Am I the only one?

glennc · 20 Apr 2011

Hey Mike,

The firewall installs automatically with the defaults, You don't need to set up anything. Messing about with software firewalls is only for very advanced users with special needs, and the knowledge required to implement them. "Normal" users should simply accept the default settings, and not even try to change anything. Trying this without the prerequisite knowledge will invariably do more harm than good.

That is precisely what I mean. I am at the mercy of default settings which I must trust, as I have no way to adjust.

I don't know what you mean by "hand-holding". Personally I prefer reliable unobtrusive solutions to most problems. The machine should be protected as well as possible without my having to do much at all. MSE is such a solution. Norton and a few others are in my considered opinion little more than catastrophes waiting to happen.

By hand-holding I mean that if I run a new program, Norton asks me what permission to give it and if I want to trust it, along with any update programs it install or help services, so as not to deal with them again. When I download a program it automatically checks the program and advises from a user database if it is safe, unknown or know malware. I like that. When I watch a Youtube video it auto scans and then lets me run the viewer. I like that, too. It is not intrusive to me. It actually reminds me of what is going on.

I have never had a virus get through it on any of my machines, and on a lot of others as well. My sincere advice would be to throw the Norton stuff in the bin, and use MSE. In my experience the Norton stuff is unreliable at best, and you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping it. Quite the reverse! MSE is free.

Since I have already spent the money on a 3 -user pack for $39, I have already made the investment. Like you I have never had a virus on any of my machines either and I am much less knowledgeable then yourself. MSE doesn't provide the hand-holding and then it combines with a Firewall that is set to whatever defaults that someone else thinks is safe enough for me, with no interaction as in Commodo. Does WF run in a sandbox? I gave up on Norton several years ago as it was growing out of control on my part. I didn't use it until Norton 2010 came out and then they threw in a free 2011 upgrade. The price is right and already spent.
I recall the days of being unable to get all of Norton out of your computer, it does not seem that way now. BTW I would not consider using the Norton 360 Security as I have read it doesn't fair well compared to many free competitors.

There are hundreds and thousands of so called "tests" for all sorts of things, all over the internet, and most of them are pure bullshit. The people you are talking to here have to deal with this stuff day in and day out, they know what works and what doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "Detection Rate" in regard to a firewall. A firewall blocks access to things which are not explicitly allowed. That is all it does. It does not detect anything.

With this regarding the tests, I believe they are variable in results. The firewall does let me stealth ports, which at least to me seems a good idea, it alerts me and blocks any outbound connections that I don't authorize. I do not believe you are saying that there is no difference on whatever brand of firewall you choose, am I?

These things can be rather confusing, you have to understand the PURPOSE for which these tools are used in order to know what is going on.

I concur fully with you on this point. I just haven't had or taken the time to become an expert in the field.

There is no effort involved. Windows firewall does not require any setup or pampering or anything else, it just works.

A sandbox is something entirely different again. It is normally some method, a piece of software, or hardware, or system, which isolates part of the system from the rest of the system. I have two perfect sandboxes sitting in front of me right now. They are standalone machines with no internet connection, and I keep baseline images of their single drives. When I have finished messing about with whatever I am messing about with, I just restore the images. NOTHING gets out of my sandboxes.

Antivirus programs are not sandboxes.

With all due respect, if you don't know what these things actually do, then you are in no position to judge them at all.

As ever, it is entirely your choice whether you accept advice or not. It is however as well to remember that the others who posted here ( and myself), are doing their level best to help you and give you the best advice possible, simply because they would like things to work well for you.

