ICMP blocking, bad idea or security improvement?

[mack_guy911]

Please give your personal reviews on that......



http://www.matousec.com/matousec/blog.php?blog=24-ICMP-blocking_-bad-idea-or-security-improvement_

[lucas1985]

I agree 100 % with the arguments exposed by Matousec.

[Climenole]

Hi mack_guy911 :)

They write:

« Is this a security improvement? No! In fact disabling ICMP can only cause problems. There is no known bug in implementation of ICMP handling on current versions of major operating systems including Microsoft Windows. There is no sensitive information provided by standard ICMP handlers and thus it has no security impact to leave your machine response to ICMP correctly. »

Totally stupid. >:(

The purpose of the ICMP is to inform network administrator of some events in the network: Local network AND Internet ...

Let's talk about Internet since it's not a safe place compare to a home LAN (I'm not discussing corporate LAN here.)

One of the best protection against malicious attemps against your computer is to keep it stealth. Stealth means that your computer never give any feed-back to unsollicited packets of any kind and this included ICMP Types/Codes.

With a stealth computer the IP address corresponding to this computer is "mute" : is this an IP used by a PC or not? There is no possibility to have an answer ... No feed-back answer to unsollicited TCP, UDP. IGMP, ICMP. Period.

A PC responding to an unsollicitated ICMP actually provided to the source of this packet a sensitive information: somebody is there: this IP addr. is related to an active computer.

No bug in ICMP implemetation? Wrong! Here an example: http://kerneltrap.org/node/5382

No impact leaving ICMP respond "correctly" ? What is a "correct" answer please? Any answer to unsollicitated ICMP packets ? Totally absurd!

Heres the correct way to implement ICMP over Internet in your firewall:

Authorise Type 8 code 0 outgoing only (echo)
Authorise Type 0 code 0 incoming only (echo respond)
Authorise Type 11 code 0 incoming only (timeout) used by trace route

Block incoming and outgoing all the other type/code of the ICMP.

PERIOD.


I challenge anybody to prove here that this setup for ICMP cause any problem to a PC connected to Internet. I'm waiting ! :shifty:

Is it true that Matousec is related in some way to Comodo, now a firewall provider and formally a spyware provider... Is it true also that Comodo phone home ?

Don't only focus to leak test: check with packet sniffer what this FW send over the internet. (May be not only ICMP packets...)

I confess I have a very bad feeling about this Comodo / Matousec bunch...

May be I'm wrong but... I'm an "Old Monkey".
When it's too good to be true.. hmmm hmmm... :o

:dry:

[Pedro]

-{ Quote: "
Is it true that Matousec is related in some way to Comodo, now a firewall provider and formally a spyware provider... Is it true also that Comodo phone home ?

Don't only focus to leak test: check with packet sniffer what this FW send over the internet. (May be not only ICMP packets...)

I confess I have a very bad feeling about this Comodo / Matousec bunch...

May be I'm wrong but... I'm an "Old Monkey".
When it's too good to be true.. hmmm hmmm... :o

:dry:" }-
When you erase this, i'll erase my post. Until then, i have to say i'm disappointed.

[lucas1985]

-{ Quote: "
A PC responding to an unsollicitated ICMP actually provided to the source of this packet a sensitive information: somebody is there: this IP addr. is related to an active computer." }-
How is this a security problem? Stealth status adds nothing to security, IMO.
-{ Quote: "Heres the correct way to implement ICMP over Internet in your firewall:

Authorise Type 8 code 0 outgoing only (echo)
Authorise Type 0 code 0 incoming only (echo respond)
Authorise Type 11 code 0 incoming only (timeout) used by trace route

Block incoming and outgoing all the other type/code of the ICMP.
" }-
Right :)

[Climenole]

Hi Pedro :)

-{ Quote: "When you erase this, i'll erase my post. Until then, i have to say i'm disappointed." }-

No Sir.
I will not erase this post.
The information about ICMP on the matousec web site is misleading and drive me totally furious. >:(

And about Comodo I still have some doubt.
This prove nothing pro or cons but I believed this FW must be checked in depth.

