I was just about to install Comodo…However, after reading this review, I’m not so sure anymore. Perhaps one of the Mods could comment about these “security holes”. Also, what about Comodo’s resource ussage…seems a bit high considering for a firewall that doesn’t block ads or spyware.



The development of this firewall probably missed independent betatesting of its security features because the number and the nature of bugs we have found in it is alarming. This is why we can not recommend Comodo Personal Firewall as a personal firewall solution to anyone who require the real protection against today’s malware”

This doesn’t sound good.

There’s been a LOT of discussion about this in the Leaktesting and Feedback sections. Part of all this comes from the way Matousec does their tests. In order for any firewall to pass all of their criteria (you should note that none have; they do not recommend any of the firewalls they tested), it must be more than a firewall. It must monitor processes, and a whole score of other things that truly fall outside the range of a firewall; it must be a full HIPS, and really, be flawless.

Obviously, no one hits the mark.

The thing to key in on, is that as hard as they slam CPF, they still say that is “better than others.” It may be not much better, but it is better. Thus, in the world of Matousec, CPF may suck scummy pondwater through a bent straw, but that is apparently (in their opinion) better than the others.

You should read their conclusions on Zone Alarm Pro, or Kerio, or any of them…

Marc, their comment about the “real protection against today’s malware” is apparently referencing protection outside what a firewall would normally give (ie, a HIPS). This is since, per their tests, CPF is far and above any other firewall in regards to leaktests. And THAT is exactly what a software firewall is supposed to do - keep things in that are not supposed to get out.



No matter what flaws they may have found, all programs have flaw, in the end Comodo got the highest test score :wink: