Poll: Comodo Internet Security Suite [Closed]

[Guest]

[Someone]

what if Comodo has all the best in class?

Melih

Heh, that's kind of hard to get, or impossible
I just tried CHX-I, now 8Signs, lots of hints there!

[mootech]

But there also Need a Alternative Versions For Firewall,Anti Malware,etc.
because some people don't like the Antivirus engine or some don't like Firewall!!!!!!
but would have been good if comodo combine with Content Vertification Engine to Comodo Firewall 

[Devil may cry]

Firstly to answere the question, i was always told by an old wise owl (NEVER TO FIX SOMETHING THAT ISN'T BROKEN).So for me i like the products as they are now!

But the other side of the coin is,  for novices like me that get there first pc and dont know too much about security it is a GREAT IDEA?

A bundle package with true potential, one that works!!and FREE!!I currently can hear the trembling of other bundle package makers knees knocking together frightned at the mere prospect of a bundle from Comodo...

Alas i will stick with Comodo as hey r now.

 

[gaby]

indeed.
thats the goal.

Melih

Don't know what's the best idea of security.... (not familiar with the above language)_ however I'd like to subscribe to the Novieiam 's idea not to fix something that's already working well.
Was CPF 2.4 xx an obsolete piece of software, warning me if “application” is trying to launch iexplorer (pcflank leaktest)?
Can somebody recommend a plain piece of software that behaves as a firewall, without defense+, CBO, CAVS and so on?... my point is that all of them are great, marvelous applications of their own... but I don't really need them to run 24/7 in the background.
I love the way firewall 3 Alpha behaves... the ease of configuration and so on.. only that it leaks.
Defense+ could warn me about such events.. but it's not related to the firewall.. it's closer to an antivir resident software, that by the way, I'm not willing to run all the time as a service.

I'm in no position to quote Mr. Melih, and I apologize for it. But, CPF3.0Alpha has no installation option in using HIPS or not. Turning off Defense+ features leaves you “naked” - suite is ok, only if all pieces of the puzzle come along and their work individually – example: right-click CAVS antivir works  - without resident modules.
Please correct me if I'm wrong; my point: firewall always on, antivirus- on every piece on new code landing on my disks-this means rightclick, CBO and other antimalware once a month or now and then when I'm suspicious about my pc behavior.

Thanks, BR, Gabi
PS. The only thing keeping me from moving away and switching to Linux is probably my laziness, almost 20 years of m$...

[Little Mac]

PS. The only thing keeping me from moving away and switching to Linux is probably my laziness, almost 20 years of m$...

That, and AFAIK, there's no Linux firewall that allows you to control application's connection; only types of connection.  Where most Windows FWs are only equivalent to CFP's Application Monitor, the Linux FWs are only equivalent to its Network Monitor. 

BTW, I concur, gaby ~ I did not see any install option to not install Defense +.  Personally, I figured that it was due to being an Alpha release; obviously it's not "code complete" yet.

LM

[Someone]

That's partly because you would use free software. It's not phoning home.
If you use proprietary soft., then that's another story, maybe.
What say thou?

[gibran]

Heck, I have not installed my system from scratch 'till now to have a suitable environment for V3. So I cannot comment on the latest posts

I am unable to do any assumption ATM, but I surely DO hope that the kind of suite we are discussing now is due post V3 final.

A suite is far more sophisticated product and require a redesign of all single components to improve interoperability. If you are pointing out that there is a need of a custom designed security environment without the need to rely on a single brand, I understand that. But the solution to this problem is a suite design IMHO.

I don't know how to name it but a suite should not be a monolithic piece of autoreferencing software.
A suite is really all about interoperability. It should not be only a matter of installing or not a component.

Modularity and Interoperability are the stepping stones of what many of you are aiming for and these can be only found in suite designs.

Due to the complexity of computer related threats a one way approach would not be a correct solution.
There are cases that the old V2 firewall design cannot handle without borrowing functions from other kind of components (like hips).

This mean that a pure firewall is not a viable solution.  Yep we all know that ...

So far the most common solution is to use the best of the bunch or something like it in every single computer security related aspect. The situation 'till now force users to install security softwares with somewhat overlapping functionalities. These frankestein solutions DO work but are not designed to be compatible (not to mention interoperable) 

The only real revolution in the security field would be a standardized (interoperable) security architecture
And the only brand that could achieve this is COMODO.

If comodo will not take ths way, another mega company with a billion installed userbase will create a flawed standard to impose on every user.

