Hi adchia,
Where did you hear that?
I thought the only difference between the free and the paid one is that in the later you have access to advanced features+you can order it with kaspersky’s av engine integrated.
It is only a stone’s throw away to 100 % :-TU
to be FAILED, That goes without saying.
Blas: Um…ya… I thought that HIPS/AV could be added with charge, but the firewall was completely freeware? So leak test results should be same for the paid version and the free version. Right?
Hence, shouldn’t testmypcsecurity.com say that OA Free also has this score?
EDIT I take my comment back. I just realized that the site also has HIPS tests included in the same test results…
Each version is different, paid or free and even versions between free products are different. (eg ver 111 is different than 112 etc etc)
We have one volunteer (Leolas) who has kindly volunteered to test the free version and we are grateful for that. However, how credible can this site be if it blindly gave test results to things it hasn’t tested?!
By all means, go ahead and join the team for testing, if you want to speed up the testing for the free version! We would very much welcome that!
thank you
Melih
the drawback to dropping the top spot in Matousec’s test (from a marketing standpoint) is that potential new users will be steered away from trying CFP in lieu of the number one listed firewall. This is despite the fact that CFP performs better at testmypcsecurity.com, for the simple reason that, at this point, Matousec is a much more widely known site for testing firewalls. Of course, as testmypcsecurity.com gets a larger user base this point may eventually become moot. However, as a supporter of Comodo, I have to admit that it bugs me to come in 2nd place anywhere. I want everyone to know what I do: Comodo is number one!
And as far as perpetuating the market for a commercial testing entity, I know all about that kind of thing. I have worked in quality control for many years, and if there was ever an example to give here, it would be the ISO quality standards and the system to regulate, assess, educate, etc. something that, in a nutshell, is as simple as “Say what we do, and do what we say.” Anyone who has had to deal with the setup and maintenance (and all of the audits) of a certified ISO quality system will know exactly what I’m talking about. Big bucks are spent every year to perpetuate this entity, and the same could easily happen with pc security testing.
Hi Guys,
Today we have fixed the bug that caused CFP to fail one of the termination tests. We did not give it any priority because practically malware could gain no advantage by terminating any of CFP processess. Anyway, it wont hurt to have a defense against it too. So tomorrow we will be updating CFP.
Egemen
Looking forward to 
Thank you (V)
(R) (S) (V) (CLY) (CNY) (CWY) (B) (J) (L) (M)
So the guy was paid to “redo” the test and the company/person/who ever it was that payed for the test got 100%. all that tells me is not to look for there product for any kind of protection. All I can say is Comodo FW has been protecting my computer(s) for a few years now and I have heard it all comodo can not do this or that! just to be proved wrong!! the Comodo team and the members that use this FW ensures that it will always be the best.
Interesting…I’ll find some free time this weekend and get testing
Why don’t you join the TestMyPCSecurity testing team then?
Melih
Already applied. Now am obediently waiting for further notice 
Look at your title!
Magic
Welcome to the testmypcsecurity testing community!
Please go to: https://forums.comodo.com/computer_security_testing_board-b109.0/ (only accessible to this group members) and start the process of testing and sharing with end users!
thank you Adchia.
melih
Are you also updating the 3.022 (threatcast) fork)?
matousec site is a joke.
we knew the OA bug but it was private info.
as they decided to hide this info and pay for new test that fixed this issue that affected OA in most of exploits,
i had to inform people about this issue so now this fact is public. that’s life.
now can we trust matousec site as the OA build 112 results were completly wrong.
question is would they inform us about the issue OA had in the build 112 they tested and posted results that were good as they made a mistake cause real results of build 112 are extremly bad.
do they know why OA decided to pay for a new test to be published, or they just dont ask any question about new builds and bugs fix?
it seems they didnt know the issue about OA build 112 as they replied to me that after they verified the info i emailed them, i was right about the issue that affected OA and that most of tests were able to bypass OA.
the first time i noticed this issue about OA was on 27 february, i found it when i tested jumper exploit.
here is a part of my test where i talk about the fact that exploit bypass OA if u wait on the window alert and set no rule :
"jumper results
OA alerts u about the file trying to create a dll in C:
the dll wants to starts automatically with your machine.
then it kills explorer.exe for 20 sec and restart explorer then it starts IE to the test result page.
if u allow the dll to be created the FW will fail if u stay on the auto start alert of a prog in OA.
the test bypass the firewall if i dont set a rule about the auto start program.
now i blocked explorer from started by jumper and i’m blocked without explorer. taskmgr dont start. i have to turn off the psu now. will retest this jumper.
it’s better to not allow jumper to create an executable file or u’ll get into troubles.
if u stay on (pic2) and make no choice the test will kill explorer and OA ask u if u want to start explorer. if u block this action, the machine is blocked and there’s nothing to do except turn of the PC. after explorer restarts IE starts too then the firewall fails the test so block as shown in (pic1) to be sure the exploit cant start.
if u dont wait on the (pic2) and block it, the test failed."
then MaratR alerted me that OA had this bug on most of tests as he was testing build 112.
so people that used OA and thought they were safe before OA release this new build 119 today were not protected at all.
and about matousec site, i think people can really doubt about their firewalls tests and results.
comodo testing group showed that this site is not that great in firewalls security testing.
but it’s just my opinion…
Seconded, having an impartial source audit available products is a good thing, but when you start throwing money into the mix, it starts to muddle the original purpose for some reason. Another thing to look out for is yielding so much influence to these groups that you become subject to their whims.
When I was choosing a firewall, I did consult Matousec’s results and I decided to try out Jetico and Comodo. Fifty alerts later, I uninstalled Jetico and installed Comodo. Ease of use was more important than whatever % difference there was between the two. Unfortunately Online Armor GUI seems to be a bit easier to use than Comodo’s (IMHO is slightly unintuitive) but at the same time you don’t get free updates with the free OA and have to uninstall the old one and install the new one.
Excellant work alief,
What i cant seem to get my head round is what you appear to be saying is if an alert was generated and you did not answer that alert then it was taken as an allow. If this is the case then surely Matousec should have picked up on this.To find out they didnt i think shows a serious flaw in there testing.
Regards
Matty
Default allow, isn’t that vanished from security programs long ago? :THNK
BTW, ailef are you informed tallemu about your finding?
Hi Guys,
Congrats! Excellent Test Results! (B)
Comodo is the best - it is the “Ultimate Truth”
But there is another “Ultimate Truth” – I am annoying. :-TD
Since the following was mentioned in this thread by salmonela:
and I asked this question few times e.g.
https://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/to_developers_new_protected_resources-t21174.0.html
and panic asked about the update
Can anybody comment on this, please?
Will the new resources protection be included or we still need add those manually?
Thanks in advance
My regards
OA was informed, the result is this build 119.
it’s never too late to fix a failure. they can thank comodo for that.