[Pedro]

-{ Quote: "Hi Pedro :)



No Sir.
I will not erase this post.
The information about ICMP on the matousec web site is misleading and drive me totally furious. >:(

And about Comodo I still have some doubt.
This prove nothing pro or cons but I believed this FW must be checked in depth." }-
I'm not refering to Matousec, your post is just fine (it's your opinion) until the Comodo part. Unless you have something to show us, don't say that. Coming form a "Look 'n' Stop Expert", this gives the wrong impression too.

I think you have much to share, you have contributed always in a positive way, and people learn from you. I think this is not good.
Am i saying i'm a better man? Hell no, i also make big mistakes, i'm saying that i appreciate all you've done here, and i don't want to read this from you of all people, unless backed up.

[Seer]

Hello lucas :)

-{ Quote: "Stealth status adds nothing to security, IMO." }-

I agree, on closed ports, no. But when a port is opened (a process/service listening) it may be a good idea to have it stealthted, as it will give a small degree of better protection. But basically you are right, stealthed port with listening process aren't really "invisible". ;)

-{ Quote: "I confess I have a very bad feeling about this Comodo / Matousec bunch..." }-

Hello Climenole.

You do have your way with posting, don't you? :D
I had (and still have) the exact same feeling 8) But I'll say no more, or I too will be promptly blanked by fans of both C & M... as I have been before.

Cheers :)

[Pedro]

-{ Quote: " But I'll say no more, or I too will be promptly blanked by fans of both C & M... as I have been before.
" }-
The fans argument, of course, how could i forget.. My time here is coming to an end.
Why is the fans argument ridiculous: you're saying the firewall i use on XP phones home, not only that, that they used to make spyware !! , and provide no proof. Nothing to do with fans, but with FUD about my firewall installed right now.

[Alphalutra1]

Climenole, I have one quick question. If you are such an advocate of "stealth", then why do you suggest allowing some forms of ICMP? Wouldn't that eradicate the argument that if you don't respond there is no pc there? I don't think the non-existence of a computer is quite the point of "stealth" (or shall we use "filtered" or "dropped" since that is a much better and more accurate term).

By the way, I am not a proponent of stealth, and I prefer to return a port closed message instead of merely dropping the packets. However, each approach has pros and cons, and since I am not really worried with any huge DDoS being mounted against my personal computer, I am not going to worry about saturation of my upload bringing down my internet connection. But for those with this problem, then there is an advantage to just dropping the packets, with hope that your CPU and downstream can keep up as well :P .

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[mack_guy911]

hi Climenole,Pedro and Seer

thanks again for you reviews i also feel some thing strange about company C AND Mr.M

and regarding calling home i bet outpost also call home through agnitum improvenet....LOL

[Seer]

Hello :)

-{ Quote: "you're saying the firewall i use on XP phones home" }-

Pedro buddy, I know you're not addressing me, as I didn't said that... ;)

EDIT:

-{ Quote: "My time here is coming to an end." }-

What on earth do you mean by this? ??? :)

[Climenole]

Hi Pedro :)

-{ Quote: "I'm not refering to Matousec, your post is just fine (it's your opinion) until the Comodo part. Unless you have something to show us, don't say that. Coming form a "Look 'n' Stop Expert", this gives the wrong impression too.
" }-

But Pedro: I have that feeling about Comodo (and ZA btw...)
Nothing else... I say that's prove nothings...

And I'm not the first one asking question in public about this...

For the "Title": I don't care of this and I hope you do the same.
I'm also a MS MVP: I prefer to keep silence on this.

Be sure I'm not bashing any firewall to push LnS in any way.

Just check the posts here: when a WS Forum ask question about which FW to choose,
I always closed my big mouth by respect for the users and because I'm identify with LnS...

Poeple have the right to choose the FW who fit to their needs and wishes. Any.


-{ Quote: "
I think you have much to share, you have contributed always in a positive way, and people learn from you. I think this is not good.
Am i saying i'm a better man? Hell no, i also make big mistakes, i'm saying that i appreciate all you've done here, and i don't want to read this from you of all people, unless backed up.
" }-

I'm not a perfect man and do not overestimate me please.

(Overestimate ? hmmm is it the correct english word? ::)
I don't care: this is a new word I created today >:( )

I'm barking not bitting. *puppy*

Keep smile.

