Comodo received an email from Agnitum (Outpost) :-)

Here is the email from them:


From: Pat Bitton
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:58 PM
To: media-relations [ at ] comodo.com; sales [ at ] comodogroup.com
Cc: ‘Alexander Kariagin’
Subject: Question regarding accuracy of a screenshot on your website

Dear Comodo Group

As a fellow provider of personal firewalls, we couldn’t help noticing on Comodo Firewall | Get Best Personal Firewall Software for $29.99 A Year that the first screen shot refers to a PCFlank leak test, but the PARENT value is TOOLEAKY.EXE, which is a different leak test - the two references would never appear on the same screen. It would probably be a good idea for you to remove or replace this screenshot, otherwise it might give the impression that the screen shot has been edited in some way.

If we have misinterpreted this, please let us know.

Regards

Pat Bitton

Vice President of Marketing, North America

Agnitum


First of all, I would like to personally thank Pat Bitton (Vice President of Marketing, North America, Agnitum) for raising this issue and taking the initiative to email us. I must say that I am truly impressed that their marketing dept has such technical capability to notice such things (:WIN)

Is the conclusion that our " fellow provider of personal firewalls" have come to correct?

Of course not! You see CPF is the “King” of the leak tests! It has a very sophisticated and intelligent architecture. Let me tell you (well everyone including outpost/agnitum guys) how they can re-produce the screenshots:

1 - Run tooleaky.exe

2 - When CPF pops up for tooleaky.exe, press “Allow” button,(After this step, an instance of iexplore.exe will be resident in the memory. This usually is the case after running tooleaky.exe leak test).

3 – Run PCFlankLeakTest.exe, PC Flank leak test should detect the running instance of iexplore.exe, which is created by tooleaky.exe,

4 - After pressing “Next” button, PC Flank leak test will try to use the previous instance of IE. Then CPF will show exactly the same popup as on our web site.

CPF does not “blindly” watch registry for OLE Automation. It catches real automation requests in real time and per application instance. CPF has one of the most advanced and most sophisticated engines in the world and even our “fellow personal firewall providers” could not understand how sophisticated CPF is.

But of course this raises another question, even if our “fellow personal firewall providers” can’t understand how sophisticated CPF is will an average user? Well they will if we tell them the steps (:NRD) . So what we will do is to add the above steps on our website so that they, and of course not to forget our"fellow personal firewall providers",

I thought I should share this with you to make sure there is no confusion about how CPF work and what we display on our website and I hope this will answer Pat’s question for everyone, including their users and customers who might also be confused about this particular screenshot.

Melih

The CEO guy
(R)

Hey Melih,

Do you get the feeling that your “fellow personal firewall providers” are watching you??

They must be checking CPF out pretty close to even notice that screen shot.

What’s this all about? Why would Agnitum want to send such an e-mail?
Me does not understand. ???

Well, having been involved in the “security business” you learn to look at the “worst case” scenerios.

One of the scenerios would be: "Outpost is using this screenshot in their marketing to their customers saying: "aha… look at Comodo they have edited their screenshots to prove that they have passed the leak tests as Pat clearly states their understanding : “the two references would never appear on the same screen”. And by writing to us, they were hoping that we would change the page (because they think we got it wrong :slight_smile: ) and that would prove their point to their customers! Becaut they think this screenshot “would never” happen, they thought Comodo is cheating and they thought they cought us with our pants down.

Of course the above is one scenerio… and there are others of course…
but somehow I find it very difficult to believe that they were doing this to help us (:WIN)

the word “backfire” comes to my mind for some reason (:KWL)

Melih

I think you can expect a lot more straw clutching from the ‘paid for’ firewall boys,panic has that effect (:TNG)

I am surprised they don’t have better things todo IE. Improve your own product??

cheers, rotty

I can’t take the credit (or blame) for this! LOL

My Outpost test on the ‘zapass Trojan test’ - Failed
My COMODO PF test on the ‘zapass trojan Test’ - PASSED

duh.(The difference is clear)

Thanks,
rki.

here is the latest from them :slight_smile:
They responded to my email to them then I sent another response… enjoy it :slight_smile:

From: Melih Abdulhayoglu [mailto:melih@comodo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:48 PM
To: ‘Pat Bitton’; ‘media-relations@comodo.com’; ‘sales@comodogroup.com’
Cc: ‘Alexander Kariagin’; ‘judy.shapiro@comodo.com’
Subject: RE: Question regarding accuracy of a screenshot on your website

Love the “cheek” factor in your emails and your spirit despite being technically ill informed.

All I can say is : Enjoy watching us ;-).

Kind regards

Melih Abdulhayoglu

President & CEO

COMODO


From: Pat Bitton
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:47 PM
To: ‘Melih Abdulhayoglu’; ‘Pat Bitton’; media-relations@comodo.com; sales@comodogroup.com
Cc: ‘Alexander Kariagin’; judy.shapiro@comodo.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding accuracy of a screenshot on your website

Dear Melih

Thank you for your prompt and detailed explanation. It is much appreciated.

We’ll try this out and let you know if we have further questions.

We try to keep an eye on the competition - as I’m sure you do :slight_smile:

Pat Bitton

Vice President of Marketing, North America

Agnitum


From: Melih Abdulhayoglu [mailto:melih@comodo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 5:48 AM
To: ‘Pat Bitton’; media-relations@comodo.com; sales@comodogroup.com
Cc: ‘Alexander Kariagin’; judy.shapiro@comodo.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding accuracy of a screenshot on your website

Pat

Thank you for your email. I must say that I am truly impressed with your marketing department`s ability to spot such technical issues.

