I had the idea that the installation program could scan for installed software and processes and configure the program being installed to work with what’s there. If you are talking about average users, a lot of them won’t know what they have installed, especially the pre-loaded trial stuff or the utilities that came with the system. Of course, when you start talking about on-line gaming and other internet-intensive stuff, the variations are so many that a “Wizard” might be a better method of handling that.
Well the general rule for layered security is never use 2 products from the same vendor. E.G use COMODO firewall but not COMODO anti virus. Because there is usually ONE stand out product, COMODO’s firewall. This is all true except for Zone Alarm, because their anti virus is kaspersky’s engine which is prob the best engine of them all.
See i use Zone Alarm for my firewall and i use spy sweeper for my antispyware… I would never use spysweepers anti virus (SOPHOS kind of sucks)
Thats usually the best way to judge layered security.
Well the idea is to use best of breed. If one company has all the best of breed, then its reasonable to use that company. It would not be wise not to use best of breed, just because they are from the same company.
Exactly, but of course layered security is very subjective and im not putting down COMODO, it was just my two cents.
If you wanted the one-touch config, then it could be like this. First, it gives you a choice of automatic, or manual. If you chose manual, you would just have it let you configure it like normal. However, if you wanted it to be automatic, it would first scan for theinstalled programs, like “AnotherOne” said. Then, it would compare the programs against a massive database that says info like if it is internet-intensive, or doesn’t need internet, stuff like that. Of course, you would need to build up the database, so if the software didn’t know what a program was, it would send it to Comodo so it can be put into the database. And when it finshes scanning, it will automatically make rules for itself. Say you used wireless network/router. It would detect the software/driver/device, and automatically use the wireless rule.
Knowledge is another priceless security layer
If you agree with this then you can also agree that a wizard is a nice idea but it should be implemented in a way that will not make it a double-edged sword.
Just voicing my concerns here as I have no real example to blame :P.
Wizards add a great deal of user-friendliness in order to overcome tedious tasks but users should be encouraged to learn the product and to check wizard-created rules.
In fact one thing is to rely on a wizard and another is to use a wizard.
While a wizard could provide a bottom-line security level it is important to encourage users to learn about the threats and how effectively use the products in order to protect themselves.
As far I understand security is always a compromise between user training, policies and available resources so in order to not cause undesired effects is better to enforce the idea that is needed to develop an awareness of the risks/limits/issues in order to have a good security.
Very true. If you don’t know what the wizard is doing and just rely on it to do the right thing, many things could go wrong.
About the “best-of-breed” plan - I have been having recurring problems with one such program because it does not work with other layers of my protection very well. It has been responsible for slowing my system down - freezing it at times and intermittent BSOD’s. The push to get high detection rates has resulted in conflicts and worse. In fact, I have had zero problems with actual infections, but several false positives. If I did not know about the false positive problem, I would have not been able to run any number of common programs (Thunderbird, eg) because the scanner would have deleted critical files. There is a case to be made for a suite of security layers that work well together, even if they have some components that are weaker than the best of that type. Given that the on-going battle with my “best-of-breed” software consumes more time and effort than it has saved me, my criterion of what is crucial has been shifting. I am now leaning toward a more basic class of software that is less intrusive and demanding of resources and my time and energy. This requires a regular program of backups, but that can be run in the background or when I am not using the computer. A security system that cripples my computer is almost worse than having an infection. I ran my computer for over a year with no antivirus protection at all without trouble (a few email viruses were received, but not opened due to my suspicious nature). I have been securing my system over the last year, but the result is far from satisfactory when I consider what I have had to spend in cash and time to get a crippled system for my pains. The only thing that keeps me from just uninstalling the offending software is the growing prevalence of commercial-grade trojans, scripts, spoofs and viruses that are profit motivated and thus slicker and more capeable than the stuff that has been circulating before now. Once I have some certainty that I can be alerted to the presence of malware on my system, and that it cannot use my internet connection, I will consider the solution adequate. If I cannot remove the infection, I will have to fall back on my backups, but that may be required no matter what security solution I choose.
This incompatibility is an important issue, this is why its important for a single vendor to come up with best of breed of security products so that they all work in harmony… a bit like Comodo
Well with the best of breed BSODs, its important that you make sure all of the best of breed dosnt have tag alongs. For example, spy sweeper; a prominent antispyware can come bundled with its antivirus. It is important to disable (or not install) the antivirus if at all possible to avoid that instability.
I have tried many combinations of best of breed, and still havnt BSODed : /
BSOD aside, there are many other areas, where having best of breed from one vendor is beneficial
1)Performance: There are many repeated components amongst many security software
2)Security: If the security products are talking to eachother (usually different vendors’ products don’t) then you can create a more secure system as each product will be helping the other product if they find security issues.
3)Resource Usage: as 1 Resource usage could be optimized.
4)Usability: rather than running many apps, with different logic to learn, one will do it for you.
we can continue all day long as this is very subjective issue, however, my opinion is: Best of Breed from responsible provider who uses the ability to work together to the user’s advantage by making it more secure, perform better, use less resource and make it easy to use, is better than having discreet components.
I agree with that and people being what people are once they have found something they like find it difficult to change me included have been using AVG antivirus for 6 years with no problems would find it very difficult to change.
That said I would have definitely have install Comodo Antivirus and CPF3 etc. if they had been available when my stepson bought his computer at the begining of the year.
I agree with you in that, for change, you have to have a good reason… I think you will see that with v3 of our firewall
V3 of the firewall is indeed good. I think (from what ive seen from the beta) will be a turnoff though. There are A LOT more pop ups (though the computer scan solves most of them) and I think the V3 was geared more towards a professional because some of the option’s descriptions are quite cryptic to a novice.
I agree with Melih on some pints but also with info-sec on the issue about bundling
- from Melih’s Quote at the bottom
“Security: If the security products are talking to each other (usually different vendors’ products don’t) then you can create a more secure system as each product will be helping the other product if they find security issues.”
Does this mean in the end all comodo Security produts will have an optional Security console?
Are there still plans to construct a network managment console for CFP?
Will this include optional management for other security products?
I hope the user will always have the option to install components individual without the installing the suite or the console
When you test something and if you want to do it properly you test it to its extreme limits to see if it breaks this I believed is what Comodo is doing, when CPF V3 moves to Release Candidate and Final I think there will be a lot less pop ups unless you want them.
Or you can release the product and fixed the problems when they appear like a lot of others do. (OS?)
That was a long topic ;D
Anyway every new version will bring more and more surprises
Let us Wait and See
Anyway once the architecture backbone is done the GUI is only a marginal part like the surfaced part of an iceberg.
Once Vista SP1 will be out maybe there will be a greater chance for cross-brand integration as there will be a new security-app-aware API.
As the performance is fine, im simply stating the faults in the UI, which I think might confuse novice users.
Mitnick was saying something like:
“the lowest security link in a system is the user’s curiosity”
Layered Security is the only way to go, preferably a user could have ALL security software from one vendor, but that is not always possible, years ago i used a certain firewall and it performed well, so i tried that company’s anti spyware software, the anti spyware put my pc into a crawl and every task was slow and arduous.
i am personally wary of so called “bundled” / “all in one” software as usually some parts work ok while others fail, to get all security software and have it run well together is a challenge for the user and a challenge for the developer, if ONE single developer had an “all in one” that ran flawlessly on my pc, i would snatch it up with no questions asked, i know if Comodo developed an All In One Security Suite i would try it