:)

[sukarof]

-{ Quote: "Hi Pedro :)
And about Comodo I still have some doubt.
This prove nothing pro or cons but I believed this FW must be checked in depth." }-

I´have read your posts about networking and I respect your knowledge and try to follow your advices when you talk about Look´n´stop (the firewall that I use), but "having doubts" and "bad feelings" about comodo doesnt say anything. Others have also said that comodo must be doing something bad because they offer a decent firewall for free, but no one have yet put their money where their mouth is.

Wouldnt it be a breeze for you, with all your knowledge about networking, to find the evil stuff that comodo "must" do? "feelings" and "doubts" doesnt prove anything, every one has them. I have my "feelings" and "doubts" about Norton and FBI, but no one wont believe me because all I have is some internet pages. I would just look like silly conspiracy theorist if I kept on nagging about Nortons connections without any proof.
Please do some sniffing on comodo traffic and report back what you find. When you find it, Comodo will be out of business and you will be famous. No doubt many will start looking at Look´n´stop instead.

[Pedro]

-{ Quote: "
But Pedro: I have that feeling about Comodo (and ZA btw...)
Nothing else... I say that's prove nothings...

And I'm not the first one asking question in public about this...

For the "Title": I don't care of this and I hope you do the same.
I'm also a MS MVP: I prefer to keep silence on this.

Be sure I'm not bashing any firewall to push LnS in any way." }-
I don't think that either. But i could have a feeling it's exactly that. See where i'm getting at?
-{ Quote: "
Just check the posts here: when a WS Forum ask question about which FW to choose,
I always closed my big mouth by respect for the users and because I'm identify with LnS...

Poeple have the right to choose the FW who fit to their needs and wishes. Any.
" }-
I can link you to a recent post. I don't presume you do it on purpose, but there it is.
-{ Quote: "
I'm not a perfect man and do not overestimate me please.

(Overestimate ? hmmm is it the correct english word? ::)
I don't care: this is a new word I created today >:( )

I'm barking not bitting. *puppy*

Keep smile.

:)" }-
This is who i think you are ;) . A good person. I can make all my posts go away, as i said. I don't enjoy this either.

[Stem]

-{ Quote: "Please do some sniffing on comodo traffic and report back what you find." }-I have done this many, many times, and also ran comodo for a number of weeks simply to attempt to find any unauthorized connections. I have found nothing.

@Climenole,
You are posting FUD concerning Comodo and this "relationship" between comodo and Matousec, either put up (proof of this) or shut up.

[Pedro]

Missed this post,
-{ Quote: "
Pedro buddy, I know you're not addressing me, as I didn't said that... ;)
" }-
Seer, sorry, the post you quoted certainly makes that impression.
-{ Quote: "
What on earth do you mean by this? ??? :)" }-
Probably just another rash statement. It's hard not to reply, and i get irritated over a forum post. Go figure.

[Climenole]

Hi Stern

-{ Quote: "I have done this many, many times, and also ran comodo for a number of weeks simply to attempt to find any unauthorized connections. I have found nothing.

@Climenole,
You are posting FUD concerning Comodo and this "relationship" between comodo and Matousec, either put up (proof of this) or shut up." }-

I don't trust a company making this:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453074930

and a firewall...

And I don't shut my big mouth.

[Climenole]

Hi Pedro :)

-{ Quote: "
I don't think that either. But i could have a feeling it's exactly that. See where i'm getting at?

." }-

This:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453074930

How the same poeple can make a spyware "toolbar" and in the same time make a firewall to protect user ... ???

How it's possible to trust these guy?

I still have a bad feeling. That's hurt believers ? Fine: Good bye !

Period.

:(

[Stem]

-{ Quote: "I don't trust a company making this:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453074930
" }-I remember this,.... and looking into this,.... and the reasons it was added..., and then these "spyware" programs then removed this from their lists.

-{ Quote: "And I don't shut my big mouth." }-I have noticed

[Pedro]

Climenole, researching (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=134097) provides me another (http://forums.comodo.com/trusttoolbar/is_trusttoolbar_spyware-t113.0.html) answer.
First time i searched this, took me 1 minute. I wasn't aware of the issue, and the fact that it's buried already..

[Phant0m]

There's advantages and disadvantages to blocking different ICMP packets, to what extent depends on some things, Workstation or Server? Networking? Software used?