However you have misinterpreted!

CPF employs a sophisticated and intelligent architecture that sometimes confuses the best firewall experts.

Here is how you can re-produce the screenshot in question:

1 - Run tooleaky.exe

2 - When CPF pops up for tooleaky.exe, press “Allow” button,(After this step, an instance of iexplore.exe will be resident in the memory. This usually is the case after running tooleaky.exe leak test).

3 – Run PCFlankLeakTest.exe, PC Flank leak test should detect the running instance of iexplore.exe, which is created by tooleaky.exe,

4 - After pressing “Next” button, PC Flank leak test will try to use the previous instance of IE. Then CPF will show exactly the same popup on our web site

Kind regards

Melih Abdulhayoglu

President & CEO

COMODO


From: Pat Bitton
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:58 PM
To: media-relations@comodo.com; sales@comodogroup.com
Cc: ‘Alexander Kariagin’
Subject: Question regarding accuracy of a screenshot on your website

Dear Comodo Group

As a fellow provider of personal firewalls, we couldn’t help noticing on Comodo Firewall | Get Best Personal Firewall Software for $29.99 A Year that the first screen shot refers to a PCFlank leak test, but the PARENT value is TOOLEAKY.EXE, which is a different leak test - the two references would never appear on the same screen. It would probably be a good idea for you to remove or replace this screenshot, otherwise it might give the impression that the screen shot has been edited in some way.

If we have misinterpreted this, please let us know.

Regards

Pat Bitton

Vice President of Marketing, North America

Agnitum

As I said on another forum, the competition will be agaisn’t these two firewalls… ;D

(R) (L)

The last version of Outpost I tried was very prone to crashing under strain… if I remember correctly it was v.1.x. Some ideas and concepts they had were good but I later decided to change to Kerio PF 4.
This was all before they came out with Outpost 2.x.
And before Outpost I used to use Tiny PF 2.x… which I thought was pretty darn good as a firewall only program back then.

Well… goodbye Kerio… hehe

They should get over it. :stuck_out_tongue:

(Soundtrack for post - Amiga mod file playing in the background - Domin8tr.mod ;D )

Edward

Tho’ the diference is clear enough, but it’s just like Melih’s said; black champaign!
And the word BACKFIRE? …oh, yes that must’a feel good. …right, Melih?

Being a previous Outpost user myself I am happy to see that Comodo has their attention. Particularly interesting at this point when they seem to really be struggling with version 4 while the newest version of Comodo is rolling along quite nicely.

With that said, I was a bit disappointed my the melee that happened at “the other forum” and the quick ban of Melih. Pretty ugly all around. :-[

“The other forum” hasn’t name because they banned Melih when he was doing an explanation.
We know why Comodo is worring paid-FW makers.
Very good job, very good attention and suport, very good products and ALL FOR FREE.
Melih simply does good explanations and others simply ban.
This is the way. Don’t worry. We are enjoing Comodo products.
(L) (B) (R)

My intention is to make Security and Trust available for free to end users!
Other companies wants to charge for it.
We are messing around with their revenues (as i am sure they are loosing some because we have around 5000 installations of our products a day and growing PDQ (double of 2 months ago!). Some of these people would otherwise pay some to the other companies!

Our mission is Just
Our mission is Good
Our mission is beneficial to all end users!

Any forum who really cares about “Security” for users must be duty bound to promote Comodo desktop security products. If their interest is to protect “paid for” businesses that support them, then I expect nothing but “self-preservation” from them.

Melih

Aloha, Melih

Got a minor nit to pick here.
One of the message boxes generated by “Our Firewall”, has a misuse that drives me nuts and makes the product appear less professional.
Correct useage is;
Lose = Once you lose something, consider it lost. “You may LOSE connectivity.”
Loose = No longer tight. “Your lugnut was LOOSE.”
Spell checker won’t find it, of course, but I almost dumped a great product over the appearance of a dialog box. Hope you can fix this in the next update.

Your in OCD
Wiz619.

Thanks for the heads up…
we will most definitely fix it.

Pls put anything u find that needs fixing, adding a feature etc into the CPF wishlist so that the dev guys can act on it sooner.

thanks
Melih

PS: Thank you for calling it “our firewall”… because it is… belongs to us all!

I agree totally,you can expect some ill feeling from these guys who are charging for security.they try anything they can to discredit your fine software.They can hardly admit the truth,that as of now your free firewall is up there with the best paid for ones and I’m sure your AV will perform to a similar level! (:CLP)

Anyone want to reply to this one?

http://www.pcflank.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1285&goto=newpost

I must speak the unbiased truth here. The latest Outpost 4.0 is a seriously good firewall. Make no mistake about it. That said, Comodo is one of the few firewalls on the market the will give it some serious competition, especially with improvements in certain areas such as logging and rules configuration. AFAIK, Outpost 4.0 RC3 passes every known leak test. There has been some mini freezing issues with it, but that looks to be resolved.

My opinion, like it or not: I would give a slight edge to Outpost for top firewall (the latest RC), but I have no hesitation in recommending Comodo to those on a tight budget needing a very effective pc firewall. Comodo is providing some very healthy competition for Agnitum and, I would say, a few other vendors as well :slight_smile: It also would not surprise me to see Comodo one day eclipse their competition in firewall supremacy.