3.0.14.276-Need help for sites that do not work correcly.

I ended up without a separate firewall rule for svchost this time (see the attachment above) and things seem to be working fine without it. I suspect it is actually buried in some of the other rules through inheritance. There are also some rules for svchost in D+.

Thanks, sded.
I too am running without a svchost rule. I messed it up and just deleted it to get rid of it thinking I could find out what to use.
I keep forgetting to ask you this:
When a policy does not end with a blocking rule, what happens when none of the rules fire? I assume that the request is blocked - correct? If not what does happen? I could not find the answer in the Help text.
I got one reply to my question about restoring the ‘factory’ defaults. AnotherOne had the same answer as you so I will do an uninstall/install, and do an export.
Thanks on more time…John

sded,
I think this is the denouement.
I have removed CFP and reinstalled 3.0.14.276 with no problems. I did an Export of the settings, so they are available if I need them again.
Without changing any rules or defining any new ports, I seem to be running fine. All the sites I had trouble with before work fine. This includes the NSF NDT site that specified port 7123 in the URL. I suspected that this was a destination port (requiring no rule on my end) and I asked my son who is a network expert (designs networks and programs routers) and he confirmed it.
Like I said at the beginning, I think this will be my last post on this subject. I would like you to please look at my last post and let know about the fall through action.
Thanks very much again for your help!
John

I wouldn’t count on a block. Have seen an example where there are no rules for Windows Operating System, and one of the requests is allowed, one is blocked. I don’t believe anything about the implied rules and always make them explicit-reasoning they may change again.