Matousec boldly mentions "Attacking software is usually implemented to attack services on their TCP and UDP ports directly without checking whether the host is alive using pings.", this is accurate statement, but for instances, LAN attacks, regardless the machines count, PINGs followed by attacks are fairly common from my observations.

ICMP can be taking advantage of, one example is the ICMP Tunneling http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=49&id=6&mode=txt ...

And what about the old +++ATH0 exploit? http://www.securityspace.com/smysecure/catid.html?id=10020

And more ways of being misused, ICMP: Smurf DoS https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/ICMP:EXPLOIT:LAN-SMURF.html

And Climenole have already posted URL for others...


Regarding invisibility, I rather have invisibility then visibility, I seen many cases where visibility lead to more curiosity, invisibility however indicates protected / firewalled user, meaning to most, usually a complete waste of time and resources unless user specifically targeted, then more dedication and time can very well be spent regardless.


As for Comodo PF and it's reputation, I have followed back in 2006 the topic 'Is Trusttoolbar Spyware?' on the COMODO forum (follow the the link in Pedro post #21), and I have to say, I'm one of many who believes what's being said by Melih. Melih has to much to loose, and everyone knows, and this is why COMODO being examined on a daily-bases by skilled folks in hopes of bringing COMODO down. If COMODO has ANY unusual activity, we here be among the first to know, and surely by now!!

[Climenole]

Hi Pedro :)

I read this too...

trust toolbar is not a spyware ? And who answer to this question:

Melih
Comodo's Hero
Administrator
Comodo's Hero

:shifty:


CastleCops:
http://www.castlecops.com/atxlist-786.html

They are wrong too ?

Have a Nice week end.

:)

[Climenole]

Hi Phant0m :)

First thank you for your post. (I feel a bit less alone...)

-{ Quote: "

As for Comodo PF and it's reputation, I have followed back in 2006 the topic 'Is Trusttoolbar Spyware?' on the COMODO forum (follow the the link in Pedro post #21), and I have to say, I'm one of many who believes what's being said by Melih. Melih has to much to loose, and everyone knows, and this is why COMODO being examined on a daily-bases by skilled folks in hopes of bringing COMODO down. If COMODO has ANY unusual activity, we here be among the first to know, and surely by now!!" }-

I hope this is true and there's nothings wrong with this FW.

(Still have the same "feeling" for that one and ZA. May be I'm now a paranoiac and a security nut. This happen sometimes ... ;-)

Have a nice week end.

:)

[ggf31416]

-{ Quote: "Hi Pedro :)

CastleCops:
http://www.castlecops.com/atxlist-786.html

They are wrong too ?
" }-

The same source, CA:
-{ Quote: "Name Comodo Trust Toolbar
Status X
CLSID 093CAF40-3BA6-4071-A050-E830CBDC6480
File
Description http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453074930" }-

There is a lot of paranoia and people believe everything their AV/AS says.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Hi Pedro :)

I read this too...

trust toolbar is not a spyware ? And who answer to this question:

Melih
Comodo's Hero
Administrator
Comodo's Hero

:shifty:" }-
And who's saying that the toolbar is spyware with no concrete evidence? An impartial researcher? An unbiased security expert? Noooo, it's a "Look n' Stop Expert"! ;D

[wat0114]

-{ Quote: "Please give your personal reviews on that......" }-

In response to the queston:

Matousec quotes:

-{ Quote: "In fact disabling ICMP can only cause problems" }-

But he does not explain why. With three, non-networked home pc's I have both enabled and disabled that option in my router, without seeing any difference in either case. I do not know what else to say :-\ Can anyone else offer their opinion on whether or not allowing pings responses is advantageous or disadvantageous?

[herbalist]

On the original thread subject, blocking ICMP, I prefer to block everything that's not necessary for normal operation. With some ISPs, echo reply is necessary to keep from being disconnected, primarily dialup and some others that dynamically assign IPs. With these internet services, systems that don't reply to a ping are assumed to be offline and the IP gets reassigned. None of the dialup or DSL services I've used did this, but some do.