Regards....Mike Connor

I believe I referred to the sandbox in reference to Comodo, having just deleted that section, I do know that the sandbox is in the Commodo firewall. Sandboxes sound interesting and I will probably investigate this further. I know my friend wants me to change to Chrome 10 because it is sandboxed. Once I understand more fully, I may agree.
As having gone through computer technician training for three year degree and building and troubleshooting computerized CMC and our own product, along with using machine language and CPM long before there was an IBM and it's clone MSDOS, I am not completely without experience. So to those who feel I have no right to judge their decisions, I can not personally accept that. I certainly have no where near the credentials of all the responders such as yourself, to my questions. And I sincerely appreciate your advice, opinions, information and self-confidence. I am sure it has been rightfully earned. But why would I dump a paid for program that seems to work perfectly, exactly as I want it, on three different machine because some people see unexplained dragons and hazards? I see no sense in that. I may regret it, and that will be my fault. That is why I keep up to date system images. Fool me twice, shame on me!!
I also run Secunia PSI, which I find to be very very helpful. What I really need to do, is to dive into a manual on my router and figure out every option and its purpose, so as to make my own informed choice on the settings and not rely on the auto setup, which I didn't. Just have to fill in some blanks like the website blocking.
I hope Mike that you realize, I am not disregarding your advice out of hand. I hope I have explained my reasoning. If not, we can agree to disagree until my subscription runs out. Thank you very much for your patience, perseverance and time. You have been highly informative as have the other posters to this thread.
Please continue with any other info that pops up! You know I need it!
Glenn

MacGyvr · 20 Apr 2011

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

Mike Connor · 20 Apr 2011

Hey Mike,

The firewall installs automatically with the defaults, You don't need to set up anything. Messing about with software firewalls is only for very advanced users with special needs, and the knowledge required to implement them. "Normal" users should simply accept the default settings, and not even try to change anything. Trying this without the prerequisite knowledge will invariably do more harm than good.

That is precisely what I mean. I am at the mercy of default settings which I must trust, as I have no way to adjust.

The point is that the default settings are specifically designed to be suitable for normal users. Unless you have special requirements, which the vast majority of private users simply don't have, the default settings are the best settings

I don't know what you mean by "hand-holding". Personally I prefer reliable unobtrusive solutions to most problems. The machine should be protected as well as possible without my having to do much at all. MSE is such a solution. Norton and a few others are in my considered opinion little more than catastrophes waiting to happen.

By hand-holding I mean that if I run a new program, Norton asks me what permission to give it and if I want to trust it, along with any update programs it install or help services, so as not to deal with them again.

That is part of the system on Windows 7, you don't need any third party software for such a purpose.

When I download a program it automatically checks the program and advises from a user database if it is safe, unknown or know malware.

MSE does that.

I like that. When I watch a Youtube video it auto scans and then lets me run the viewer. I like that, too. It is not intrusive to me. It actually reminds me of what is going on.

MSE will immediately block anything suspicious that tries to start or run on your machine and ask you what you would like to do with it.

I have never had a virus get through it on any of my machines, and on a lot of others as well. My sincere advice would be to throw the Norton stuff in the bin, and use MSE. In my experience the Norton stuff is unreliable at best, and you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping it. Quite the reverse! MSE is free.

Since I have already spent the money on a 3 -user pack for $39, I have already made the investment.

Although I understand what you are saying I don't consider that a valid argument. The $39 is gone. MSE does not cost anything. Continuing to use an inferior product simply because you paid for it, when you can get a far superior product for free, is not sensible.

Like you I have never had a virus on any of my machines either and I am much less knowledgeable then yourself. MSE doesn't provide the hand-holding

If you don't use it, and don't know anything about it, then you have no way of knowing what it does or doesn't do. It is pointless even discussing something about which you are either not informed, or ill-informed.

and then it combines with a Firewall that is set to whatever defaults that someone else thinks is safe enough for me,

If you don't know exactly what you are doing, then ANY setup is potentially disastrous. The default setups are designed to provide optimal protection.

with no interaction as in Commodo.

I am well aware of some of Comodo's "interaction" having often had the doubtful pleasure of trying to redeem things after somebody "inter-acted" with it !

Does WF run in a sandbox?

No. Neither do any of the other anti-virus programs. They would be no use if they did. The only reason you need any of this stuff is so that you can safely use the internet. If you dont use the internet, you don't need any of this stuff. If you run things in some form of sandbox then your options for various interaction are severely limited.

