Feedback: CFP 3 "Basic Installation" [Merged]

[Guest]

[Melih]

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.

I agree that discussion should not get too emotional, hence i summarised it to 4 points in my previous points.

thanks

Melih

[grayhair]

   I should have added that it sounds a little like Comodo may be threatening certain products' moneyline.  As Cyndi Lauper put it, "Money changes everything..."

 

[pitzelberger]

At least I am quite convinced now that comodos staff really stays behind its products, whatsoever ...

I would just wish that my posts, about bugs and stuff that is not working as supposed, will be once answered with a similar enthusiasm.  (... or at least get any answer?  )

[Melih]

At least I am quite convinced now that comodos staff really stays behind its products, whatsoever ...

I would just wish that my posts, about bugs and stuff that is not working as supposed, will be once answered with a similar enthusiasm.  (... or at least get any answer?  )

we are launching a new version on 30th (fingers crossed)..
then followed with another version soon after with ThreatCast service.
All these versions will include bug fixes as it goes along.

we do read and take into account all user feedback/reports.

thank you for your patience.

Melih

PS: We do indeed stand behind our products! I belive Scot should change his heading of his post from
"Comodo’s CEO Attacks Scot’s Newsletter Product Decision” (which is totally wrong as I respect everyonoe's opinion and it would be stupid to attack people's opinions and decisions)
to

"Comodo’s CEO Defends his Company against Scot’s Newsletter mis-information"

[salmonela]

Mr. Melih, Am I right if I say that some of HIPS features from defense+ in CFP v.3.0 will emigrate to firewall "TAB" in next CFP v.3.1?

[Melih]

Mr. Melih, Am I right if I say that some of HIPS features from defense+ in CFP v.3.0 will emigrate to firewall "TAB" in next CFP v.3.1?

Here is what will happen

at installation you will have the following options

Default firewall with D+ (as it is today)

Firewall only option   
(if you choose this option, we will ask if you want this firewall to have Leak protection or not, it will be selected as default, if you choose this setting, but you can always disable it, if you just want a firewall)

Melih

[salmonela]

In other words if I chose FW with leak protection, some of monitor settings "boxes" in defense+ "TAB" will be ticked (to pass leak tests and protect from malware which uses leaktests routine) and some of them not (by default)?

[Melih]

In other words if I chose FW with leak protection, some of monitor settings "boxes" in defense+ "TAB" will be ticked (to pass leak tests and protect from malware which uses leaktests routine) and some of them not (by default)?

in theory yes..(but the full details of what will be done will be released later on).

Melih

[salmonela]

Thanks Mr. Melih for info. , I support you in your effort to defend CFP from stupidity and consequences of stupidity, like CFP defend us from malwares and other threats from internet.

[Melih]

Scot has responded again and made the following statement:

"But when I asked about issues with XP users, they denied a significant set of issues there. The data I’ve collected don’t match that viewpoint"

To make it clear: At no stage did we receive any specific point about any specific XP complaint from Scot! Other editors are kind enough to inform us about issues and we inform them about our response (if a bug, we tell them its a bug and tell them when it will be fixed). This way those editors can serve their readers betters.

However, Scot has not provided us "any" specific XP issues at all!!!! We would love to know about these so that we can address it it asap! Scot, why didn't you tell us these?

Also, while I am at it, I would honestly appreciate an answer to why you claimed you only learnt that simple firewall mode (which is NOT the default installation mode) does not have leak protection (malware protection) from an executive just recently, even though you reported on 25th Nov Blog that, the simple firewall mode offered no malware protection? Also why did you claim, repeatedly that we don't tell our users that simple firewall mode offers no leak protection (malware protection)?

I think if you answer the above question it will help settle the matter once and for all!
Afterall, you answered some of the other issues I raised, yet you are choosing not to answer this very specific question, people will wonder why you are avoiding this Scot. Your answer will be appreciated.

thanks

Melih

[Melih]

Scot

This is the misconception you have caused!!!! Is this a service to your users?

http://certifiedbug.com/blog/?p=493#comment-23079

"However if a firewall does not offer any outbound leak protection it is a security risk, doesn’t matter which company is offering it or how much I respect them."

http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2008/01/21/comodo-3-basic-no-outbound-protection/

"the basic edition does not protect against outbound traffic."

