Say what you think! [COMODO to keep COMODO Memory Firewall and BOClean]

[Guest]

[Duskao]

Let me apologize for my words. I will make no excuses for what I have said because what's said is said. I do however hope that nobody has taken any offence to any of my statements.

Duskao

[panic]

NP.

My words of advice weren't aimed at anyone in particular. More like everyone in particular. 

[m00nbl00d]

Fact:While the above quote is true, it fails to point out that buffer overflow protection could be obtained without the use of the Ask Toolbar/SafeSurf combo. System-wide Buffer Overflow protection had been provided by Comodo Memory Firewall long before the creation of SafeSurf or the bundled Ask toolbar. CMF provdes buffer overflow protection for the same vulnerabilities as SafeSurf. SafeSurf did not provide additional protection to that provided by CMF.

Just to clarify that I didn't say that buffer overflow protection wasn't possible with COMODO Memory Firewall, and only with COMODO SafeSurf.
But, the truth is that, upon CIS installation, even with the current release, nowhere (unless I missed) is said that COMODO SafeSurf will protect the users from buffer overflows, amd moreover, that it will do the same as COMODO Memory Firewall. It only says that it protect users while they surf the web, and is ticked by default, the same way Ask.com toolbar is. Also, no single, clear, warning is given that a toolbar will also be installed. After installation, if a user is aware that, indeed, such toolbar got installed, then, if he/she knows can uninstall it. But, trusting COMODO, they will leave it, as in their minds must be there for additional protection while surfing. Also, and I was forgetting about it, it also sets a homepage, supposely belonging to COMODO. I never saw any mention to Ask.com. The Ask.com toolbar, itself, also gets masked as being COMODO's own. Why not simply leave it to say Ask.com? So, practically, if the user has no idea about Ask.com toolbar being there, and trusting COMODO (Why shouldn't they?), they will be using it, without knowing it. That's a very simple and true fact.

Anyway, enough with this off-topic, but when I first started it, was to show that, in the way I see it, COMODO is going in an unwanted direction.


Regards

[[slangen]]

I was at a friends place, she had over 5 'toolbars' installed on her system. She didnt care, heck she didnt even know what they did. And of course, she had zero security. People who'll install the toolbar without knowing and trusting comodo dont give a cra*s ass about toolbars.

And people who do (like you and me) dont install it off the bat... and dont have any toolbars etc. Dont get carried away protecting people who dont want protection.

And where is comodo heading? Look at the main forums page. some crazy amount of software in development. some of it really bad but others (like CIS) the best there is. i am all for security suites.. but very well tested security suites. and by testing i mean tested in labs not by releasing it onto the people(3.8 was kinda like that-the masses are clamouring (for salvation) and her cometh the .....). *grin*. that said, 3.8 is the best there is in the world right now.

Security suites are perfect. Makes life easier. Of course the fact remains that its one layer of security in its own right, whereas multiple programs are by definition multiple layers. So if the suite gets destroyed you are toast. move of comodo's apps are very specific, the end user would benefit greatly from an assimilation which is in progress. way to go.


good topic. thought provoking.

[panic]

..... whereas multiple programs are by definition multiple layers.

Equally, multiple programs are multiple possible entry vectors, multiple possible vulnerabilities and multiple possible incompatibilities.

I'm not saying they, just that they might be.

As I see it, one of the main advantages to a suite (if that's what they call it) is that it has a single unified acrhitecture, underpinning multiple layers designed to work together (this applies to other suites as well, not just Comodo). Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

good topic. thought provoking.

It sure is. This is one of the main reasons I like these forums - once you get past the emotions that inevitably pop their heads up from time to time, there's a lot of thinking behind most of the posts here.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[panic]

Just to clarify that I didn't say that buffer overflow protection wasn't possible with COMODO Memory Firewall, and only with COMODO SafeSurf.

I know, I was just re-wording it to try and eliminate confusion.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[overfifty]

I thought I had replied to this one , but i can't find it , so I must have exited without sending it.

Anyway, I am by no means an expert as far as computers go , But I do like the idea of having the ability to chose which programme I can instal rather than having one complete 'suite' . I suppose I naively believe that different companies will approach problems from different angles, as opposed to just one angle. Take comodo anti virus , It may be good but it is still relatively young so I would opt for a well established anti virus company , unless I read rave reviews about it and recommendations. - Don't get me wrong I like comodo, But I would want the firewall to be left seperate from other parts of the suite. I would sooner 'select' which parts I would download and use  rather than download all of the suite and then pick out the one I wanted, because I wouldn't want the remaining programmes left on my computer.

