Online Armor 2 Vs Comodo Firewall Pro 3

[Guest]

[Josh123]

Ummm Melih...

When are you planning to go to matousec.com and test v3? :-)

Josh.

[Fuzzfas]

Better parts in OA Free (compared to Comodo):
-Has no pending files (Big!)
-Nice firewall status with country flags.
-Easy for newbies (auto-opens ports).
-Easier HIPS.
-Easier rules editing and generally more compact GUI.

Worse parts in OA free:
-The Log (no size limiting)
-No IP (or worse, port) shown on alert.
-Can be worse for people that don't like the firewall to auto-open ports.
-A bit higher CPU usage with p2p.
-Worse alerts.

[Andreas]

On the Online Armor website i can´t find more information about their company. Which company developed Online Armor??

Andreas

[zvaragabor]

Tall Emu is the name of the company. You can read it from the domain name, or in the "privacy policy" "contact us" page.

Tall Emu Pty Ltd

[Andreas]

Tall Emu is the name of the company. You can read it from the domain name, or in the "privacy policy" "contact us" page.

Yes, thanks. But you see nothing more. Never mind. I like Comodo Products sooooo much.



Andreas

[zvaragabor]

I agree. CFP is much better imo.

[brucine]

I found online armor very less convenient when handling with LAN rules (and i am speaking of Comodo 2.4).

I also found the official online armor forum very arrogant and self-confident when asked about security issues, don't make me say i will find the same here...

I suppose CPF 2.4 will not be updated anymore, since CPF 3 is online, but i still wonder why the latter does not support windows 2000, which is not so different from XP.

[comicosmos]

Better parts in OA Free (compared to Comodo):
-Has no pending files (Big!)
-Nice firewall status with country flags.
-Easy for newbies (auto-opens ports).
-Easier HIPS.
-Easier rules editing and generally more compact GUI.

Worse parts in OA free:
-The Log (no size limiting)
-No IP (or worse, port) shown on alert.
-Can be worse for people that don't like the firewall to auto-open ports.
-A bit higher CPU usage with p2p.
-Worse alerts.

better parts are no more better for a sophisticated user
worse 123 are very easy to be fixed

[Osage]

I did try the free version of online armor when I could not get comodo 3.0.13.268 to work with ICS.

I must say it has a certain amount going for it and a help forum to boot, Which is needed because OA had no help files at the time. And I finally had to look in the forums to write the rules needed to get ICS working.

What soured me on online armor was (1) that it crashed my wife's computer a few  days after it was installed and I had a devil of a time removing it. (2) The lack of incremental updates that comodo has and on line armor did not have at the time. I don't know if they have since gone to incremental upgrades, but OA seem to go through new versions rapidly.

AS for me, I am sticking with comodo 3 now that ICS is fixed. Who knows how things will look in the future for me and others. But my dominant impression was and is, both online armor and CPF3 are far easier to self configure and less intrusive than previous firewalls I have used.

But everyone has their choices and reasons.

[ailef]

i use online-armor on xp, i find it's protecting me better than comodo and i never had probs. if u use standard mode, online-armor will make rules by himself, u need to be in advanced mode to make your own rules with the shareware version only.
comodo is free, i hope for version 3.1 that got results as good as OA on matousec site.
but on vista comodo is the one that rules.

[Eric Cryptid]

I'll forever stick with Comodo. It's at least a FULL Free product and one that I have complete trust in.

The pending files thing isn't much of an issue once you get used to it. I only just discrovered that the "Purge" button gets rid of all the temporary items in the pending list.

Anyway... Rock on Comodo1!

[Rafel]

i use online-armor on xp, i find it's protecting me better than comodo and i never had probs. if u use standard mode, online-armor will make rules by himself, u need to be in advanced mode to make your own rules with the shareware version only.
comodo is free, i hope for version 3.1 that got results as good as OA on matousec site.
but on vista comodo is the one that rules.

A firewall making rules by himselftrying to phone home, upda? i want make my own rules. Pay for make  my own rules?
CFW can make rules by himself and you can make your own rules, and for free.
Then, we don't talk to about the same type of firewalls. OA free is castrated. I'm not an advanced user, but i like to know what programs and how are trying to phone home, update,etc.
OA free is for newis and OA pro for advanced user. If you ara an advanced user and you can or you want meke your rules, cash bozx ia waiting you,hehehe.

[Melih]

i use online-armor on xp, i find it's protecting me better than comodo and i never had probs. if u use standard mode, online-armor will make rules by himself, u need to be in advanced mode to make your own rules with the shareware version only.
comodo is free, i hope for version 3.1 that got results as good as OA on matousec site.
but on vista comodo is the one that rules.

I must have missed it.. does OA pass the basic ICMP test? the test is in our leak testing forum..
I was told that even though CPF passed this leak test in its simple mode but OA failed it in its most secure mode.

thanks

[zvaragabor]

i hope for version 3.1 that got results as good as OA on matousec site.

Notice, that matousec tested only v2.4, not v3.0.

[Melih]

anyone who thinks CFP v3 power can be matched simply doesn't know the first thing about desktop security, period!

Melih

[Tags:]