What you need to know for your Computer Security

[Guest]

[luzagodom]

'Calm down Angry Clown' is where you stopped reading.  Grow up.  I was being attacked for some poor lil person deciding it was completly personal.  Some of you really need to go out and experience communication in the REAL world if tha comment seemed 'ugly'.  Sorry but its true.  You decided it was demeaning.  It was meant to lighten the mood.

Bottom Line:  Unless you are Melih, stop answereing a question posted to Melih.  Unless you have a partner agreement with MS od ANY sort, stop answering questions based on your wiki life.  Unless you are Comodo, dont tell me how Comodo has cdesigned there suite.

YOU ARE WRONG.  It IS NOT required to disable WinFW with 3rd party vendors (what is 2nd party FW anyhow, did you read that on a wiki?).  The THIRD PARTY FIREWALL vendor is told when they meet the requirements of MS to be a security solution provider 'it is recommended that all security solutions be designed around Windows basic operating framework'; this DOES include the Windows FW. 

As already stated, the Windows Firewall controls more than just FW type activities.  If the THIRD PARTY vendor requires the FW to be disabled THEY MUST include their own process' to replace what is whut down ALONG with Windows FW.

mod edit: Warning - Commercial advertising URLs are strictly forbidden. Any more will result in a full permanent ban. kail

[haidivolume]

Windows native FW IS NOT required to be turned off in Avast v5(but Im not using them until they drop calls to the most comprimisable engine on a PC...ie flash).  MICROSOFT THEMSLEVES RECOMMENDS that third party firewall vendors build their solution AROUND there FW...I dont care that you canty find that in Wikipedia...ask MS then come back and I will accept your apology for posting information you have decided its the way it is, not based in ANY facts.

'Calm down Angry Clown' is where you stopped reading.  Grow up.  I was being attacked for some poor lil person deciding it was completly personal.  Some of you really need to go out and experience communication in the REAL world if tha comment seemed 'ugly'.  Sorry but its true.  You decided it was demeaning.  It was meant to lighten the mood.

Bottom Line:  Unless you are Melih, stop answereing a question posted to Melih.  Unless you have a partner agreement with MS od ANY sort, stop answering questions based on your wiki life.  Unless you are Comodo, dont tell me how Comodo has cdesigned there suite.

YOU ARE WRONG.  It IS NOT required to disable WinFW with 3rd party vendors (what is 2nd party FW anyhow, did you read that on a wiki?).  The THIRD PARTY FIREWALL vendor is told when they meet the requirements of MS to be a security solution provider 'it is recommended that all security solutions be designed around Windows basic operating framework'; this DOES include the Windows FW. 

As already stated, the Windows Firewall controls more than just FW type activities.  If the THIRD PARTY vendor requires the FW to be disabled THEY MUST include their own process' to replace what is whut down ALONG with Windows FW

[panic]

[at] haidivolume and luzagodom,

Which account do you want me to kill?

Multiple accounts for the same individual only cause blips on the mods radar and we'd hate to doubt you unnecessarily.

Ewen :-)

P.S. Decision taken out of your hands. "haidivolume" account banned. Your other account is still valid.

2nd mod edit: User later added spam URLs to signature & web-site. Removed. kail

[brucine]

Multiple accounts for the same individual only cause blips on the mods radar and we'd hate to doubt you unnecessarily.

Why "unnecessarily"?

Multiposting/Multiaccounting shows what has to be thought not only of the formal presentation of the "arguments", but of the validity of these arguments themselves.

[panic]

Why "unnecessarily"?

Why would he need two accounts just to post supporting views of his own argument?

Why would he need two accounts at all?

Multiple accounts make it harder to work out who is saying what in a thread and how many "real" posters there are in a topic.

His other login is still valid and he is welcome to use it.

Ewen :-)

[Dennis2]

Why "unnecessarily"?

Multiposting/Multiaccounting shows what has to be thought not only of the formal presentation of the "arguments", but of the validity of these arguments themselves.

Sorry only one answer using two accounts to double post in the same Topic.

Spammer I would have banned both.

Dennis

Quote Forum Policy

Spam. Comodo maintains an aggressive no-spam policy. Spam in any of the Comodo forums will be deleted without warning. Note that informed discussion about Comodo and competitor offerings or any related hardware, software or services is welcome and encouraged in these forums - whereas fraudulent, misleading or malicious postings related to the above are not. “Spam” in Comodo forums context means blatant, offensive, repeated commercial advertising. In the same vein double posting and crossposting are not allowed. Comodo will never spam any forum user, although spammers may try to create this impression. We also do not permit user name or email harvesting on these forums.

[brucine]

Did i say something else?

I am the "angry clown" and "poor lil person", from at the time a third account.

No need to quote some rules when moderation is systematically inexistent, including when using under the belt "arguments", of which others then myself said, at this same time, they were "disgusting".

But, well, the guy(s) is(are) "still welcomed to use his(their) other login(s)", and i am very glad to read it.

[panic]

Hi Brucine,

The two logins in question were from one individual.

The second account was used solely to post a corroborating post to the first accounts original post.

I made the decision on my own (independantly of any other mods or Comodo staff) to ban the second login.

My decision was based solely on the fact that the two accounts were used solely to bolster his own argument.

