Feedback: CFP 3 "Basic Installation" [Merged]

[Guest]

[pitzelberger]

check what I found on Gizmos's Tech Alert page
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best_46_free_utilities.htm#5

"If performance rather than ease-of-use is your criterion then the Comodo firewall [2] is the top contender ... Make sure though, you install it in the "Advanced" mode as the "Basic" installation has the HIPS and outbound protection disabled."

So it seems Scotty is not alone with his outbound leak protection whatsoever ....

[JanPoko]

I'm not interfering the 'tech' discussion about CPF, but want to ask Melih to give some prove of his accusations to Scot and/or Online Armor. If he can't, a detailed excuse is very desirable.
See the reaction of OA in their forum:
http://support.tallemu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2831

It really shows it's Melih you would better pass without...

[ganda claus]

reading this posts here makes me understand (a lil bit  )

CFP 2 = (Basic firewall+simple HIPS) <== 1 inseparatable package
OA     = (Basic firewall+simple HIPS) <== 1 inseparatable package (assumption, i've never tried it)

CFP3 =Basic Firewall + Advaced HIPS <== there's option to use the basic firewall only.

this "basic firewall" option makes unbalance comparison between
OA (bundled firewall+HIPS) vs CFP3 basic firewall.

i hope the next CFP3 will give us 3 options :
1) CFP3 basic firewall
2) CFP3 basic firewall+simple HIPS
3) CFP3 basic firewall+advanced HIPS (Defense+)

 (R)
Ganda

[Melih]

check what I found on Gizmos's Tech Alert page
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best_46_free_utilities.htm#5

"If performance rather than ease-of-use is your criterion then the Comodo firewall [2] is the top contender ... Make sure though, you install it in the "Advanced" mode as the "Basic" installation has the HIPS and outbound protection disabled."

So it seems Scotty is not alone with his outbound leak protection whatsoever ....

Again, the above statement is incorrect!
Scott must have realised this and changed his statement in his latest blog from Outbound Leak protection to Leak protection.

whereas the above guys say: Outbound protection!

As I said, that statement is incorrect! These people are confusing

1)outbound protection
with
2)Leak protection

Simple task of a firewall is to provide visibility to in/outbound traffic hence its called outbound protection.

Melih

[Melih]

I'm not interfering the 'tech' discussion about CPF, but want to ask Melih to give some prove of his accusations to Scot and/or Online Armor. If he can't, a detailed excuse is very desirable.
See the reaction of OA in their forum:
http://support.tallemu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2831

Please note the question marks!

Those are questions asked to Scot (not statements made)!

This makes them questions and not statements!!! Like you I am hoping that Scot hasn't done this either(if you read my latest posts I think we got to the bottom of where Scot went wrong), but the questions are asked and he hasn't responded yet.

Also Mike is wrong with the following guess "I would guess the reason why there wasn't a link to Comodo was due to the fact Scot was recommending uninstalling it, but Melih chose to paint this as evidence of some kind of financial arrangement. "

On another note: Mike claims falsely that the link Scot has goes to his free version.
"Melih neglects to note that the blog linked to the free version of Online Armor"
When you click on the link on Scot's page it takes you to a download page where the first product promoted is not the free product!. There are 3 products in that page and the top one listed is not, as far as I can see, is the free one. I have no idea why Mike is claiming the link goes to free version of his firewall, even though in reality it does not?

Because Mike's firewall is not Vista compatible, Scott did advice his Vista users to re-install (even though they didn't have to) Comodo firewall, but without providing a link to it!!! Hence why I asked the question to Scot. As Mike readily admits that Scot has always provided a link to Comodo, yet he chose not to even though he adviced them to re-install Comodo firewall!

on a side note: As the company who is creating trust online, its our duty to "ask questions" to get to the bottom of what is "Truth". Our users expect nothing less than the truth, nothing but the whole truth!!! This is not first time nor will it be the last time Comodo will ask questions!

On a side note : As the CEO of the company whose mission is to protect users and create trust online, we will stop at nothing at achiving our goal! We will ask questions, we will demand answers! We will protect our good name and our users all the way! We will not allow any mis-information be spread about Comodo! We will fight, fight and fight! We haven't built our good name for it to be muddied with mis-information!

