Technically does CS DNS provide same features as OpenDNS i.e. blocking malicious sites etc?
It does. Read more here:
It does not however, (at least as far as I can tell) allow the user any control over which sites to block.
OpenDNS will allow the user to blacklist or whitelist particular sites. Yes I know you can blacklist with the firewall in CIS, (no whitelisting though) but OpenDNS makes it really easy to apply the same filters to multiple machines.
Well. Developers of an excellent product like CIS might add this feature one day. We can wait patiently.
At least where I live (south central Montgomery County, MD), using Verizon DSL’s lowest choice of service (bandwidth 1184Kbps/488Kbps), and testing my throughput using both of the following websites via Firefox 3.5 to test my speed:
I achieved consistently slightly faster results with OpenDNS than I did with Comodo Secure DNS. Individual results may vary with the relative proximity of the Comodo and OpenDNS DNS servers to the servers your ISP uses to provide you with your internet access.
DNS is merely a database to resolve host names to IP addresses… A quicker DNS service can speed up your browsing experience because the less time it takes to connect you to the destination server the faster you can flip from page to page. However, it will not improve your throughput!
Any difference you see in upload/download speeds are due to factors other than DNS.
Hey everyone, just as a side note, the free version of OpenDNS doesn’t actually block malware sites, only phishing sites and botnets.
Prior to using Comodo DNS I used the free version of Open DNS, can honestly say I have never ever noticed any difference at all.
But I don’t know, whether I should use any of these, because neither is faster or better for me…!
I’m using the second DNS IP from my local ISP provider and it’s very fast, response time here in Germany is about 10 ms.
If I ping the others including Comodo Secure DNS I get 12-30 ms respsone time.
8-12 ms for my local isp unitymedia (cable-modem).
14-19 ms for Internet Guide from dyndns.
12-18 ms to opendsn.
And 20-30 ms for Comodo Secure-DNS.
I.e. too slow for comdo!
You might want to try DNSTESTER to compare the response to DNS requests.
I wonder if Comodo can compete with Google DNS…
Why not use two DNS servers and a user definable cache at the same time? 8)
That looks AWESOME! But I’m on a mac… 8)
I put it on both of my parents and relatives computer. IMO Comodo Secure DNS seems to be slightly faster then opendns, and I’m going to guess that it’s a little more secure because of the fact it’s comodo. I haven’t put comodo dns to the test, but I’m going to assume it secure enough. You can go wrong with fast, secure and free
Thanks for the link.
Downloaded, installed, started it and got just a blank square in the tray (not even an icon) that gave the correct tooltip but no reaction to either mouse button.
Removed, d/l again and the file was the same size, tried installing and got the same result, so I’ll stick with TreeWalk.
With OpenDNS, the .220 seems a bit faster than the .222, so I’ve changed the order.
I’ve run Gibson’s Spoofability Test on Comodo DNS, OpenDNS, Google DNS and my ISP’s DNS. The results are in PDF files, so I could post them here if they’d be of any interest.
Yes please :-TU
EDIT: btw, thanks for the tip on re-ordering the OpenDNS servers, .220 does seem a little quicker :-TU
OK, here are some PDFs of spoofability test.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Test and compare the speed of any DNS server you want:
Only problem is that retesting can give opposite results. Which is not surprising, considering the load on dns servers is changing all the time (well I suppose that’s the reason). I’m not saying that the results are not accurate, they most likely are, but they don’t tell and can’t tell which server is the fastest for you constantly, because there’s not such server.