Because of the misunderstanding you had, that caused you to write statements that were not true, people are "trusting" what you say and simply repeating all these false statements.

It is your misunderstanding that lead you to think that you have a News Flash and released that blog in that sensational manner. You claimed Comodo did not alert the user in simple firewall mode. But, in reality, Comodo is the only firewall that warns the user in that mode!  You merely did not understand No malware protection means No Leak protection.

Will you, as a responsible editor, a respected journalist, issue a statement correcting your mis-understanding?

As a side note: Why, even though Comodo offers plenty warning and Comodo is the only one offering any warning at all, do you single out Comodo and demand that Comodo should have put the alert (as it happens we are the only ones who has it) for this simple firewall mode, why is that? Why not ask all firewall providers to put alerts if a user chooses a delibrate non-default configuration that causes leaks? Scot, can you even point to one other firewall provider that does that beside Comodo?

You did not understand No malware protection is no leak protection, when you spoke with us we explained it to you, then you thought this was a news worthy item thinking that you are on to something and went ahead and published it. Now you cornered yourself into a position that you think will make you look silly if you told your users "yep, I didn't know that no malware protection means no leak protection", hence you are putting the blame at Comodo, the only company who has put a stern warning on that mode of any firewall, by claming we should have spelled it out better!!!

"That should be spelled out under the Basic Firewall heading. Had it done that, all of this would never happened. "

Heck, we are the only company who did!!! we said no malware protection!!! Who do you think will cause the leak in your machine if not the malware!!! So no Malware protection = No Leak protection and more users know the word Malware than Leak protection!!!

The post seemed to convey the sense that this lack of protection was hidden or obscured from the public when in actuality we try to provide as many warnings about the problems of using "basic" as we can and the irony is we are the only company who does so in that mode!!

Scot, I am sorry you misunderstood, but why are you muddying our good name? Why can't you simply say, "hey guys, sorry misunderstood the terminology!!??" and correct your blogs?

What angers me even further is for you to turn around and make the following statement:

"To be honest, to me, this all seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot."

Bravo Scot! 

We at Comodo worked very hard for everything we have done, our users, our employees and everyone who made Comodo what it is today. You have caused mis-information about our Company (pls read the above links), we will NOT stand by while people unfairly spread mis-information about our good name that we all worked very hard for! We take what we do seriously!

Melih

[rubb]

Heck, we are the only company who did!!! we said no malware protection!!! Who do you think will cause the leak in your machine if not the malware!!! So no Malware protection = No Leak protection and more users know the word Malware than Leak protection!!!

I think one valuable lesson to be learned from all this is that the Comodo team has to try even harder to find the best way to explain CFP3 to users. Please don't take that in the wrong way. I'm not saying that you aren't already trying, or that there aren't already some warnings in the UI, but the fact is that CFP3 is a sophisticated, complex product that does things a LOT of users aren't able to understand intuitively because they aren't familiar with the technology or the terminology etc.

Think about it: if a user like Scot (a power user who publishes a newsletter for computer geeks!) can have a hard time figuring out CFP3's features/functionality, just imagine how much harder it will be for the many more "average" users out there. The sloppy writing on Scot's blog is very unfortunate, of course, but I think it would be in Comodo's best interest to think what can be done to prevent any incidents like this from happening again in the future. Comodo has developed a great reputation through word of mouth, and it would be a shame to see that reputation diminished due to misinformed word of mouth.

[Melih]

Indeed a valuable lesson!

However, even though we work very hard at improving things, we are very responsive to our users. It is amazing that its only Scot who brought this issue up, even though we have around 40,000 new users every day installing our application and we have over 41,000 forum members who hasn't said a thing about it.

The main issue I have problem with Scot is:

"He blames Comodo for not informing user"

"He then realises we do"

as it happens, by now he must realise we are the only ones that actually informs the user, yet he does not correct his misunderstanding. This misunderstanding leads to other people spreading mis-information, yet he does nothing about it!

So Scot seems to be happy to spread mis-information and take no action to rectify it even though now he knows this is not the case.

Why is he not correcting it?

Is his pride more important than his users?

Melih

[Alf]

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!!!

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

[pitzelberger]

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

Scot?

[Tags:]