Melih don’t think of it as a marketing gain too much okay? Afterall it WAS a flaw! 40 mins to patch up a security flaw in the firewall, even if it was for marketing reasons, is a good thing.
Think of the guy who sells bread at the local store - he doesn’t do it because he feels it’s his duty to keep people from starving, he’s doing it because he needs the money. That’s economy for ya. Ethically speaking the reasons WHY you’re doing it may be less noble, but the act itself remains noble nonetheless. People need to understand that. And you need to come to terms with it: you did nothing wrong. Great job again.
Hmm… you got a point. I guess that does indeed make it nothing more than a marketing ploy. Oh well, so what if it is? I don’t mind it as much as to start a crusade for it. I guess even the best free products need good publicity huh? And that costs. It doesn’t really matter if it’s in the form of paying to have banners put up on a site or paying a test site to rate your program, it’s still the same thing in essence, even though the latter costs much more. As long as the facts are genuine I don’t see anything wrong with it, and CFP’s genuine facts are full of praise. 40 minutes for a perfect score? Certainly worth it.
Don't you think we would have fixed it if we thought it was insecurity!!! Of course we would have!
The way I see it should have comodo done the paid retest yes/no. why let's start with Comodo at first start unless you have used this GREAT FW from the start of it you can not under~stand what this FW has been threw. Melih has stood behind this FW from day 1 and has been in here on this forum asking what do you need next tell us we will fix it!. know body brought this Wallbreacker3 thing out in the open did [u][b]Melih/Comodo team fell...NO[/b][/u] why It was not a major area to cover. do i be-leave if Melih knew that this was of a major issue that it would have been fixed way back before Comodo 3 [i][b]YES [/b][/i] so now the paid testing am i for it [u][b]YES[/b][/u] why this FW has taken a beating from many major brands and alot of bad mouthing from all over the net.. just to be proved wrong!! in test after test and. I commend Melih for showing the users and this community that he can be trusted to set it strait and show that this piece of soft wear is truly just as strong as any on the market now the [u][b]NO[/b][/u] in short I do not need for Melih/comodo Team to prove that this FW will now pass a WB3 all I needed was a simple it's fixed. {Thank You Melih/Team Comodo for the great FW You do have my TRUST}
Comodo prefers to secure the users, rather than making a firewall that looks good in tests. That’s a fine approach, I think. But wouldn’t a firewall that scores 100% (in other words, a firewall that both secures the users completely, and wins tests) be even better for the brand of Comodo? Everybody knows that 98% is excellent, but everybody wants the 100% firewall if it’s available…
I have no problems with Comodo making updates in CFP just to reach the level of 100% instead of 98%!
Well, I’ve been using Comodo since version 2.4, I have it on three home computers (both XP and Vista) and so far it provided good protection. And I appreciate it, this is my own experience and not a story someone tells me. Thank you Melih, thank you Comodo Team. You guys are great :BNC (L)
Hmmm… it is very strange that Matousec doesn’t stick with his own rules:
“Every vendor has a right for its product to be tested in Firewall Challenge for free two times in six months period and this right is valid only for stable and publicly available versions of the products”
According to above rule Agnitum’s Outpost shouldn’t be in testing program at all (or not that version), version tested on Firewall Challenge is not publicly available, it is an internal Augnitum build…
Tested version: Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 6.0.2302.264.0490
Publicly available version: Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 6.0.2284.253.0485
Why are people always so polarized and abrasive. Yes, its a competition but as Melih said they probably have not updated the site they state AO beats CA Personal Firewall 2007 3.0.0.196 which at one point in time it did.
I would have prefered Comodos 98% to AO %100 because I like and am accustomed to Comodo. I can´t bad mouth AO because I have not tried them. Norton on the other hand I can speak volumes about. I am still using their Corp AV because I have access to a legit Corp license.
Apparently you missed what is wrong about their statement. I am not talking about the word " only " in " The only FREE firewall with 100% leak protection - right out of the box. " Ofcource they will change that. But claiming " 100% leak protection " because they have a 100% score on Matousec ?
But I can understand Melih is not waiting for another discussion with an OA “peep” Boy, so I said sorry.