There are advantages to not acknowleging your presence on the net. A potential attacker has to determine which of these is true:
1, the IP is unused,
2, the IP is assigned to a system that's shut down or not connected,
3, the IP is in use by a system that doesn't respond.
With the first 2, there's nothing to attack. The time a potential attacker spends trying to verify your existence is that much less time he spent trying to attack it. If you begin with the assumption that no firewall is 100% impenetrable, making it more difficult to determine the status of your system makes sense.

With all that said, ICMP is only one of many ways to determine if a given system is online. Port scans are another. With high speed and static IPs becoming the norm, stealth is not the advantage it used to be. When dialup and floating IPs were the norm, finding a stealthed system was half the battle. With a static IP, you become a stationary target. Being stealthed still serves to hide whether your system is running and/or connected, but your existence is easier to determine. Being stealthed isn't as big of an advantage as some make it out to be but every little bit helps.
Rick

[Climenole]

Hi all :)

"Drive Consumers to your website" ...

"When a customer conducts a search using the TrustToolbar Search Box, you have the opportunity to drive that customer to your website by registering Elite Keywords. Customers entering your Elite Keyword will be driven directly to your website (or even a deep content link to a specific page within your website)."

http://www.trusttoolbar.com/advertisers/index.html

Made by Comodo for you gentlemen.
Be comfortable while surfing on Internet: have your own "driver"...

;D

[Climenole]

Hi solcroft

-{ Quote: "And who's saying that the toolbar is spyware with no concrete evidence? An impartial researcher? An unbiased security expert? Noooo, it's a "Look n' Stop Expert"! ;D" }-

Thank you for your comment.

For sure a LnS guy have a BIAS when talking about a spyware "toolbar".
Very logic indeed.

Why don't install that marvellous Toolbar right away ?

;D

(have fun)

[Climenole]

Hi wat0114 :)

-{ Quote: "In response to the queston:

Matousec quotes:

In fact disabling ICMP can only cause problems

But he does not explain why. With three, non-networked home pc's I have both enabled and disabled that option in my router, without seeing any difference in either case. I do not know what else to say :-\ Can anyone else offer their opinion on whether or not allowing pings responses is advantageous or disadvantageous?" }-

I doesn't explain why because it's impossible to cause problem to your PC connected to Internet with this well known firewall setup:

Heres the correct way to implement ICMP over Internet in your firewall:

Authorise Type 8 code 0 outgoing only (echo)
Authorise Type 0 code 0 incoming only (echo respond)
Authorise Type 11 code 0 incoming only (timeout) used by trace route

Block incoming and outgoing all the other type/code of the ICMP.

This information at Matousec web site mislead poeple: there is no side effect of using this setup and possible security risks if any ICMP type/code are received and send ...

Why a security site so dedicated to find the truth about firewall leaking is so lousy with this ? Unbelievable!

:)

[Climenole]

Hi Alphalutra1 :)

Oups ! I just see your post and question. Sorry for the delay.

-{ Quote: "Climenole, I have one quick question. If you are such an advocate of "stealth", then why do you suggest allowing some forms of ICMP? Wouldn't that eradicate the argument that if you don't respond there is no pc there? I don't think the non-existence of a computer is quite the point of "stealth" (or shall we use "filtered" or "dropped" since that is a much better and more accurate term).

" }-

1) Yes, I believed it's better for a PC connected to Internet as a "client" to be stealth.

This is possible only with this condition: the PC is a "client" only.
If you have a server installed and runing like a p2p program, stealthing is impossible. This is normal: a server must answer to unsollicitated packets ... (if they are legal/normal TCP packets, in the format required by the kind of server, with the required data format...)

2) The ICMP setup I'm talking about looks in contradiction with a stealthed state.

Your PC is allowed to ping other machines over Internet and received the answer to this ping. This is a sollicited packet. And the PC is still stealth (for the ICMP)...

:)

[Climenole]

Hi mack_guy911 :)

-{ Quote: "hi Climenole,Pedro and Seer

thanks again for you reviews i also feel some thing strange about company C AND Mr.M

and regarding calling home i bet outpost also call home through agnitum improvenet....LOL" }-


Sorry for all these out of the scope posts (I'm responsible for this I guess :-[ )
Wilders Security Forums are full of passionates users and this happen sometimes.

Hope you find information valuable for you.

Have a nice week end.
:)

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Hi solcroft



Thank you for your comment.

For sure a LnS guy have a BIAS when talking about a spyware "toolbar".
Very logic indeed.