But I notice that PR bandwagon is in full swing

Melih

[Melih]

here is what Scot said in his response:

"As I wrote in the post that tops this thread, I am unable to find specific feature communication about the differences between Comodo products offered anywhere by Comodo — other than the document they emailed me. Perhaps even more importantly, the Comodo 3 installation screen that offers the choice between Advanced and Basic Firewall does not specifically detail that a user’s choice of Basic Firewall eliminates leak protection. That should be spelled out under the Basic Firewall heading. Had it done that, all of this would never happened. "

and continues

"It’s about communicating with Comodo users, regardless of their technical level. Relying on a forums for that is not enough. It needs to be baked into the code "

So this is a clear indication of where the problem is. We clearly state under the simple firewall that if they choose that mode there is no malware protection! Actually I would like to ask if there is any other firewall that warns the user if they choose to lower their security to be leaky like we do!

So Scot did not understand that no malware protection means no leak protection! And didn't realise that we have, as he puts it, baked it into the code!!

Now the question is: As a technical editor should he not know that?
Also do end user really know what Leak protection is or they better associate with the word Malware protection?

When we wrote those lines into the installation procedure of the firewall we thought very hard on this. End users know more about Malware protection than Leak protection! Hence we chose those words which are actually technically correct and gets the message accross. Obviously Scot did not understand that, which is worrying!

Also, on another note: Scott and Judy (our vp of marketing) has been in touch regularly, me and Egemen spent some time talking about the product and its future etc. So Scot had always had access to us and its a courtesy to first ask the Company's opinion about something the "editor" discovers (even though as it turns out there was no discovery here!). Yet Scot ignored all this and went ahead and put all that mis-information about Comodo! So put all these together

here are the summary of issues as to why this has all started:

1)Scot didn't get that no malware = no leak protection (this has been mentioned in our product!!! We clearly state and has been stating from inception that choosing simple firewall mode has no malware protection!!! So what is the news here? The product itself warns the user!! )

2)Scot said "no outbound leak protection" (this is a wrong statement by the way he corrected it in his latest blog)(if he only said no leak protection then it would be a correct statement) (outbound protection is different than leak protection, they refer to 2 different functionality. By combinging both, Scot made its user think simple firewall failed at Outbound protection, but in reality it did not!

3)He always had put links to Comodo in the past, but omitted in this post even though he was advising his users to re-install Vista version of v3.

4)Didn't have the courtesy (even though he had access to us) to give us a chance to explain to him, before he published it, as that would have educated him about what no malware means and he would have realised that actually CPF is the only product of its kind that clearly informs its users about this mode and no malware protection in this mode!

that's the frustration! being treated wrongly!

Melih

[Melih]

dang this sucks. I've gone ahead and posted at Scot's blog. I've tried to make the whole thing crystal clear so that any misunderstandings are dispelled, and I've posted at Scot's site so that his readers get to read Comodo's side of the story. Since I'm not what you'd call a real techie, pls point out if something is wrong:
http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2008/01/22/comodos-ceo-attacks-scots-newsletter-product-decision/#comment-277

Hi Japo

Thank you for your efforts in trying to set this straight.


I have summarised the issues here
http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews/feedback_cfp_3_basic_installation_merged-t18598.0.html;msg127805#msg127805

the question is: What did Scot think with the warning we give in the simple firewall mode where we say: In this mode there is no malware protection??

Because in his response to you, he still claims, we don't communicate this information to user!! Obviously he is not understanding that no malware protection = no leak protection.

thanks
Melih

[Japo]

When we wrote those lines into the installation procedure of the firewall we thought very hard on this. End users know more about Malware protection than Leak protection! Hence we chose those words which are actually technically correct and gets the message accross. Obviously Scot did not understand that, which is worrying!

Indeed Scot says he didn't understand that no malware protection implies no leak protection, although I'm with you that it's more important to communicat that a certain configuration doesn't protect against malware (that's something everyone will get), than saying that it's not leakproof (which is a technical term even though widespread). Perhaps if you included BOTH the "malware" and "leak" bits then NObody would have the opportunity to misunderstand the message.

[Melih]

Indeed Scot says he didn't understand that no malware protection implies no leak protection, although I'm with you that it's more important to communicat that a certain configuration doesn't protect against malware (that's something everyone will get), than saying that it's not leakproof (which is a technical term even though widespread). Perhaps if you included BOTH the "malware" and "leak" bits then NObody would have the opportunity to misunderstand the message.

