Windows Update Service Solution

[taviso]

I was wondering if you were aware of the following solution to the firewall being unable to identify the windows update service:

1. Create a copy (or hardlink) of svchost.exe, called e.g. wusvc.exe
2. Change ImagePath in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\wuauserv to use wusvc.exe
3. Restart Windows Update Service, e.g. sc stop wuauserv then sc start wuauserv

Now you can whitelist wusvc.exe. This seems like it might be a better solution than having to maintain a list of IP ranges, and could be implemented in code easily.

Just wanted to make sure you knew about this.

[osmin1]

Simplewall can detect services, as far as I remember, but they have to be run in separate process.
As pointed up in here: https://netlimiter.com/docs/basic-concepts/filters/system-services-and-windows-store-apps
it should be sufficient to make service run in a separate process.

Although I would assume that one wants to use firewall precisely to stop updates from being forced on them... :)

I must say I'm growing more and more depressed seeing that one cannot rely on "personal firewalls" to disable all unauthorized network traffic. Every firewall seems to have a hole in them.
I was only able to stop Win10 from communicating using 2 firewalls at once: simplewall and Net Peeker. Perhaps Net Peeker is better suited to stop unauthorized traffic because it installs driver in network interface. But even it allows one connection to get through.

[taviso]

You misunderstand the problem, WFP supports creating rules by AppContainer SID (FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_PACKAGE_ID), Image (FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_APP_ID), User (FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_USER_ID), or a ton of others.

The problem is that when you add the wuauserv SID with FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_USER_ID, It still doesn't work.

You can verify this like so:

C:\> sc showsid wuauserv

NAME: wuauserv
SERVICE SID: S-1-5-80-1014140700-3308905587-3330345912-272242898-93311788
STATUS: Active

Now create a firewall rule to block Outbound traffic from that SID:

New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Test One" -Enabled True -Direction Outbound -Action Block -LocalUser "D:(A;;CC;;;S-1-5-80-1014140700-3308905587-3330345912-272242898-93311788)"

If you try to check for updates, it still works. The reason is that wuauserv uses ImpersonateLoggedOnUser() before WinHTTPOpen(), so WFP sees your Logon SID, not the Service SID.

You can verify it like this, first get your SID:

C:\ > whoami.exe /user

Now put that SID into a FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_USER_ID Rule:

New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Test Two" -Enabled True  -Direction Outbound -Action Block -LocalUser "D:(A;;CC;;;YOURSID)"

Now windows update doesn't work.

Use Remove-NetFirewallRule to delete them, or use the GUI, just type wf.msc into the Run dialog.

Obviously, you can't realistically block or allow all the connections from your SID! 😆 The current solution used by @henrypp is to add a FWPM_CONDITION_IP_REMOTE_ADDRESS rule to allow (or block) all traffic (from any SID or APP ID) to known Windows Update servers. That works too, but it requires maintaining a list of update servers that changes over time, and you can't make it apply to just one service.

Here's that big list of update servers:

https://github.com/henrypp/simplewall/blob/master/bin/blocklist.xml#L566

And here's where those rules get applied:

simplewall/src/profile.cpp

Line 935 in 6bd53e2

else if (_r_str_compare (ptr_rule->pname, L"update_", 7) == 0)

The workaround I'm suggesting is to use a FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_APP_ID rule instead of a FWPM_CONDITION_ALE_USER_ID rule. I think it feels like a better solution, but still requires a bit of a hack. 🤷‍♂️

I just wanted to check if @henrypp had considered it 😄

[taviso]

Here is proof the problem is Impersonation:

0:020> |
.  0	id: 1f8	attach	name: C:\WINDOWS\system32\svchost.exe
0:020> bp winhttp!WinHttpOpen
0:020> g
Breakpoint 0 hit
WINHTTP!WinHttpOpen:
00007ff9`583c1100 4055            push    rbp
0:020> kv
 # Child-SP          RetAddr           : Args to Child                                                           : Call Site
00 0000004a`59f7d788 00007ff9`583d3096 : 00000000`00000001 00007ff9`583d2eee 00000000`00000000 000001c2`599bb410 : WINHTTP!WinHttpOpen
01 0000004a`59f7d790 00007ff9`583d2bfd : 0000004a`59f7d910 00000000`00000000 00000000`599bb320 000001c2`6499db90 : WINHTTP!WinHttpClientSession::AcquireSession+0xb6
02 0000004a`59f7d810 00007ff9`583d2893 : 00000000`00000000 00007ff9`6025b7cc 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : WINHTTP!WinHttpClientResolver::GetProxyForUrlImpl+0x2fd
03 0000004a`59f7d960 00007ff9`583d36e9 : 00000000`00000000 000001c2`6499de90 00000000`00000001 00000000`00000000 : WINHTTP!WinHttpClientCompletion::StartProxyResolve+0xa3
04 0000004a`59f7d9d0 00007ff9`583d339c : 000001c2`653f8ee8 00007ff9`6025b7cc 000001c2`62b10730 000001c2`62b10730 : WINHTTP!WxProxyManager::OnProcessGetProxyForUrl+0x209
05 0000004a`59f7da80 00007ff9`583d3220 : 0000004a`59f7dbc9 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 0000004a`59f7dbc0 : WINHTTP!WxProxyManager::GetProxyForUrlImpl+0x12c
06 0000004a`59f7daf0 00007ff9`583ba036 : 00000000`00000000 000001c2`6499dc90 000001c2`6499dc90 00000000`00000000 : WINHTTP!WxGetProxyContext::StartProxyResolve+0x70
07 0000004a`59f7db50 00007ff9`583b9a01 : 00000000`00000001 000001c2`5991c900 000001c2`664e8000 00000000`00000000 : WINHTTP!HTTP_USER_REQUEST::_CallGetProxyForUrl+0x426
08 0000004a`59f7dc30 00007ff9`583b95cf : 00000000`00000000 000001c2`5991c900 000001c2`5991c900 000001c2`664e8000 : WINHTTP!HTTP_USER_REQUEST::_SendRequestWithDrainComplete+0xa1
09 0000004a`59f7dcd0 00007ff9`583b9170 : 000001c2`5991c900 0000004a`59f7ddb9 000001c2`664e8000 000001c2`664e8000 : WINHTTP!HTTP_USER_REQUEST::_SendRequestWithProxyInitialized+0x87
0a 0000004a`59f7dd00 00007ff9`583c8ac5 : 000001c2`59923b80 00007ff9`4029b970 000001c2`59923b80 000001c2`5991c900 : WINHTTP!HTTP_USER_REQUEST::SendRequest+0x3b0
0b 0000004a`59f7de00 00007ff9`402a0028 : 000001c2`00000002 00000000`00000000 000001c2`65211e00 000001c2`64853bf8 : WINHTTP!WinHttpSendRequest+0x585
0c 0000004a`59f7df60 00007ff9`402a30d0 : 000001c2`64853bf8 000001c2`6483bcd8 000001c2`648f2970 000001c2`6483bcc0 : webservices!HttpRequest::StartSyncSendHeaders+0x120
0d 0000004a`59f7dfe0 00007ff9`402a457e : 000001c2`64853bf8 000001c2`6483c0d8 000001c2`6483bce0 000001c2`6483bcd8 : webservices!HttpRequestChannel::OnEnterSendRequestHeadersWithRetry+0x120
0e 0000004a`59f7e050 00007ff9`402a32f8 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 000001c2`6483bcc0 000001c2`648f2970 : webservices!StateMachine<HttpRequestChannel>::Execute+0x2b2
0f 0000004a`59f7e0a0 00007ff9`402a322f : 000001c2`6483bcc0 000001c2`6483bce0 00000000`00000000 000001c2`648f2970 : webservices!HttpRequestChannel::SendHeaders+0xac
10 0000004a`59f7e110 00007ff9`402a43ab : 000001c2`6483c048 000001c2`6483c058 000001c2`6483bcc0 00007ff9`402a41c3 : webservices!HttpRequestChannel::OnEnterSendHeadersEnd+0x7f
11 0000004a`59f7e150 00007ff9`402a22e7 : 00000000`00000000 000001c2`6483bcd8 000001c2`6483bcc0 000001c2`648f2970 : webservices!StateMachine<HttpRequestChannel>::Execute+0xdf
12 0000004a`59f7e1a0 00007ff9`4029fa54 : 0000004a`59f7e2e0 00000000`00000000 0000004a`59f7e2e0 00000000`00001000 : webservices!HttpRequestChannel::WriteMessageEnd+0xd7
13 0000004a`59f7e200 00007ff9`4029fbd1 : 0000004a`59f7e2e0 00000000`00000001 00000000`00000001 00000000`00000000 : webservices!RequestReplyHelper::RequestReply2+0x88
14 0000004a`59f7e240 00007ff9`4029f3ef : 0000004a`59f7e2e0 000001c2`648f2970 00000000`00000001 00000000`00000001 : webservices!AsyncState::Execute+0xdd
15 0000004a`59f7e2a0 00007ff9`402c49f0 : 000001c2`648d1440 00007ff9`0f781150 000001c2`658eadc0 00380050`00610073 : webservices!RequestReplyHelper::RequestOnePossibleReply+0x14b
16 0000004a`59f7e3f0 00007ff9`402c487d : 00007ff9`0f781150 000001c2`5913db10 0000004a`59f7e6e0 00007ff9`0f5b29aa : webservices!Ws::RequestReply+0x160
17 0000004a`59f7e4a0 00007ff9`0f7386ea : 000001c2`6499da10 000001c2`5913db10 0000004a`59f7e6e0 00000000`00000001 : webservices!WsRequestReply+0xad
18 0000004a`59f7e530 00007ff9`0f73a81d : 00000000`00000000 0000004a`59f7e6e0 00000000`00000000 00000000`0000002d : wuaueng!CNativeWebServiceBase::NwsCallWithRetries<<lambda_e5ffb2a0669c673f603e0114b54352cb> >+0x102
19 0000004a`59f7e5e0 00007ff9`0f675293 : 000001c2`59191470 0000004a`59f7e7e8 000001c2`59191440 00300030`002d0030 : wuaueng!CClientService_Nws::SyncUpdates+0x13d
1a 0000004a`59f7e780 00007ff9`0f6741ff : 0000004a`59f7f430 000001c2`59191440 0000004a`59f7f430 00000000`00000000 : wuaueng!CAgentProtocolTalker::SyncUpdates_WithRecovery+0x11b
1b 0000004a`59f7e830 00007ff9`0f672ed2 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : wuaueng!CAgentProtocolTalker::SyncServerUpdatesInternal+0x1247
1c 0000004a`59f7f0a0 00007ff9`0f61522f : 000001c2`59134fe8 000001c2`59107e90 0000004a`59f7f290 000001c2`59134cc0 : wuaueng!CAgentProtocolTalker::SyncServerUpdates+0xf6
1d 0000004a`59f7f140 00007ff9`0f5857f5 : 00000000`00000004 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000004 00000000`00000000 : wuaueng!CAgentUpdateManager::FindUpdates+0x6cc53
1e 0000004a`59f7f8f0 00007ff9`0f5db429 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : wuaueng!CSearchCall::Execute+0xa5
1f 0000004a`59f7f940 00007ff9`5f997bd4 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : wuaueng!CClientCallRecorder::ParallelScanProc+0x29
20 0000004a`59f7f970 00007ff9`6028ce51 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : KERNEL32!BaseThreadInitThunk+0x14
21 0000004a`59f7f9a0 00000000`00000000 : 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 00000000`00000000 : ntdll!RtlUserThreadStart+0x21
0:020> !token -n
...
Impersonation Level: Impersonation
TokenType: Impersonation
...