Why don't install that marvellous Toolbar right away ?

;D

(have fun)" }-
Thank you for your sudden display of insight. How I wish you'd realized this during your subtle hinting of Melih being untrusworthy when he claimed that the toolbar isn't spyware just because he's a Comodo CEO. Or perhaps it takes your own warped logic being used on you before you realize how s*****d it is?

[wat0114]

-{ Quote: "

Heres the correct way to implement ICMP over Internet in your firewall:

Authorise Type 8 code 0 outgoing only (echo)
Authorise Type 0 code 0 incoming only (echo respond)
Authorise Type 11 code 0 incoming only (timeout) used by trace route

Block incoming and outgoing all the other type/code of the ICMP.
" }-

Those icmp settings are similarly setup as default in my firewall (Outpost), with the exception of Destination Unreachable: in/out allowed and Router Solicitation: in/out allowed. My feeling is that in certain situations such as mine, disabling ping responses is harmless, but maybe it could cause problems on a LAN. Im not sure.

Thank you for your comments and thank you, too, herbalist :)

[Climenole]

Hi

-{ Quote: "Thank you for your sudden display of insight. How I wish you'd realized this during your subtle hinting of Melih being untrusworthy when he claimed that the toolbar isn't spyware just because he's a Comodo CEO. Or perhaps it takes your own warped logic being used on you before you realize how s*****d it is?" }-

I still have the same bad opinion about Comodo and their strange mix of spyware and security products.
I was sorry for the user mack_guy911 NOT FOR YOU OR MELIH or any Comodo believer.

"Drive Consumers to your website" ...

"When a customer conducts a search using the TrustToolbar Search Box, you have the opportunity to drive that customer to your website by registering Elite Keywords. Customers entering your Elite Keyword will be driven directly to your website (or even a deep content link to a specific page within your website)."

http://www.trusttoolbar.com/advertisers/index.html

This is a spyware made by Comodo. Like to be "drive" by Melih stuff ? Go ahead and have fun.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bye.

P.S.
Funny question for your "insight" :
Did Melih FW protect against this Toolbar threat or this leak is not important for him?
;)

[lucas1985]

-{ Quote: "I agree, on closed ports, no. But when a port is opened (a process/service listening) it may be a good idea to have it stealthted, as it will give a small degree of better protection. But basically you are right, stealthed port with listening process aren't really "invisible". ;)" }-
This is my point of view expressed with better words :)

As for Comodo, it always behaved "bad" on my systems (buggy behaviours) but I can't say anything bad about Comodo.

[herbalist]

-{ Quote: "But when a port is opened (a process/service listening) it may be a good idea to have it stealthted, as it will give a small degree of better protection. But basically you are right, stealthed port with listening process aren't really "invisible"." }-
IMO, It's better to stealth all the ports as opposed to just the open ones. If an attacker scans a set of ports and all but one or two reply "closed", it's the ones that didn't reply that will draw their attention. That kind of configuration suggests that they're open, with just a software firewall in the way. The mixed results not only draw attention to the open ports, the unique pattern can serve as an easy way to identify your system, almost like a signature.
Rick

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Hi
I still have the same bad opinion about Comodo and their strange mix of spyware and security products.
I was sorry for the user mack_guy911 NOT FOR YOU OR MELIH or any Comodo believer.

"Drive Consumers to your website" ...

"When a customer conducts a search using the TrustToolbar Search Box, you have the opportunity to drive that customer to your website by registering Elite Keywords. Customers entering your Elite Keyword will be driven directly to your website (or even a deep content link to a specific page within your website)."

http://www.trusttoolbar.com/advertisers/index.html

This is a spyware made by Comodo. Like to be "drive" by Melih stuff ? Go ahead and have fun.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bye.

P.S.
Funny question for your "insight" :
Did Melih FW protect against this Toolbar threat or this leak is not important for him?
;)" }-
When all else fails, bring out the "fan" argument. How typical. ;D

I trust you are relying on your own biases and interpretations (as is the case with everything else you've said about Comodo so far) on selling to others that Comodo produces spyware. To be honest, I'm more willing to take the word of a major security management systems company that the software is safe, over the disgruntled rantings of a competitor's employee.

