Feedback: CFP 3 "Basic Installation" [Merged]

[Guest]

[Alf]

Scot?

I was replying to Melih's answer.

[pitzelberger]

I was replying to Melih's answer.

oh, sorry 

[Melih]

I just want to re-iterate to everyone once again:

The issue is NOT that he chooses this or that, Everyone is entitled to their opinon. They are entitled to recommend this or that, it has nothing to do with us!

Our problem is: Mis information that exist and not what Scot chooses to recommend!

Please allow me explain, once again, what these are:

here is the line from his post:

Problem 1) He claims on his original post: "does not offer any outbound leak protection whatsoever"

Scot: "I have learned directly from Comodo executives that the Basic Firewall installation option of Comodo 3 does not offer any outbound leak protection whatsoever"
outbound leak protection (Misinformation by Scot Finnie)

Please note: the term "outbound leak protection" (THIS IS WRONG!!!!!THIS IS MISINFORMATION BY SCOT FINNIE )  (read below to see why)

But then he says:

Scot: "In the Jan. 20th post, I explained that because Comodo 3’s “Basic Firewall” installation option does not offer leak protection"
Scot stops referring to it as Outbound Leak protection and starts calling it Leak protection

You see, he stopped referring to it as: Outbound Leak protection in his later posts, because he realises he was wrong to refer to it as Outbound Leak protection. But he does nothing to correct this mis-information from his original blog. And it is that blog that is being spread on Internet Spreading mis-information by Scot Finnie!


Why does this matter?

You see, even an MVP (Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs)) thought what Scot meant was that CFP has no outbound protection

This statement is VERY wrong, becuase this is interpreted as firewall has NO OUTBOUND protection. This is totally false. When user chooses to configure v3 into simple firewall mode, they disable Leak protection but, OUTBOUND PROTECTION is always there and its top quality outbound protection.

So I ask : Why does he not correct it? He has no excuse to let that mis-information to continue to be spread. Would YOU do the same and keep it on your blog knowing that its not correct?

Problem 2) The information has always been there!!!! There was no NEWS!!!

This is what he says:
Scot: "I have learned directly from Comodo executives"

Actually Comodo has always told the user in the application that in simple firewall mode they won't be able to fight malware! So he didn't learn this from Comodo Executives, he simply didn't realise and I explained, it was NOT an information that was unavailable to end users, he simply did not "get it" until I explained it to him that No Malware protection means No leak protection, because afterall, whats going to cause the leak? Of course its malware! So by us saying: No malware protection it covers many things, including leaks. So why is he not correcting that statement. Because that statement is about sensationalising the big secret that Scot thought existed! But he knows, in reality, Comodo is the only company who puts a warning like that, Why is he not explaining to his users that,

The information was always there, but he simply did not get it and when I explained it to him he got it.

Why is he still allowing that mis-understanding of his to be spread on internet at the expense of Comodo? Why is he not correcting that?

So why is Scot Finnie not correcting his mis-information?

Melih

[Melih]

If you think putting question marks behind accusations make them less slanderous, you should start a political career immediately !

Thank you for recent registration at the forum and diving into this discussion with both feet in

I appreciate and respect your opinion.

I am not a legal person, if you are, then by all means I will put you in touch with my legal people who you might be able to talk better, if you are not and since I am not, this discussion about my political career won't go anywhere

Again, thank you for registering and diving into this discussion and we respect your opinion.

thanks
Melih

[Alf]

If you think putting question marks behind accusations make them less slanderous, you should start a political career immediately !

Thank you for recent registration at the forum and diving into this discussion with both feet in

  Bit late to thank me for that; it depends what your interpretation of 'recent' is... I'm reading this forum for quite some time now:

Date Registered: 17-08-2006, 09:32:49

I appreciate and respect your opinion.
I am not a legal person, if you are, then by all means I will put you in touch with my legal people who you might be able to talk better, if you are not and since I am not, this discussion about my political career won't go anywhere

At least you didn't lost your sense of humor 

Again, thank you for registering and diving into this discussion and we respect your opinion.

If you are brave enough to withdraw in this forum the accusations you made, you could deserve my respect too.

