Scot Finney: Online Armor best Firewall Of 2008

[Guest]

[Melih]

Scot, don't you think you should re-test? Your advice to your users was based on a version that had a MAJOR bug that could have affected both usability and security of the product! Don't you think your users deserve that?

Melih
 

[Leolas]

Scot, don't you think you should re-test? Your advice to your users was based on a version that had a MAJOR bug that could have affected both usability and security of the product! Don't you think your users deserve that?

Melih
 

Comodo doesn't have bugs.. nono
Windows doesn't have bugs.. nono
Linux doesn't have bugs.. nono
Apple doesn't have bugs.. nono
Zone Alarm doesn't have bugs.. nono
ProSecurity doesn't have bugs.. nono
Norton doesn't have bugs.. nono
Kaspersky doesn't have bugs.. nono
Browsers don't have bugs.. nono

 

[Rednose]

Comodo doesn't have bugs.. nono
Windows doesn't have bugs.. nono
Linux doesn't have bugs.. nono
Apple doesn't have bugs.. nono
Zone Alarm doesn't have bugs.. nono
ProSecurity doesn't have bugs.. nono
Norton doesn't have bugs.. nono
Kaspersky doesn't have bugs.. nono
Browsers don't have bugs.. nono

 

Happy now that I do read your posts Fanboy

Greetz, Red.

[Commodus]

Comodo doesn't have bugs.. nono
Windows doesn't have bugs.. nono
Linux doesn't have bugs.. nono
Apple doesn't have bugs.. nono
Zone Alarm doesn't have bugs.. nono
ProSecurity doesn't have bugs.. nono
Norton doesn't have bugs.. nono
Kaspersky doesn't have bugs.. nono
Browsers don't have bugs.. nono

 

Online Armor doesn't have bugs.. nono. definetly no. 

[Melih]

They all have bugs..

however the question is which one has bugs that render their security pretty much useless! and that as a security product is a big NO NO

Melih

[JamesFrance]

The bugs which harm your computer are the other serious problem, especially for a non tech 70 year old which I am.

I came to Comodo after being a Zone Alarm user.   That one gave BSODs whenever it updated itself, on two different computers.   I had a lot of trouble finding a restore point which worked, so was in big trouble.

OK so I found CPF 2 after trying others which also caused problems.

I really loved that firewall, so when the betas of CPF3 appeared I had faith in Comodo and have used all of them from the first.   (I chickened out of the alpha)

At no time have any of the betas caused a problem I couldn't sort out for myself, as a forum member, so for me I would not consider anything else.

[Leolas]

Happy now that I do read your posts Fanboy

Greetz, Red.

Online Armor doesn't have bugs.. nono. definetly no. 

They said that OA have bugs, and I recalled them that all programs have bugs 

reading is hard, i know...

[Melih]

They said that OA have bugs, and I recalled them that all programs have bugs 

reading is hard, i know...

I think the issue is not whether they have bugs or not but the implications of these bugs. If as a security product a bug stops your security than this is a very serious issue.

thanks
Melih

[Leolas]

I think the issue is not whether they have bugs or not but the implications of these bugs. If as a security product a bug stops your security than this is a very serious issue.

thanks
Melih

 
I totally agree with you, but:

from david:

And we both know that ZoneAlarm, Comodo Firewall, Outpost, Online Armor contains tens of bugs that can be used to bypass their protection. But this will not be include in FWC because the environment and the rules are fixed there.

Maybe you shuold try 100 times the tests also with COmodo, so you'll see if it's completely safe... 

[Blas]

Agreed...
But here I think the question shouldn't be that they have such bugs or not...but that Comodo has any or no.
Fortunatelly, as far as I know it hasn't got any.

I think this situation is somewhat similar to mine in elementary school...my parents didn't care about the mark of my classmates if mine was bad...Cfp is a great product on its own..there is no need to do comparisons.

Melih, I do understand you that you want to fight against misinformation and/or misinterpretation made by people. But, IMHO, with such people that only rely on Scott and similar...or on a Matousec test (im not saying here that it is not reliable or so, but a leaktest in itself cannot be the only source when judging a product) who are so closed-minded, manipulable, with lack of own, personal opinion....you have no choice...You cannot convince them or show them the light with clear, honest reasoning....They just simply wont get it...