Suites are the way they are because existing software vendors fears competition and interoperability.
The way they use to go is to "embrace and extend" 

So far there is not a real monopoly (Windows Firewall is an exception) but a lot of niches.
Non security-savy people use  the bundled security while security-savy people, you know, take part in one of the many brand-niches.
 
But In order to get a solid security all the specific software components need interoperability.
What is really missing is a real SUITE.


BTW something I really miss is a developer blog to keep fellow comodo member uptodate about Comodo products evolution.
I bet that many concerns will simply vanish if something like a blog takes places.

[panic]

Maybe a definition of "suite" would help.

If, by "suite" we mean a large monolithic piece of software that is reduced in overall effectiveness when we disable one or aspects of the software, then "No".

If, on the other hand, "suite" means a collection of separate software components that can inter communicate and leverage off each others strengths, but can operate in isolation if needed and the effectiveness of the resident components isn't compromised if one or more components are disabled or uninstalled, then a resounding "Yes".

Am I getting close, Melih? 

Ewen :-)

[Little Mac]

That's partly because you would use free software. It's not phoning home.
If you use proprietary soft., then that's another story, maybe.
What say thou?

Could be a part of it, although I don't think the idea that because it's free/open source means it won't phone home is necessarily true.  I will admit I have yet to see any connections being made that shouldn't be (as far as IP - keeping in mind it's only = NetMon).  More likely, the idea is that due to open source licensing, it is considered to be safe as the user can verify what the application is; along with the whole 'Linux doesn't get viruses' thing.  But nothing's 100%, the user may not have the skills to verify what the app is or does (doesn't know programming), and it would still be nice to have a FW like CFP for Linux (just my most incredibly humble opinion).

LM

PS:  Apologies to all for the OT post...

[xiuhcoatl]

Прекрасная идея, жду с нетерпением Секьюрити сюиту. 

That´s exactly what I said 

OD

[disinter1]

As mentioned before a suite is nice and would show other companies how a security suite should be, but also keep the programs seperate, that is the way to go!!


Note: The name of the security suite should be called, "Comodo Security Solution" how cool is that!

Go CSS!

[Andreas]

At first i prefered a completely security suite but now i am not sure if it is the best solution.

Andreas

[CGPMaster]

As mentioned before a suite is nice and would show other companies how a security suite should be, but also keep the programs seperate, that is the way to go!!


Note: The name of the security suite should be called, "Comodo Security Solution" how cool is that!

Go CSS!

yeah something like google does with the Packet kinda of thing but you have a application window were you can monitor or quick command links that you scan for virus's and stuff like that but do keep them seperate though I agree

[miles_muso]

Hi.  Newbie to this forum, and newbie to all things Comodo, as I only just installed it 10 mins ago, and at the risk of repeating what must be contained in about 10,000 posts on this forum  - WOW!

Just FYI, I was turned onto Comodo by a problem with Thunderbird and ZoneAlarm:  ZA saw an update of TB as the old version and wouldn't give internet access to the new version.  I posted on the Thunderbird forum and one of the moderators suggested Comodo.......

Anyway, as regards the Security Suite Issue.  I for one am in favour of a combined interface, with the option of turning on or off various modules from a central control panel.  If the interface were simple, then 'non-technically-savvy' users could just accept all the defaults and leave it at that, whereas 'power users' could delve into lower layers of the interface and make personal adjustments.  I believe that non-savvy users probably don't know the exact difference between malware and spam, so they might decide against "having lots of programs on their computer that they don't know the function of" (apologies for the bad grammar, but I hope you see what I mean )

It would also have the advantage of only one icon in the system tray, and only one shortcut on the desktop (although personally I delete these.)  Lots of 'non-techie' users have a very cluttered desktop, and they are exactly the type of user who's frightened of deleting a shortcut in case it "crashes their system" (believe me, I've met them!)

It would also have the advantage (I presume) of only one central application checking for updates, rather than update requests from the firewall, the anti-malware app, the anti-spam app, the verification engine, and whatever comes next from the house of Comodo.

I'm also guessing that, rather than creating a bloatware monster, one centralised security app would in fact cut down on disk space and possibly even reduce RAM usage by a few percent, which is a good thing, right?

Anyway, that's my 10 cents' worth.

Many many thanks for a tremendous set of apps (I can't believe they're all free ) and I look forward to the result of this thread.

    

[Little Mac]

Welcome to the forums, miles_muso, and thanks for sharing your thoughts!

LM

PS:  everything tastes like chicken.. didn't you know?

[Tags:]