[ltguillaume]

This makes sense, and I think your solution is rather elegant.

Not sure it's completely within the scope of simplewall, though: I'm leaning towards 'yes', but the fact that it requires a hack makes me think that people who want to block Windows Updates might as well go for something like https://www.sordum.org/9470/windows-update-blocker-v1-5/ so that the block isn't on the network level anymore.

[Kein]

I was wondering if you were aware of the following solution to the firewall being unable to identify the windows update service:

1. Create a copy (or hardlink) of svchost.exe, called e.g. wusvc.exe
2. Change ImagePath in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\wuauserv to use wusvc.exe
3. Restart Windows Update Service, e.g. sc stop wuauserv then sc start wuauserv

I stumbled upon this github issue today when I was looking for some details on similar solution myself. Someone said here:

Create a hardlink to svchost.exe. Sadly this is not possible because svchost.exe is already a hardlink and as far as I know, there cannot be hardlinks to hardlinks.

Which I found very odd. Extensive googling did not bring any results as well. Anyway, I tested both copying and hardlink methods and both work perfectly. Hardlink initially requires ownership but then you can return it back. Since it is a hl, all updates are propagated back to it when original changes.

This is probably the best solution. For the simplefirewall needs if you need more elegant and maintainable solution that uses this method - you can optimize it if you create just one hardlink for svchost.exe and then just group whitelisted services via ImagePath to run from it. This way you can maintain simple catalogue of allowed services.