I gave up on Norton several years ago as it was growing out of control on my part. I didn't use it until Norton 2010 came out and then they threw in a free 2011 upgrade. The price is right and already spent.

That money is gone. What you are trying to do is make your system safe in an understandable fashion. It does not require any monetary investment on your part to do so. Not doing so because you once spent $39 on something is not a sensible position to take.

I recall the days of being unable to get all of Norton out of your computer, it does not seem that way now. BTW I would not consider using the Norton 360 Security as I have read it doesn't fair well compared to many free competitors.

Once upon a time Norton was the only game in town. It was that or nothing. That has not been the case for a very long time. It is for the most part useless bloatware.There is no way I will use anything at all from Norton now, not even if you paid me to do it. ( Unless of course you offered me a very great deal more than $39 ! :) )

There are hundreds and thousands of so called "tests" for all sorts of things, all over the internet, and most of them are pure bullshit. The people you are talking to here have to deal with this stuff day in and day out, they know what works and what doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "Detection Rate" in regard to a firewall. A firewall blocks access to things which are not explicitly allowed. That is all it does. It does not detect anything.

With this regarding the tests, I believe they are variable in results.

The only real variables involved in the majority of these things are the amounts of bullshit and hype. If you multiply bullshit with hype, the result is hyperbullshit.

The firewall does let me stealth ports, which at least to me seems a good idea, it alerts me and blocks any outbound connections that I don't authorize. I do not believe you are saying that there is no difference on whatever brand of firewall you choose, am I?

When you are behind a router firewall, there are no ports. They are not available unless you specifically forward them.

There should never be any outbound connections which you don't authorise. Indeed, unless you authorise it it is impossible.

Malware will try to send stuff as if you had authorised it, which is why you need an anti-malware system.

These things can be rather confusing, you have to understand the PURPOSE for which these tools are used in order to know what is going on.

I concur fully with you on this point. I just haven't had or taken the time to become an expert in the field.

There is no effort involved. Windows firewall does not require any setup or pampering or anything else, it just works.

A sandbox is something entirely different again. It is normally some method, a piece of software, or hardware, or system, which isolates part of the system from the rest of the system. I have two perfect sandboxes sitting in front of me right now. They are standalone machines with no internet connection, and I keep baseline images of their single drives. When I have finished messing about with whatever I am messing about with, I just restore the images. NOTHING gets out of my sandboxes.

Antivirus programs are not sandboxes.

With all due respect, if you don't know what these things actually do, then you are in no position to judge them at all.

As ever, it is entirely your choice whether you accept advice or not. It is however as well to remember that the others who posted here ( and myself), are doing their level best to help you and give you the best advice possible, simply because they would like things to work well for you.

Regards....Mike Connor

I believe I referred to the sandbox in reference to Comodo, having just deleted that section, I do know that the sandbox is in the Commodo firewall. Sandboxes sound interesting and I will probably investigate this further. I know my friend wants me to change to Chrome 10 because it is sandboxed. Once I understand more fully, I may agree.

As having gone through computer technician training for three year degree and building and troubleshooting computerized CMC and our own product, along with using machine language and CPM long before there was an IBM and it's clone MSDOS, I am not completely without experience. So to those who feel I have no right to judge their decisions, I can not personally accept that.

None of this is in any way personal. It is merely advice which you can take or leave. It doesn't make any difference to me what you do, excepting that I would like to think I helped you in some way.

I certainly have no where near the credentials of all the responders such as yourself, to my questions. And I sincerely appreciate your advice, opinions, information and self-confidence. I am sure it has been rightfully earned. But why would I dump a paid for program that seems to work perfectly, exactly as I want it, on three different machine because some people see unexplained dragons and hazards? I see no sense in that.

Your prerogative.

I may regret it, and that will be my fault. That is why I keep up to date system images. Fool me twice, shame on me!!

I also run Secunia PSI, which I find to be very very helpful. What I really need to do, is to dive into a manual on my router and figure out every option and its purpose, so as to make my own informed choice on the settings and not rely on the auto setup, which I didn't. Just have to fill in some blanks like the website blocking.