His original account is still valid and until he crosses a line it will remain valid and he is more than welcome to continue posting here FROM HIS ONE REMAINING ACCOUNT.

I do not like multiple accounts for single users. It can make it confusing to work out how many individuals are in a single topic, how many people are for or against a particular point of view etc.

I take the point of view that if your argument is srtrong enough, it won't get stronger by repeating it from another account.

Regarding "when moderation is systematically inexistent" (and this is not specifically aimed at you), we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. People whinge like whipped puppies when we are (in their opinion) too lax and similarly get their knickers in a bunch when we tighten up a fraction. We can't win no matter how hard we try. Wanna walk a mile in our mocassins??

Yes, it's bolded deliberately. Yes, I'm angry. Yes, it gives me th sh*ts that we do our best and sometimes nothing is good enough. 99.9% of the members here are fantastic but I really wish the other whinging, whining .1% would get a moderator role on a tech forum somewhere and see what it's like on the difficult side of the fence.

To the normal 99.9% of members, I apologise for this rant. It is not my normal nature, but all of us have a breaking point and I think I now know where mine is.

To the remaining .1%, nut up or shut up.

Ewen

[brucine]

I said, twice, that i did not criticize the decision to ban one of the users accounts (and no one has to criticize any).

But why not both, or 3, or whatever their actual number is, and why, not even speaking of banning, the previous "under the belt" words (they were aimed at me, but it is not the question, i am only speaking of the general "discussion") weren't the occasion of at least an observation to the poster?

I am not whining about anything, and i couldn't care less about the original personal attack; i only made the observation that such comments polluted the general debate (and still do...).

It most certainly is not easy to be a mod, but no one forced you to become one, and i am not sure that it allows you to write about the ".1% of abnormal members" and telling them to "nut up or shut up".
At the day speaking, i don't remember myself having infringed whichever of this forum's rules, and i am quite surprised having in these conditions to read a new personal attack, this time coming from a moderator who should by definition be neutral towards all the users, when i only made an observation:
should the previous "under the belt" comments had been moderated that we probably would not have had to read the "banning posts" and all their fuss.
You most certainly don't need to be yourself insulting only due to my observation.

[panic]

[at] Brucine,

My post was NOT directed at you, as stated. I believe there is a bit of misunderstanding between us. Please check your PMs.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[panic]

For the benefit of all readers of this topic;

I would like to make abundantly clear that my previous comments were in no way directed at, descriptive of or in any way to be associated with the forum member Brucine. My comments, which I still stand by,  were aimed at a select few on these forums and this does not include Brucine.

I unreservedly apologise if my post has caused offense to Brucine or anyone associated with him.

Ewen :-)

[brucine]

I of course accept your apologies, but i did not ask for them, i shouldn't care less about what anyone can think of me, and i am sorry that you felt forced to do so: again, i did NOT attack moderation as a whole or specificallly a particular moderator, and i understand we both always wanted to be able to have gentlemen's discussions.
Such an issue is closed as far as i am concerned, never should have started, and all of us shall behave as if it never had happened.

As i explained to panic as to dismiss what looked liked  misunderstanding, i was only concerned when speaking with what should or should not be done with people multiposting again and again the same bad words, including from multiaccount: it is the job of the moderation to finally decide what should be done facing this situation, and i have said everything i had to say.

Last, i remind all of you that i am not an english native speaker, and i hope this does not contribute to some further misunderstanding.

Good evening to everyone (still foreign standards, CEST=GMT+1...)

[Ovidiu G.]

I think this is the question that is on everyone's mind before choosing a
Internet Security Suite. The problem is how each user finds his answer to
this question. Can he choose the product that is the best according to the
rating of the market or he must have more advanced knowledge about computer?

My opinion is that he must seek the answer to the question: Which is the product
on the market that prevents malware coming into my computer in the first place?
I'm secure with a product that has high detection rate? Definitely not!
Prevention of infection does not mean the high rate of detection but the way wich
a completely unknown malware is prevented from accessing your computer. That means
products that are based first on whitelisting and HIPS module and finally on a AV.
And if you found the product but it has not the market rating of a product with a
detection rate of 99.99% does not mean you're not protected, but the opposite
way round! To the growing number of new malwares and their aggression, the only
solution are the products based on prevention technologies, and they will prove
very effective in the future and will definitely replace conventional products
based on detection.

Comodo is currently the product wich is able to provide by combining of different
technologies (Default Deny Protection, HIPS, Sandbox, AV, Firewall, etc.) the
most realistic and credible protection against the newest malwares in the wild.  

[gery1979]

i really need to know what can it do to prevent malware and hackers out *(like comodo does for instance
Secondly i need to know how does this vendor treat the free consumers and the paid ones

[Tech]

I think you (Melih) reduce the potential of the antivirus in the article. At least, some of modern antivirus. You can have more than just file protection (as it the oldies). The http traffic scanning, the heuristic analysis, the generic signatures, the sandbox and coding emulation are some of the weapons of the new arsenal.
Of course, you need more than just an antivirus. Firewall, safe browser, safe browsing habits (the most difficult thing to achieve...), a HIPS tool will help and contribute. I tend to think in layered defense way.

[Tags:]