@taviso

Here is proof the problem is Impersonation:
...
Impersonation Level: Impersonation
TokenType: Impersonation
...

I was wondering if targeting SID works if you change service's ObjectName? There are a few pre-defined like NetworkService fake user that runs some services in its own container. Wuauserv uses LocalSystem as login object. What I'm thinking is this - what if you create another user acc or even fake user acc and try to run service under it?

@osmin1

I must say I'm growing more and more depressed seeing that one cannot rely on "personal firewalls" to disable all unauthorized network traffic. Every firewall seems to have a hole in them.
I was only able to stop Win10 from communicating using 2 firewalls at once: simplewall and Net Peeker.

If you set "Block All" mode in Windows Firewall for all domains you can block all traffic, provided you clean up default allow rules for crap like Cortana and such. I'm yet to see solid evidence from someone with background and reputation that something built-in deep into Win10 bypasses WFP/WF. I mean, I wouldnt be surprised about telemetry endpoints straight in the Kernel because it is MS, but as I said - there is no evidence

[ljani]

@Kein:

I stumbled upon this github issue today when I was looking for some details on similar solution myself. Someone said here:

Create a hardlink to svchost.exe. Sadly this is not possible because svchost.exe is already a hardlink and as far as I know, there cannot be hardlinks to hardlinks.

Which I found very odd. Extensive googling did not bring any results as well. Anyway, I tested both copying and hardlink methods and both work perfectly. Hardlink initially requires ownership but then you can return it back. Since it is a hl, all updates are propagated back to it when original changes.

That would be me 😄 The original thread seems to be locked, so I cannot reply there.

Yes, my phrasing is a little poor. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

First of all, svchost.exe I currently hardlinked this way, ie. it contains version information:

> fsutil hardlink list C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe
\Windows\WinSxS\amd64_microsoft-windows-services-svchost_31bf3856ad364e35_10.0.19041.546_none_93b4a0a1641d085c\svchost.exe
\Windows\System32\svchost.exe

Now, let's replicate that setup:

> New-Item -Type File v1\svchost.exe -Force
    Directory: C:\temp\svchost\v1

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.43              0 svchost.exe

> New-Item -Type HardLink svchost.exe -Target C:\temp\svchost\v1\svchost.exe

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.43              0 svchost.exe

> Get-ChildItem -Recurse

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
d----            6.2.2021    13.43                v1
-a---            6.2.2021    13.43              0 svchost.exe

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost\v1

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.43              0 svchost.exe

> fsutil hardlink list .\svchost.exe
\temp\svchost\svchost.exe
\temp\svchost\v1\svchost.exe

Now, let me create the proposed wuauserv.exe:

> New-Item -Type HardLink wuauserv.exe -Target C:\temp\svchost\svchost.exe

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.43              0 wuauserv.exe

> fsutil hardlink list .\wuauserv.exe
\temp\svchost\svchost.exe
\temp\svchost\wuauserv.exe
\temp\svchost\v1\svchost.exe

All good, right? Now, v2 of svchost.exe is pushed:

> New-Item -Type File v2\svchost.exe -Force

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost\v2

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.48              0 svchost.exe

> New-Item -Type HardLink svchost.exe -Target C:\temp\svchost\v2\svchost.exe -Force

    Directory: C:\temp\svchost

Mode                 LastWriteTime         Length Name
----                 -------------         ------ ----
-a---            6.2.2021    13.48              0 svchost.exe

> fsutil hardlink list .\svchost.exe
\temp\svchost\svchost.exe
\temp\svchost\v2\svchost.exe

Did you notice what happened, because the whole \temp\svchost.exe (and not its contents) file was overwritten? wuauserv.exe still points to the old version v1 whereas current version is v2:

> fsutil hardlink list .\wuauserv.exe
\temp\svchost\wuauserv.exe
\temp\svchost\v1\svchost.exe

<edit>Let me try to rephrase the comment better: Sure you can have multiple hardlinks, which are essentially the same file, but you cannot have a wuauserv.exe --> C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe hardlink, which would always point to the correct executable. That would require a symlink.</edit>

If you try to check for updates, it still works. The reason is that wuauserv uses ImpersonateLoggedOnUser() before WinHTTPOpen(), so WFP sees your Logon SID, not the Service SID.

Interesting! I always thought it was because of thread pools and missing service tags for thread-pools.

[Kein]

On Win10 20H*+ I've noticed that hardlink without some weird issues and side-effects in system32 is no longer possible so I delegated basic copying and version check to a simple service (or script, whatever you prefer) which will keep it up to date.