I hope Mike that you realize, I am not disregarding your advice out of hand. I hope I have explained my reasoning. If not, we can agree to disagree until my subscription runs out. Thank you very much for your patience, perseverance and time. You have been highly informative as have the other posters to this thread.
Please continue with any other info that pops up! You know I need it!
Glenn

As I wrote, none of this is personal. Whether you accept advice, or implement suggestions, is entirely up to you.

Regards....Mike Connor

Mike Connor · 20 Apr 2011

MacGyvr said:

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

Correct.

But I still use windows firewall for some experiments regarding outbound setups. Also. if I am going to set these things up on other machines, I need the practice! :)

Regards....Mike Connor

glennc · 20 Apr 2011

MacGyvr said:

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

Howdy MacGyvr,
I wish I had the knowledge that you guys possess. That is such a strong statement, which I know you believe is true. I wish I knew why it is true. Because that would be cool! I am sure it is to complicated for me to get in a Cliff note thread.
Thanks for your responding!
Glenn

glennc · 20 Apr 2011

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least. :)
Glenn

MacGyvr · 20 Apr 2011

glennc said:

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least. :)
Glenn

I work on roughly 10 to 20 computers per week. Without fail, a customer comes in with a machine running "slow" and I find Norton on it....once I remove Norton, we get about a 50% increase in performance. Yes, Norton may prevent viruses, but the performance hit isn't worth the protection when MSE can give the same protection without dragging the machine to it's knees.

Mike Connor · 21 Apr 2011

glennc said:

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least. :)
Glenn

As MacGyvr pointed out, and I thought I had too, but maybe it was not clear. If you are behind a router, then there is no way for anybody to access your machine directly. A software firewall is pointless for a normal user if you are behind a router, because nothing will ever reach it. It will never do anything except slow down your machine.

Norton, and some others, ( also as MacGyvr has pointed out ), also tend to slow down machines very considerably. They can also cause all sorts of other problems. These are problems I simply don't want, so I don't use such software. It would be completely superfluous in any case.

This machine, which I am typing this on, has MSE on it as protection, and nothing else. The Windows firewall is also off, because this machine is of course also behind my router.

It is not a question of somebody else making decisions for you, it is basically a question of common sense.

If you like Norton for some reason, then use it. It makes no difference to anybody here what you use, they merely question the good sense of using bloatware which slows down your machine when you don't need to.

The other stuff you have is completely pointless, because you are behind a router.

NOTHING can get past that router to directly access your machine. Unless you allow it. So software firewalls like Comodo are COMPLETELY USELESS. They can not do what they were designed to do in such a situation, but that does not stop them trying, and they slow down your machine as a result. They also often cause other problems.

There is nothing to stop you tying ten bricks around your neck if you go for a run. It probably wont do you much harm, but it will slow you down, and is completely unnecessary. That is basically what you are doing when you install software firewalls on machines that run behind routers.

We could go around in circles forever on this, but there is no point in it. If you want to use what you have, then use it, but doing so makes it very difficult indeed for anybody to give you any sensible advice. All this stuff causes unnecessary problems which are impossible to troubleshoot. The only sensible recourse is to remove it from the machine.

If you don't want to do that, then there is nothing else I can do for you in the way of sensible advice.

Trying to discuss ten different things at once also complicates matters, and doubtless causes confusion.

Regards....Mike Connor

glennc · 21 Apr 2011

MacGyvr said:

glennc said:

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least. :)
Glenn

I work on roughly 10 to 20 computers per week. Without fail, a customer comes in with a machine running "slow" and I find Norton on it....once I remove Norton, we get about a 50% increase in performance. Yes, Norton may prevent viruses, but the performance hit isn't worth the protection when MSE can give the same protection without dragging the machine to it's knees.

