Here
AV-Comparatives firewall test March 2014 - Security | DSLReports Forums pdf here
Comodo wasn’t mentioned in the pdf. Did someone not bother to read it?
Did you bother to read the other link? which is the original source of the pdf
Comodo failed miserably and didn’t even had the courage to face it
they simply chickened out
Soon we’ll have a battalion of fan boys justifying the unjustifiable
Personally I’m shocked
That’s an interesting test scenario.
Please mind your language.
The article states 17 firewalls were tested by AV-C and states result for Comodo Firewall However the PDF document sums up 15 firewalls without testing or even mentioning Comodo Firewall. Neither does the article state that Chip tested Comodo Firewall themselves nor how that would have been done.
I don’t use Comodo Firewall with default settings on my netbook so I cannot comment on how it would behave under given test conditions.
When you look at the dates the AV-C report was delivered March 20 and the Chip article March 28. None of the two parties have stated Comodo had contacted them and asked to be excluded from the test.
Did I say something that he didn’t? Please read again and try to be neutral you are a MOD
As the pdf states the complete test is the one showed in CHIP.de website
http://www.chip.de/artikel/Firewall-Test-Kostenlose-und-kostenpflichtige-Tools-fuer-Windows_32878576.html
You have a valid point.
Please mind your language. We don’t want a brawl here; you already blipped on our radar.
As the pdf states the complete test is the one showed in CHIP.de website http://www.chip.de/artikel/Firewall-Test-Kostenlose-und-kostenpflichtige-Tools-fuer-Windows_32878576.htmlThere is a discrepancy between the Chip article, I read the original article in German, which states 17 firewall tested by AV-C as requested by Chip and the actual test.
When I look at the test report I count 15 firewalls tested with no mention of Comodo. The article by Chip states 17 firewalls having been tested by AV-C. Chip does neither state that they tested two additional firewalls themselves nor how they were tested.
The lack of information on Chip’s end makes it hard to judge especially as I have not tried Comodo Firewall in the tested scenario myself.
I edited my previous post because of an error in the quote structure. You probably missed my warning to Cassette.
Oh, I did bother to read it, but from the article it appears that AV-Comparatives was the source, not the other way around. AV Comparatives did the test and the article talks about the test, but the test doesn’t actually talk about Comodo. I have to question that article if the source doesn’t back it up.
I always mind my language. Was my asking if someone didn’t bother to read it a blip on a radar or was something else? I certainly don’t want to brawl anyone, and I took no offense to his question.
Their test cases seem to be quite simple. (from AVC’s pdf)
Ping hostname -4
Ping hostname -6
Ping IPv4 address
Ping IPv6 address
File share hostname
File share IPv4 address
Remote Desktop (RDP) hostname
Remote Desktop (RDP) IPv4 address
Remote Desktop (RDP) IPv6 address
Private network allow all above traffics.
Public network disable all above traffics.
I don’t think passing above simple cases could lead to conclusion that some are better than the others. They don’t even have a simple leakage test case.
I tends to believe that the other professional firewalls can pass those simple tests too and provide better leakage/spying protections with proper configurations.
Can someone try comodo firewall for these tests ?
(i am speaking about version 7)
Even if it is not mentionned ; a challenge is done as soon as a comment like this one
Comodo failed miserably and didn’t even had the courage to face it
they simply chickened out
Soon we’ll have a battalion of fan boys justifying the unjustifiable
Personally I’m shocked
or this one
The lack of information on Chip’s end makes it hard to judge especially as I have not tried Comodo Firewall in the tested scenario myself.
appears …
Is comodo a hoax ? it is on this point that these comments insist on and yes, it is important to know …
(i did not read something about “proper configurations” but pro version sometimes)
Thx.
Comodo problem is very weak on the default experience of the piece I’ve been control your mouse and also appeared each victim files and deleting file the vicim
This is reason the test results were shocking
[attachment deleted by admin]
I wish Comodo was included in the .pdf so I could see what it did in the private network. That’s the only scenario that matters to me since the only machine I have that will ever access a public network is my Nexus 7 Android tablet. Even it has never done that yet.
i read it and it said that chip has asked AVC to test. So the original source of the test is AVC.
AVC document does not show Comodo.
Comodo Firewall is one of the best if not the best windows firewall out there, period! check www.matousec.com who is a firewall/hips testing specialist.
Obvious trolling and not something to respond to.
or this oneI was stating the facts.The lack of information on Chip’s end makes it hard to judge especially as I have not tried Comodo Firewall in the tested scenario myself.
appears ...It is hard to discuss when we don’t how something was tested. I use CIS on my netbook with non default tight settings. I don’t have time to set up a test situation my self.Is comodo a hoax ? it is on this point that these comments insist on and yes, it is important to know …
(i did not read something about "proper configurations" but pro version sometimes)The Pro and Free version are th same program with the same default settings.Thx.
Is there anybody with time willing to set up a test situation?
I would expect two warnings from the firewall. One that you are about to access an insecure network and it would ask if you want to use Trustconnect and the other one would be how you want to define the new network.
Can anybody who runs the default Internet Security configuration confirm it uses stealth settings with Global Rules?
I am trying to start an analysis on how we think the firewall would behave in the test situation.
Do you agree that Comodo weak on the default mode can be remote desktop by hacker And this happened to me was control my mouse and deleting file in windows 8.1
There are several links ; i read avc document but a picture show us comodo in the list : confusing/trolling.
i agree with Dch48_like that it will be clearer.
So the default mode allows a control by a hacker of your files ? Is it a local survey, a weak of comodo, or a hole in 8.1 ?
i do not understand that you are saying sd ahmad ; could you explain in details please ?
I’m more concern on the public network scenarios as I use notebook on public wifi networks in some occasions. By the way, the default setting seems a little bit weak to me and I always use custom settings.
It would be interesting to see how CIS will perform in public network under default settings.
i am certain that cis protect us in public network but customize it add some advantages.