Either way, make no mistake here, it is not some error or a bug (that went unaddressed for 10 years, eh?) it is pretty clear Micro$oft in their blind greed for private user data purposefully gimped WFP/BFE in favor of their telemetry bullshit loopholes, which is baffling to me, because it throws security under the rug. Quite pathetic.

[ThiagoRangel7]

Can't we just allow wuauserv under the Services tab? It also seems to work for Dnscache, which also runs under svchost.exe

After running updates verification under Windows Settings, I got:

As you can see, wuauserv and Dnscache connections (look at the Filter column) made via svchost.exe were allowed, and Windows showed that I am up to date:

Is there any problem doing it this way? I don't understand why we'd need lots of "Microsoft update servers" (that are shown under the Blocklists tab) to allow updates, or even creating a separated process for wuauserv like it was suggested in this thread. We probably don't even need the DNS and mDNS System Rules (and lots of other system rules), because we could just allow some services under the Services tab, like Dhcp and Dnscache.

@taviso, @Kein, @ljani, @henrypp I'm sorry to bother, but could you please take a look? I'm a simple user with no network experience, it seems you're more capable to look at this.

[markdascher]

Hey, I can confirm the observation by @ThiagoRangel7 that wuauserv seems to pass the service tag properly now, with the most recent updates installed.

On a fresh Windows 20H2 install, I first configured rules to permit all traffic using BITS and wuauserv service tags. Those rules did not work. As @taviso predicted, splitting those services into their own process had no effect, either. I eventually created a rule to permit all svchost.exe processes, without trying the hardlink/copy hack.

After applying KB4023057, KB4577586, KB4601554, and KB5001330, I turned off the rule for svchost.exe, and was still permitted to apply further updates. It continued to work properly as long as I kept the BITS and wuauserv rules enabled. I don't know if the BITS rule is actually needed or not, and can't fully test it anymore since there are no more updates to install.

That first update is called "Update for Windows 10 Update Service components," so that would be my first guess?

[ljani]

I wonder if that is a wuaserv specific change, or does it affect for example wlidsvc as well?

[Kein]

No it does not you just allow svchost blankly. It's been broken for ~7 years and suddenly out of nowhere fixed, haha?

[dbaiser]

@ThiagoRangel7 I'm sorry, but would you mind explaining this a bit more for rookies like me?

I tried simply enabling wuauserv under the 'Services' tab, but it didn't work, I still get svchost blocked in the Packets Log. Do I need to edit that rule in anyway? (like, applying FTP* or SSH* rules to it?)

Thanks a lot!

Update:

I did the following and it worked:

In the 'Apps' section, instead of blindly allowing all svchost.exe, I edited this app rule to include a user rule where svchost.exe was selected in Apps, and wuauserv was selected in Services. I did the same with taskhostw.exe. Would this limit svchost and taskhostw to be used only by the wuauserv service? Or am I fooling myself, and svchost and taskhostw can now be used by any app (instead of only by the wuauserv as needed for Windows Update)?

One last question, if you don't mind: how are you able to see the 'Allowed' state for connections listed in the Packets Log? Mine only shows the 'Blocked' ones

And for future readers, it goes without saying that I have under 'Blocklist' in the top menu, 'Microsoft Update Servers' set to 'Allow', and I'm also allowing the usocoreworker.exe and systemsettings.exe apps (though I'm not sure the latter is needed)

[Kein]

Again, let me repeat - this was not fixed and probably never will be fixed in this iteration of Windows. May be in the next one too. Use the workaround if you need automatic updates.

[dbaiser]

Thank you, Kein! But just to be clear, my solution seems to be working, I can download and install updates like that, and as far as I can see Simplewall seems to be blocking svchost.exe for everything else (at least I get a bunch of blocked svchost.exe entries in the packets log). It also seems to work as intended, I think I'm using Simplewall correctly. Am I missing something here as to why this shouldn't work?

[ltguillaume]

@dbaiser Post your user rule as a screenshot or its XML line(s) in profile.xml to be sure, but I'm pretty sure you're not doing it right. Also, check the rule related to the log entries that show a blocked connection for svcshost. If your solution would work, the rule should be simplewall\Internal\BlockConnection, not any explicit rule, like Blocklist\*.