[Leolas]

as far as you know... but anyway, he musn't convince me (convince me of what?)

I think that comodo is a fantastic firewall, there's nothing you have to convince me of.

I'm just saying my opinion, because here matousec is ****, scot is ****, testmypcsecurity is god, pcmag is god et cetera

[Blas]

Sorry Leolas, I was not referring to you.
Nobody needs to (tbh nobody should) convince others that X program is good/best ect...
If I want to know which program is the best for me, it wont depend on Scott, pcmag, matousec ect...
I may read them, but my opinion will be based on my personal experiences of the given software. This is why it will be a personal opinion. And not the opinion ported from others, which is unfortunately a common practice these days...

[Leolas]

Sorry Leolas, I was not referring to you.

uops   

sorry 

 

[Rednose]

They said that OA have bugs, and I recalled them that all programs have bugs 

reading is hard, i know...

Am I Commodus You aparently missed my point ...

Greetz, Red.

[panic]

as far as you know... but anyway, he musn't convince me (convince me of what?)

I think that comodo is a fantastic firewall, there's nothing you have to convince me of.

I'm just saying my opinion, because here matousec is ****, scot is ****, testmypcsecurity is god, pcmag is god et cetera

Hey leolas,

Please take a minute and consider this everyday, for Mr. and Mrs. Average, scenario.

Your PC is turned on and your firewall is running. You've been on the internet doing whatever and somehow, "something bad" has gotten on your PC without your knowledge. It sits there waiting, lurking. You get up to make a cup of coffee, tea, beer, whatever. After a measured period of inactivity (we're assuming Mr. and Mrs. Average don't have their computer in the kitchen and have left the room to get their drink), the "something bad" springs into action and attempts to access the internet. Luckily, your firewall springs into action at the outbound attempt.

Now, you would concede that the above is a fairly realistic scenario?

Imagine that they don't return in time and their firewall suddenly decides to allow traffic, despite there being no explicit user acceptance.

Where, then, is the value, benefit and trust in that firewall?

The question now becomes not "How good is my firewall?", but "How long can I stay away from my PC before it stops being a good firewall?".

I realise that the above scenario is solely targetted at a known flaw in OA, but I am actually using that as an example to show why people are upset at David's testing and the methodologies underpinning it. People aren't saying David is s#!t, just that at least one aspect of his testing method is. People here aren't saying that OA totally sucks, just that this flaw is a pretty bloody big one.

As for whether testmypcsecurity is god or not, lets look at it another way. At Davids site, he defines the testing method, tests firewalls and publishes the results. If you don't agree with the test results, you have to pay for a retest (pretty good business model when you control the model that delivers potentially flawed results that necessitate payment for correction - you own the problem and get paid to correct it). At testmypcsecurity, YOU decide what firewall YOU want to test. YOU publish YOUR results along with YOUR comments and YOUR results can be measured along with everyone else's. What could be more independant than YOU doing your own testing and hanging your results out for the world to see - oops! Have we just tripped to the central issue?

If Mr. and Mrs. Average can find a flaw in a firewall (absolutely regardless of what firewall that is - CFP, OA, ZA or XYbloodyZ) and publicly release their testing results, the manufacturers of said firewall really should pull their collective fingers out and fix it (if the bug really is a showstopper). The more people that do the tests, the greater the amount of test data we can get for each application, the more accurate the overall results would be.

Please understand, I like OA2 and have read most of Mike's postings at their forums. He seems to have a genuine concern for his users and for internet security as a whole, but this (blanket ALLOW after indeterminate inactiivty) is a bug that certainly requires deeper investigation, which I'm sure Tall Emu will do. Likewise, Davids testing methods, IMHO, require investigation. Imagine David tested car brakes. Or bullet proof jackets. Both of these are devices designed to provide user security. I'm pretty sure they get tested to 100% levels, and while I certainly don't equate the safety a software firewall provides to the safety level required of a bullet proof jacket, I want my firewall to be tested at greater than 85%, or whatever percentage someone else deems sufficient.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[Tags:]