[SiberLynx]

I voted "Yes" - for separate (both mentioned Apps)

Some thoughts are in different threads about BOClean, which I just found earlier than this one so I will not repost
http://forums.comodo.com/comodo_boclean_antimalware/boclean_to_be_discontinued-t34653.0.html;msg253024#new

Cheers

[LeoniAquila]

Topic brought back "alive"

[4putt]

I vote for not messing with BOClean. Keep it separate. Great Program.  Love the new CIS 3.8 takes less horsepower to run than the old one. Keep up the good work helping keep us safe on line. Thanks COMODO! 

[John Buchanan]

If you wish it separate that is your wish and choice.  I respect that.  I do also wish it to be incorporated into CIS as I believe that will improve the capabilities of this package.

[.FaZio93.]

I do also wish it to be incorporated into CIS as I believe that will improve the capabilities of this package.

Especially the detection. (hopefully  ).

 

[SiberLynx]

If you wish it separate that is your wish and choice.  I respect that.  I do also wish it to be incorporated into CIS as I believe that will improve the capabilities of this package.

Hi John,

There is a slight problem, as I see it, in the interpretation of this vote and the opinions expressed.

You are right and most likely the integration into AV (stressing) will improve the Package... but...

What else I would like to stress that at least some users like myself voting Yes (separate) for both Applications does not mean leaving them separate only but integrating as well (I will not annoy anybody by placing reference again).

Moreover. Currently those who are using Firewall only have a choice of AV-scanning during (rather prior) to FW installation. Brilliant! So, all needed - current signatures  and components of AV are delivered.
What if on-demand only CAV can be another choice when installing CIS?
In this case that would be even "easier" to have and maintain "BOClean Add-on" in terms of having it separate BOC and using shared AV resources.
Plus it is a good way for everybody staying in touch with current CAV and still having their beloved antivirus and BOC. This ways there is always chance of checking how CAV performing compare to others.
Comodo can have bigger audience testing the engine/signatures/new heuristics and so on ...and sure probably sooner there will be more "converts" from on-demand only CAV to having it as their AV main security layer

My vote as previously - keep it as standalone & separate!.... and integrate 

Cheers! 

[Saul Luizaga]

I'm a PC Tech, software support. Here goes my POV:
From CIS I only use: Firewall & Def+.

I have tried BOClean on several systems and the rislt was:
 - Not very effective, let most malware go through only old malware was stoped.
 - Was heavy on old P4s (PC-133 memory), even in new systems takes good part of the CPU time.
This makes me not using this COMODO product and I'd prefer not to be present in CIS and if it must, make it disable-possible.
.Sorry to say it but I'm being honest.

I don't use COMODO Antivirus because a old version redered my new installed WinXP useless upon first reboot after COMODO Antivirus installation. The new version doesn't get all the viruses, this is why I use Avast! Home (freeware) for Anti-Malware/Spyware/Virus.

I install COMODO Memory Firewall on all WinXP installation, so I'd like to be present in CIS or as a separate application, I don't care where as long as I can see it is present and can be configured. Personally I'd like COMODO Memory Firewal to be integrated in CIS.

About the size of Downloiad I don't mind much since even in 128Kbps conns with enough free time wouldn't much of a problem, but with a 56Kbps modem a time limited Internet conns is a problem.

[.FaZio93.]

- Was heavy on old P4s (PC-133 memory), even in new systems takes good part of the CPU time.

BO Clean is being rewritten and should not increase CIS's resource by that much.
(After COMODO integrated the AV and Buffer Overflow protection into CIS, CIS's memory usage actually decreased.

This makes me not using this COMODO product and I'd prefer not to be present in CIS and if it must, make it disable-possible.

I would think there will be an option to enable/disable, just like the new new shell-code injection (BO protection)'s option to.

Personally I'd like COMODO Memory Firewal to be integrated in CIS.

It has been integrated as of version 3.8.64263.468 

http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/release_notes.html

The new version doesn't get all the viruses, this is why I use Avast! Home (freeware) for Anti-Malware/Spyware/Virus.

NO anti virus can detect all viruses, including Avast.

[Tags:]