[dbaiser]

@ltguillaume These are the rules:

<item name="svchost.exe" rule="172.217.1.174:443" rule_local="10.5.0.2:56745" protocol="6" apps="C:\WINDOWS\system32\svchost.exe|wuauserv"/>
<item name="taskhostw.exe" rule="20.72.205.209:443" rule_local="10.5.0.2:64500" protocol="6" apps="C:\windows\system32\taskhostw.exe|wuauserv"/>

I don't think I understood the 2nd part of your comment, how do I check for that log?

If I enable these 2 rules, I still get in the Packets log entries telling me svchost is being blocked and the filter for these blocks is "Internal/BlockConnection" Outbound

But I think I see what you're saying. I'm using it wrong. By checking in the "Apps" tab of the rule the boxes for wauserv and svchost, what I'm actually doing is allowing both svchost and wuauserv for anything, when what I actually wanted was to allow svchost to only be used by wuauserv

[ltguillaume]

Yes, I meant the packets log and that filter rule, so now I'm a bit confused about the blocked connections in the log. I'd say those should only occur if you haven't checked svchost.exe. Maybe someone else could shed a light on that.

As for the last part of your comment, yes, that is what I meant.

[random29]

Hello, guys, I tried this workaround with copying svchost.exe, but it just checkes updates. It can't download update, just hanging at 0% for infinite time

Does anyone has some thoughts?

[Kein]

You need to allow Delivery Optimization service as well.

[random29]

Someone had success in trying windows updates without allowing svchost after [v.3.6.7] update? Changelog says it has windows update service solution, but I still can't manage to get it working. Allowed Delivery Optimization service and bunch of other services excluding svchost, tried with and without hardlink...

[savchenko]

@henrypp / @taviso , this problem has been around for a number of years. Could you provide an "authoritative guide" on running Windows Update with Simplewall blocking svchost?

Personally, I still use an old PS script that unblocks svchost, performs an update and blocks it again.

[wy16W2pIilK1xgqN]

Is my question similar to this?

win10 21H2 x64
forbid svchost
Allow all services
Windows store cannot be downloaded

[Alcazer]

@random29
Did you try to enable Allow Windows Update?
(Added in version 3.6.7 - Open main window menu Settings -> Rules -> Allow Windows Update)

@wy16W2pIilK1xgqN
Did you try to enable UWP Apps -> Microsoft Store, App Installer and Services -> InstallService and wlidsvc (or System rules -> Microsoft account)?

[wy16W2pIilK1xgqN]

@random29 Did you try to enable Allow Windows Update? (Added in version 3.6.7 - Open main window menu Settings -> Rules -> Allow Windows Update)

@wy16W2pIilK1xgqN Did you try to enable UWP Apps -> Microsoft Store, App Installer and Services -> InstallService and wlidsvc (or System rules -> Microsoft account)?

I'm sure I did.
It's been a few years since this problem, and several of my friends have the same problem.

Sorry, I'm a Chinese and don't know English.
With translation, there is no way to communicate details.

You can ignore my question.

[random29]

@random29 Did you try to enable Allow Windows Update? (Added in version 3.6.7 - Open main window menu Settings -> Rules -> Allow Windows Update)

@wy16W2pIilK1xgqN Did you try to enable UWP Apps -> Microsoft Store, App Installer and Services -> InstallService and wlidsvc (or System rules -> Microsoft account)?

Thanks for your answer, I tried it, but sadly this changes nothing, still stuck at 0% forever.

[privacyguy123]

Awesome - this is the fix. It shows in the dropdown menu under Settings > Rules but not in the Settings dialog: a small bug perhaps?

[Alcazer]

Thanks for your answer, I tried it, but sadly this changes nothing, still stuck at 0% forever.

@random29 Please try again with this setting. It worked fine on Windows 11 22H2 version

[random29]

Thanks for your answer, I tried it, but sadly this changes nothing, still stuck at 0% forever.

@random29 Please try again with this setting. It worked fine on Windows 11 22H2 version

Tried same settings. Sadly, but for me on Windows 10 21H2 everything still stuck at 0%, idk what's wrong.

[crkinard]

Its a issue Microsoft has to fix. Found this when googling his exact same issue,
Basically, its been broken since possibly Windows 8.

'Microsoft Account Sign-in Assistant' service seems to be in the same boat.
Setting ONLY DNS, DHCP, wlicscv and wuausvc as outbound allowed the two services are still blocked.

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/e1317d2a-c68a-4a53-88f4-694c1d467188/windows-10-firewall-with-windows-update-service?forum=win10itprosecurity