Idea for the review i read.

I saw the new test and Comodo was 1st and Zonealarm 2nd.

I see that Comodo firewall passes the most leak test against any other firewall that is great :BNC

But i read that Zonealarm has a better security system built in that Comodo could someone pls explain wat features Zonealarn has to make it a better security?

I was thinking that Comodo could have a feature that Zonealarm has that makes Zonealarm have better security?

also i read that Comodo does not block malaware as good. it would be good then for comodo to do something about the malaware :smiley:

BTW i saw the review from a link in this forum.

Well, I don’t think that is true, but I haven’t tested ZoneAlarm for a year or so, so I should shut up :slight_smile:

What test are you refering to? Would be nice to have a link so we can check it up.

The next version (Comodo Firewall Pro V3 - due next year) will incorporate a full HIPS protection layer that will prevent malware entering a system. This has been partially introduced in the latest beta of Comodo AntiVirus and Spyware, and CAVS HIPS and CFP’s HIPS (when its released) will work together to provide what I believe will be a very, very effective security perimeter for your PC.

Patience, grasshoppers, patience.

Ewen :slight_smile:

Here is the site http://www.matousec.com/

It is important to understand the testing methodology they use. The paper, design of an ideal firewall, incudes some features that really are not a firewall’s task. For example, token privilege escellation, or inter process activity monitoring etc. A HIPS however should handle all such threats.

A firewall, including CPF, is not an anti-malware solution. As we discussed many times, CPF does monitor these things but does not intercept unless it results in a network connection attempt to prevent more accurate connection profiling. Because a firewall is only interested in network connections but nothing else.

I believe those guys think from a HIPS perspective while determining the security architecture.

Nonetheless, for today’s DESKTOP users, such a distinction is hardly tolerable. According to our users’ feedback, they seem to have a tendency to think a firewall as an anti-walware solution. Keeping such feedback in the mind, we have rearchitected CPF 3 with a powerful HIPS. This makes our task easier indeed. Because believe me when I say intercepting critical activity and asking for users’ approval is very very easier than analyzing it and raising in case of a network connection(like current CPF does).

Anyway, according to the analysis on that site, CPF is the best of those 5 firewalls reviewed. Note that CPF has a version number 2.x while the nearest competitor has 6.xxx.

Egemen

Gotta agree Egemen. I find it funny that a lot of people say they dont want an integrated internet security suite, but they really would like a firewall that does everything. And the difference would be …?

Ewen :slight_smile:

Anti-malware usually belongs to the duties of a anti-virus program. I think the cpf should allow users to opt for turning on or off this function at their wish since some users would like to use anti-virus solution of another vendor before a stable release of C.O.M.O.D.O. CAV is out. Could this prevent the possible software conflict of the alike security applications?

cpfuser