I don’t use Vista so can’t offer any practical help. So the Vista Firewall Control as mentioned by Tech is your best bet.
thank you using window xp
sorry for posting wrong forum
You’re welcome.
Don’t worry 
No problem.
Now perhaps you can see the value in a third party firewall which gives outbound protection and can block programs from access.
See http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php.
Many forum users are using all of the above:
- PC Tools Firewall seems to have the least user headaches as it doesn’t seem to be constantly asking the user questions about this and that.
- Online Armor for the most parts fine but it has caused some users grief after avast program updates and that is something you have to watch out for.
- Comodo is now a suite and you have to do a custom install so as not to install the antivirus element (or use the add remove programs to remove the AV element if already installed), of all the firewalls listed this seems to be the noisiest in asking questions, depending on settings and elements used, so it could be daunting for those not to familiar with firewalls or their systems.
- Outpost Firewall 2009 free, a cut down version of the Outpost Firewall Pro version, which should still provide good protection, http://free.agnitum.com/. Download, http://www.filehippo.com/download_outpost_firewall/
About Comodo
Comodo one of the good guys?http://hphosts.blogspot.com/2009/05/comodo-one-of-good-guys.htmlAre Comodo one of the good guys? Err no - not anymore they aren’t - they’re now officially (still) supporting the bad guys, as Mike Burgess (MS MVP, and MS MVP Hosts provider) explains;
Comodo is supposed to be one of the good-guys ... and they even describe themselves as "[i]Internet security software products including SSL certificates and Free Firewall Antivirus software among others from Comodo, a leading global trust provider"[/i] ... however I have been reporting on them since the WinFixer days and it seems it just falls on deaf ears ... and now that they bundle the Ask Toolbar it really makes you wonder ...http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/05/16/1692519.aspx
The fact that Comodo the company an authorised licensing org for issuing ssl sertificates has nothing to do with the worth of comodo firewall.
It is either a good firewall or a bad firewall and Matousec doesn’t make any distinction about the issue of digital signatures, but how good the firewall is and according to their tests it is good. Personally I’m not a comodo firewall fan and it has nothing to do with this, but you implication is ridiculous, because they issued digital signatures to some supposed bad guys that the firewall is somehow rubbish.
Do you actually know why ‘anyone’ can buy a ssl certificate, you basically have to prove who you are. So it has less to do with physical security (other that the connection/communication is secure), but all to do with proving who your are, that the site you are visiting or email you are reading is as it says it is/from as it has a ssl certificate…
http://www.verisign.com/ssl/ssl-information-center/how-ssl-security-works/index.html
[b]How Authentication Works[/b]Imagine receiving an envelope with no return address and a form asking for your bank account number. Every VeriSign® SSL Certificate is created for a particular server in a specific domain for a verified business entity. When the SSL handshake occurs, the browser requires authentication information from the server. By clicking the closed padlock in the browser window or certain SSL trust marks (such as the VeriSign Secured® Seal), the Web site visitor sees the authenticated organization name. In high-security browsers, the authenticated organization name is prominently displayed and the address bar turns green when an Extended Validation SSL Certificate is detected. If the information does not match or the certificate has expired, the browser displays an error message or warning.
Digital signatures have also nothing to do with firewalls more so browsers and in the above quote there is nothing about who it is that owns the certificate, just that the details of the site match the issuing authority certificate details and it is current.
So I somehow doubt that Comodo is the only Authorised Issuing Authority where this happens, it is just that a) they also have a firewall and b) you have a bit of a downer for comodo amd none of that detracts from the worth of the firewall ???
Maybe if the user does not trust the company, he won’t trust in their products either. Not only due to the program itself, but internal policies, update strategies, privacy policy, etc. etc.
As I said the issue of an ssl certificate has nothing to do with what the site or owner of the certificate is about, just that the communication is secure and the details of the ssl certificate match the site.
So virtually anyone can get an ssl certificate, there is no criminal record check, etc. and the same would happen in any Authorised Issuing organisation, provided they conform with the issuing regulations then Comodo as an authorised organisation isn’t doing anything wrong.
In fact if they didn’t issue a certificate they are more likely to be sued, if the customer making the request/submission for an ssl certificate complies with the existing regulations. The worth of the firewall is how good it does its job as a firewall not if the company happens to issue legitimate certificates to those meting the criteria when requesting one, who later turn out to be not very trust worthy individuals.