Scot Finney: Online Armor best Firewall Of 2008

[Guest]

[Leolas]

 

nice post, I think I agree with you in everything 

I'm sorry I won't answer you with a post as long as yours, but I really don't have anything to say 

 

[panic]

NP. 

[Melih]

Don’t you find the following statement that Scot makes about Comodo ironic?

Especially knowing that the very review Scot wrote about OA he had ask his users to upgrade to a newer version of an 2 your old “XP” product due to insecurity and instability and the so called testing org he relied upon (Matousec) had to apologise twice about them!!?

“What that tells me is that Comodo 3 is a good firewall product, potentially a great one, that quite possibly was shipped to end users without adequate QA testing. As is always the case with free, publicly available software, some early adopters were ill-equipped to handle the problems they encountered. Most of those issues appear to have been fixed now. Comodo 3 was also an ambitious release, and bugs happen. But this kind of management of a development process does not inspire confidence — especially when it’s the type of product that can wreak havoc on your computer.”

He blames us for having bad management of software development process even though we brought our stability for a new OS (VISTA) and security under control within less than 2 months of launch and this includes 64bit version of VISTA as well! Yet on the other hand Scot is still having to ask his users to upgrade to a newer version of his chosen software for XP because of instability and insecurity and that is after 2 years of its development for XP (not even VISTA)! 

This is very unfair. Don’t you think?

Melih

[OD]

.......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...

I agree with you 100% Blas

......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......

Ewen
When was the last time you meet a Mr. and Mrs. Average that could read a alert box and make an informed decision reguarding "Allow" or "Block" much less can "find a flaw in a firewall  and publicly release their testing results"

.....He blames us for having bad management of software development process even though we brought our stability for a new OS (VISTA) and security under control within less than 2 months of launch and this includes 64bit version of VISTA as well! Yet on the other hand Scot is still having to ask his users to upgrade to a newer version of his chosen software for XP because of instability and insecurity and that is after 2 years of its development for XP (not even VISTA)! 
This is very unfair. Don’t you think?

What do you expect Melih, he does not like you.  You called him on his **** and he didn't like that.  You gotta admit you aren't always the most politically correct person in your posts

I have yet to see a software without bugs but as Melih and Ewen/Panic said the question is does the bug affect the basic function of the software. 1/100 or 1/1000 to me is not that important.  The question is does it or will it affect me or even more if I am installing it on a business network or client does it or will it affect them.  They don't care if a bug is one in million, if I recommend the software and it has problems in their mind it is my fault.  All the disclaimers in the world don't seem to make much difference.

OD

[Luketan]

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.

Spoken like a fanboy.

I know it has several, because it shutdowns once every week on my setup for no reason. And I'm running only comodo security products..........

[Blas]

You misunderstood my post. Or haven't read the whole topic. There is no software without bugs. Comodo has too...I was referring with "such" to serious, security comprimising bugs. The chkdsk and perfect disk bug is not one of those in my opinion. The shutdown thing you are talking about can be considered serious security wise. With the last three versions I had no stability problems. So I wasn't aware about that bug if it is a comodo bug anyway. This is why I said "as far as I know"

[Luketan]

You misunderstood my post. Or haven't read the whole topic. There is no software without bugs. Comodo has too...I was referring with "such" to serious, security comprimising bugs.

Do you even read what you are writing?

So instead of saying your favourtie product doesn't have bugs and others have bugs, you say your favourite product doesn't have SERIOUS bugs but others definitely has SERIOUS bugs? That's a even more fanyboyish statement.

What is so magical about your favoured product that it is immune to having serious bugs, but the other products are riddled with them?

If you can accept that comodo products has bugs like any other product, why is it so hard to believe that some of the bugs are serious bugs (just like in other products)?

The chkdsk and perfect disk bug is not one of those in my opinion. The shutdown thing you are talking about can be considered serious security wise. With the last three versions I had no stability problems.

Well take a look at the forum or anywhere else on the net, and you will see stability problems galore. Fact is, for products as complicated as security software there is BOUND to be serious bugs somewhere, to believe otherwise is folly. Particularly when we are talking about CPF3 which has more HIPS features than I have seen in 95% of products...