Well, until now we did not have any problems with that, but as you know, we listen to our users and if they wanted more clarification built in, then we will happily do so.

However, the fact still remains that, Comodo did inform its users about this mode from day 1! Scot makes it out as if he found this out from the executives of the company as if it was a secret.

We totally respect people's opinions about what they choose/recommend and their duties to their users. However it is totally unfair to claim we don't tell our users about this mode, while we clearly do!

This coupled with using wrong terminology and not following basic courtesy of checking with the company of this "big find" Scot has put himself in a difficult position.

I still hope he can accept that he misunderstood (as we are all humans) our alerts (which we clearly display on our firewall) and can all continue helping our respective users protect themselves!

Melih

[Japo]

Yes it's right that all this happened because he misinterpreted the capabilities of the "basic firewall" mode and recommended it, convinced that it met his criteria including being leakproof on its own. So in a sense it was due to his own misunderstanding, whether CFP's phrasing invited that mistake is another, albeit related, issue. When he wrote the article to clarify his previous misinterpretation it was Comodo alone who got damaged.

And of course I think he should have contacted you/Comodo before fusing the bomb (posting his article). Any blogger/journalist/whatever should ask all parties concerned no matter how clear he thinks his story is. The only case when he shouldn't provide one party's statement is when that party didn't want to talk to him; and you'd have been willing to talk to him and he didn't even ask.

[Japo]

Melih, once again, you are the problem! You knew and was warned by many users that your v3 is by far not ready for anything than beta (or maybe even alfa) stage and still - you threw it at your unsuspecting customers! You did much more harm than any programmer ever could. You spoiled the Comodo name, not some Scott or anyone else!

Whatevs pal. It seems you don't like CFP's features, but they now work so it's release quality. As a matter of fact you don't like some features, but now you're also complaining about the setting that disables them. Make up your mind, it seems that what you don't like for no particular reason is Comdo. If you don't want it don't buy it.

Thats'all, guys. Happy life with your cpf.

KTHNX

check what I found on Gizmos's Tech Alert page
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best_46_free_utilities.htm#5

"If performance rather than ease-of-use is your criterion then the Comodo firewall [2] is the top contender ... Make sure though, you install it in the "Advanced" mode as the "Basic" installation has the HIPS and outbound protection disabled."

So it seems Scotty is not alone with his outbound leak protection whatsoever ....

Well actually Gizmo was more fortunate here than Scot. Gizmo said, "the basic mode isn't leakproof, so I'd choose the advanced one". Scot said, "the basic mode isn't leakproof, I recommended it last day but now I recommend every man to himself and abandon the ship, XP users use OA don't use Comodo, Vista users you may as well activate Defense+ since you have no other option".

[grayhair]

   Wow! What a cat fight.  I am a little light weight.  I don't bleed 0's and 1's.  My main occupation is not strictly IT (although I "play one on TV").  I don't know Scott.  Here's what I know.  I have tried many firewalls, and other computer security solutions.  Comodo is the only one that I have found that works as advertised.  It works on my XP laptop, my XP desk, my Vista desk.  I use CFP v3 with D+.  It works.  It wasn't that hard to figure out.  When I didn't understand something about it I read the directions.  Again, I don't know all the in's and out's of the computer security world, nor do I know this Scott guy.  But, you can tell him from me, that Comodo products work just fine for me.

 

[tlu]

Please note the question marks!

Melih, no offense - but while I fully support your position that Scot was completely wrong, those statements - with or without question marks - were rather close to an allegation. It's getting increasingly difficult to stick to the facts if the discussion becomes too emotional.

[darth]

 I have used 2.4v since day one.  I understand it has good leak protection.  Question: Could 2.4v leak protection been left in the current  versions firewall, instead of putting it in Defence(hips) part. As I understand one has the choice of running the basic firewall if they choose

[Melih]

I have used 2.4v since day one.  I understand it has good leak protection.  Question: Could 2.4v leak protection been left in the current  versions firewall, instead of putting it in Defence(hips) part. As I understand one has the choice of running the basic firewall if they choose

it has been in our plan for launch on 3.1. Our users did want a 2.4 like feature.

thanks
Melih

[Tags:]