[pitzelberger]

If you are brave enough to withdraw in this forum the accusations you made, you could deserve my respect too.

Mike?

[Alf]

If you are brave enough to withdraw in this forum the accusations you made, you could deserve my respect too.

Mike?

Nice (second) try... 
You know better... 

[Melih]

  Bit late to thank me for that; it depends what your interpretation of 'recent' is... I'm reading this forum for quite some time now: At least you didn't lost your sense of humor  ;DIf you are brave enough to withdraw in this forum the accusations you made, you could deserve my respect too.

Are you asking me to apologise for asking a question because i had good enough basis to ask that question?

BTW: this is not my starting at all, the main issue is still there on Scot's blog, you are brave enough to come and ask me to apologise, but are you brave enough to ask Scot?


Melih

[salmonela]

Mike?

No, no, he is Alf a cat eater...

[Alf]

No, no, he is Alf a cat eater...

That's right, there is nothing else to eat here on Melmac.

[Alf]

Are you asking me to apologize for asking a question because i had good enough basis to ask that question?
BTW: this is not my starting at all, the main issue is still there on Scot's blog, you are brave enough to come and ask me to apologize, but are you brave enough to ask Scot?

You have a conflict with Scot. I didn't interfere in that conflict as I stated in an earlier post; I don't have the knowledge to judge about your conflict, although I think your comments and arguments here are quite reasonable. But you involved Tall Emu in your conflict with Scot by accusing them to pay Scot and Tall Emu refutes this on their forum. That's why I asked you to prove your accusations or to apologize for them to Tall Emu. I'm not a fanboy of OA neither CPF, but in my opinion it's not very polite to made such accusations without any prove. But somehow I got the impression you don't care about such politeness, so be it. Good luck with you struggle with Scot.

[salmonela]

That's right, there is nothing else to eat here on Melmac.

I dont see any cats here, try find some on Scots blog...

[Melih]

You have a conflict with Scot. I didn't interfere in that conflict as I stated in an earlier post; I don't have the knowledge to judge about your conflict, although I think your comments and arguments here are quite reasonable. But you involved Tall Emu in your conflict with Scot by accusing them to pay Scot and Tall Emu refutes this on their forum. That's why I asked you to prove your accusations or to apologize for them to Tall Emu. I'm not a fanboy of OA neither CPF, but in my opinion it's not very polite to made such accusations without any prove. But somehow I got the impression you don't care about such politeness, so be it. Good luck with you struggle with Scot.

Alf

The issue is not with a 3rd party firewall vendor. Anyone can choose to pay for advertising in return for traffic. Heck, look at google!!! Advertising is not a crime nor something to be ashamed for.

If someone is taking money for what is supposed to be editorial comments, then it would be unethical. The issue is with the "source" not the "beneficiary"!
 
Hence my question was to Scot. Even if Mike has paid for advertisement (he has come out and said he hasn't and I take his word) there is nothing wrong with that. As you can see, Scot does have google adwords etc on his blog, so he does make money from his site and hey, good luck to him as long as his editorials are not affected (and in all honesty now that he is trying to explain his side of it, i don't think he is getting money for that). But removing the link to Comodo and putting a link to a paid for competitor product (read mike's post, even he thought it was a link to a free version of his firewall but it wasn't!!! So Mike got it wrong too!) and then printing mis-information about our product is more than enough basis to ask that question "to Scot".  This is why I asked him a question.

Melih

[Alf]

I dont see any cats here, try find some on Scots blog...

Thanks for the hint. I went there but couldn't find any cats... 
But he, I found a troll named salmonela in this forum.
Maybe trolls tastes just like cats...

[gaslad]

Holey moley!

When I started this thread, I was only seeking info about the basic FW. And I got it in spades!
As an average user, I've found it most instructional.

I've also been following Finnie's series on firewalls from the start- if it wasn't for him I never would have tried CFP 3. And as a neutral observer, I think valid points (and misunderstandings) have been made on both sides.

I have no reason to mistrust the motives of either side. I intend to continue to use CFP 3/D+, and to follow Finnie's tests. And I'm certainly now better educated in terminology and capabilities of the basic firewall, which was my original question.

Surely this disagreement has now been beaten to death.

[Tags:]