That is why sometimes "simpler" products that pass few tests might in the long run actually be superior....
 

[Blas]

Sorry if my English sucks that much. Others usually have understood me so far. I have just admitted that the stability issue IS serious security wise. But the fact that this "bug" doesn't affect me, I mean CFP is now stable here, for me this bug has vanished a long time ago.

Well take a look at the forum or anywhere else on the net, and you will see stability problems galore. Fact is, for products as complicated as security software there is BOUND to be serious bugs somewhere, to believe otherwise is folly. Particularly when we are talking about CPF3 which has more HIPS features than I have seen in 95% of products...

That is why sometimes "simpler" products that pass few tests might in the long run actually be superior....

I agree with you here on complexity and the problems/bugs being proportional. But, it is possible that I have not searched the net thorough enough, I don't see that stability problems galore.

Anyway, I nowhere have commented about bugs in other software.

But here I think the question shouldn't be that they have such bugs or not...but that Comodo has any or no.

Instead, here I tried to point out that instead of focusing on other products, we should focus on Comodo bug-wise.

Just to make it clear I do believe that Comodo can have, have serious bugs. Its just there aren't any affecting me that Im aware of. I have never stated that Comodo has no bugs. I said up to my knowledge...this is more of a personal experience than a fact...

[Luketan]

Just to make it clear I do believe that Comodo can have, have serious bugs. Its just there aren't any affecting me that Im aware of.

Fair enough.

BTW I think it is pointless to over-use qualifiers like "I'm aware of", "AFAIK" etc. Of course everything one says is "AFAIK" etc... Adding that doesn't give you any extra wriggle room when you are challenged IMHO (lol).

I have never stated that Comodo has no bugs. I said up to my knowledge...this is more of a personal experience than a fact...

Almost everything anyone, either you or me says is "up to" one's knowledge. One can't talk "beyond" one's knowledge ...

Trying to dodge a challenge by using such qualifiers is a waste of time.

[axl]

Fair enough.

BTW I think it is pointless to over-use qualifiers like "I'm aware of", "AFAIK" etc. Of course everything one says is "AFAIK" etc... Adding that doesn't give you any extra wriggle room when you are challenged IMHO (lol).


Almost everything anyone, either you or me says is "up to" one's knowledge. One can't talk "beyond" one's knowledge ...

Trying to dodge a challenge by using such qualifiers is a waste of time.

I don't see using those qualifiers as an attempt to dodge a challenge; to me it appears to be an attempt to inform.

I am now informed that Blas is not privy to certain information through the use of those qualifiers.

I can infer that he is not a systems programmer, nor in charge of the bug-tracking process, nor has he had any experience using change-management software...

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

[Luketan]

I don't see using those qualifiers as an attempt to dodge a challenge; to me it appears to be an attempt to inform.

I am now informed that Blas is not privy to certain information through the use of those qualifiers.

Yes you are now informed that people are not privy to information that they are not aware  that they are not privy to..A tautologically true statement. That's "useful" 

I can infer that he is not a systems programmer, nor in charge of the bug-tracking process, nor has he had any experience using change-management software...

Saying AFAIK, allows you to infer that he is not a systems programmer? How does that work? You saying a system programmer cannot say AFAIK?

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Your point it seems is that you have none.

[OD]

Hey guys

Can we chill on this discussion? It´s not getting us anywhere.

Thanks OD

[ailef]

what do you think about the fact that OA is unable to detect and protect u from flood and after some seconds, the firewall crashed, is it a big issue or it's not important?
what is the utility of a firewall that is unable to protect u from network flooding and crash?
and with this fact, cause it' a fact, how is it possible that it's the best firewall 2008?

[LeoniAquila]

I haven't followed this topic (yet). How can a firewall be the best of 2008 when it's not even Vista ready? Or am I missing something?

LA

[ailef]

maybe cause no one uses vista?
i got 2 pc with vista and 1 with XP.
but no one uses vista...
and it's not EXACTLY the same story to code a FW for xp and vista.
vista is far from being a XP with some updated UI.

[Tags:]