So let's see: no concrete proof about the firewall, try to cast FUD on firewall by drawing attention to another piece of software, about which there is no concrete proof either. A job well done, Look n' Stop Expert... not.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bye.

[Climenole]

Hi

-{ Quote: "
So let's see: no concrete proof about the firewall, try to cast FUD on firewall by drawing attention to another piece of software, about which there is no concrete proof either.
" }-

The same poeple produce a spyware toolbar and a firewall.

This is correct to ask question about this strange combination of opposite activities. I'm very skeptical...

Also you may (try) to insult me as much as you wish.

I don't care.

Bye.

P.S.

-{ Quote: "
disgruntled rantings of a competitor's employee.
" }-

I'm NOT an employee of LnS.


;D

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Hi
The same poeple produce a spyware toolbar and a firewall." }-
Since having evidence to prove your words is obviously not on your list of priorities when you open your mouth, why not just go all the way and say the firewall is spyware? ;)

[19monty64]

I think unfounded accusations have been made on both sides... -{ Quote: "But I'll say no more, or I too will be promptly blanked by fans of both C & M... as I have been before." }- -{ Quote: "The fans argument, of course, how could i forget." }- -{ Quote: "To be honest, I'm more willing to take the word of a major security management systems company that the software is safe, over the disgruntled rantings of a competitor's employee." }- -{ Quote: "I'm NOT an employee of LnS." }- -{ Quote: "Since having evidence to prove your words is obviously not on your list of priorities" }- ...so, can we agree on the "ping-debate" at least??? That was the topic opener!

[mack_guy911]

hey guys come on let forget about C Company and MR M

i found this intersting so like to share

http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9858

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61XWmly3otg

and buddy Climenole dont feel sorry about me buddy ........;D i used the paid one(ie. outpost) not comodo.....lol;D

[Mr. Malware]

Climenole

I agree with you. I will never use Comodo products because they
are not to be trusted.
As for a Firewall that is free or any free product they are "substandard"
You get what you pay for.
I would rather use paid software than some of the free junk that is on the market.
As I said before on many forums, "I wouldn't touch Comodo products with a ten foot pole"

[Stem]

I do get tired of some members posting info without making any correct checks. Having bad feelings about software is complete bull.
Install and check out software before posting crap.

Comodo trust toolbar:-

HJT reports:- additions of:

192916

Castlecops report:-

192917

Members, do realsie (if you have not already), I am no great supporter of Comodo, I just support facts, not bull.

[Peter2150]

Hey folks. As I look at the subject of this thread I don't see the work Comodo anywhere. The subject is about ICMP blocking.

While the debate about Comodo is probably endless, it never the less isn't the topic of this thread.

Please stay on topic and also please refrain from any comments about posters.

Thanks,

Pete

[Alphalutra1]

My fault, I misread the outgoing for type 8 as incoming, which would not exactly be the same thing :P

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[Climenole]

HI Stern

-{ Quote: "I do get tired of some members posting info without making any correct checks. Having bad feelings about software is complete bull.
Install and check out software before posting crap.
" }-

I'm THAT member...


I don't trust people who makes simultaneously a spyware AND a security program. I have a bad feeling about this ...


-{ Quote: "
Members, do realsie (if you have not already), I am no great supporter of Comodo, I just support facts, not bull.
" }-

Look at this please instead of saying that I'm a bullshiter: (I trust CastleCops not Comodo)

[Climenole]

Hi Peter2150 :)

-{ Quote: "Hey folks. As I look at the subject of this thread I don't see the work Comodo anywhere. The subject is about ICMP blocking.

While the debate about Comodo is probably endless, it never the less isn't the topic of this thread.

Please stay on topic and also please refrain from any comments about posters.

Thanks,

Pete" }-

You're absolutly right.

My answer to Stern is my final port for this loooong thread.

Have a nice day.

:)

[Stem]

Hi Climelone

-{ Quote: "Look at this please ......" }-Once again you are posting without checking. This is NOT added with the current trust toolbar, if it was, I would of posted the info.

You are posting old/outdated info.


I am wasting no more time with you.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "Please stay on topic and also please refrain from any comments about posters." }-Given that the above request was made and not adhered to and given that this thread pretty much from the beginning was hopelessly off-topic....We'll bring it to a close.

Bubba