Howdy MacGyvr,
That is an interesting statistic! But I thought that is why they made these new multi-core 3GHz, Sata beasts. So they can handle all the candy provided and still run quickly. I mean increasingly less optimized programs, visually pleasing with 5 or 6 ways to accomplish the same task. That wouldn't have flown in Window 95.
It was my impression that IMH(undereducated)O the increase in processing power was to handle these bloated programs, not just Norton. Yes say "aero" is neat but I ran business level spreadsheets on a machine possessing 64KBs of memory.
Running Norton on my Celeron 3 GHz is trying, as is all aspects of running anything on the Acer. I used to believe it was adequate, now I want to ax it with a fireman's Ax because of the slowness. Partially due to Norton's overhead. On my AMD X2 machine, it is not noticeable.
I have pared down my XP system to minimum, maybe I'll byte and replace it with just MSE for a while and see if I can get a performance enhancement on the older machine. Good idea!
Mille Grazie
Glenn

glennc · 21 Apr 2011

Howdy Mike,
If you think it is confusing for you, you should walk a mile in my shoes. I believe you sincere about not requiring a software firewall if you are behind a properly configured router/double firewall. My problem of course is that I have not enough knowledge to be sure it is set up properly. Anyone wishing to help in that area, know that would be the greatest immediate benefit. That seems sound and doable assuming I get adequate assistance. Dumping a firewall I don't need is cool!
I have been through every iteration of Windows, and to me it is a matter of nameless engineers pumping out sloppy code increasing in size to a point of insanity, to make me feel like I need the next generation of Windows. These people are directed to make generalized assumptions about the average person and what they need. I will not be categorized by statistical analysis. If people want my money, they must provide me with the services I desire, not what they think is a good safe default for the idiots out there that don't have a degree. In this case I find Windows firewall and MSE lacking. MSE has earned my respect as a powerful scanner, but doesn't fit my bill as real time protection. Now as I've mentioned I might try it out on my old XP system, trying to get it to last a while longer. Worse comes to worse, I'll just pop Linux on it and increase my speed a bunch.
So intrepid Mike, your and other's efforts have not gone in vain. I certainly appreciate the tenacity to make me safer, even if it is against my will:):). This very day I will dump the firewall and norton off my wireless connected XP Acer and see what happens. Nothing and I'll be as well protected as you say.
I'll let you know how that goes.
Glenn

Mike Connor said:

glennc said:

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least. :)
Glenn

As MacGyvr pointed out, and I thought I had too, but maybe it was not clear. If you are behind a router, then there is no way for anybody to access your machine directly. A software firewall is pointless for a normal user if you are behind a router, because nothing will ever reach it. It will never do anything except slow down your machine.

Norton, and some others, ( also as MacGyvr has pointed out ), also tend to slow down machines very considerably. They can also cause all sorts of other problems. These are problems I simply don't want, so I don't use such software. It would be completely superfluous in any case.

This machine, which I am typing this on, has MSE on it as protection, and nothing else. The Windows firewall is also off, because this machine is of course also behind my router.

It is not a question of somebody else making decisions for you, it is basically a question of common sense.

If you like Norton for some reason, then use it. It makes no difference to anybody here what you use, they merely question the good sense of using bloatware which slows down your machine when you don't need to.

The other stuff you have is completely pointless, because you are behind a router.

NOTHING can get past that router to directly access your machine. Unless you allow it. So software firewalls like Comodo are COMPLETELY USELESS. They can not do what they were designed to do in such a situation, but that does not stop them trying, and they slow down your machine as a result. They also often cause other problems.

There is nothing to stop you tying ten bricks around your neck if you go for a run. It probably wont do you much harm, but it will slow you down, and is completely unnecessary. That is basically what you are doing when you install software firewalls on machines that run behind routers.

We could go around in circles forever on this, but there is no point in it. If you want to use what you have, then use it, but doing so makes it very difficult indeed for anybody to give you any sensible advice. All this stuff causes unnecessary problems which are impossible to troubleshoot. The only sensible recourse is to remove it from the machine.

If you don't want to do that, then there is nothing else I can do for you in the way of sensible advice.

Trying to discuss ten different things at once also complicates matters, and doubtless causes confusion.

Regards....Mike Connor