Is finding Comodo 5.10 really that hard?

He stated exactly how he tested and the results that he observed. That's not hearsay. And I'll take the word of anyone that actually tests something over scores of others that engage in nothing more than speculation and opinion. That's why I asked for some data.

If you've tested exactly as he did and reached a different result, then that explains why you are disputing his results. Fair enough.

 

I would think that you of all people actually would realize how anal/paranoid I am about things like this, Ostro, based on correspondence we've had in the past. Coming from the guy that was paranoid about a deployment pack you'd sent me because I mistakenly thought a snapshot of the process was a real dialog box asking me to click on the choices provided, and so deleted it (after opening the thing sandboxed to begin with). Asking for someone to create a deployment pack for NEMET in the first place because I distrust .NET Framework and the attack surface of know vulnerabilities it brings along with it... and the EMET notifier. And looking for another solution.

I figured it would be quite apparent to you by now how OCD I am about things of this nature. I thoroughly test anything before it becomes part of my setup. And I won't even get into all the obsessing and due diligence I went through before deciding which VPN provider(s) to go with. But I got my first grey hair by the time I was done.

And I'd wager many people in here are very much like myself. And I see Comodo FW/D+ in many of their sigs as well, and haven't heard anyone else mention the concerns this person is bringing up here. That makes it pretty apparent that their situation is the rare exception here, if not even entirely unique, and not the norm.

 

luciddream , i don t understand your attitude ,in spite of the fact you say you are "anal/paranoid".

I am not anal ,but i am paranoid myself ,that s why i have took a look at what Comodo 5.1x is doing.Had it installed for maybe 4 months before i took a look and sniffed my PC-s with Wireshark.
The OS on the sniffing machine was OpenSUSE.

Machines were XP and W7 (both up to date and XP still receives updates) ,and the leak was spotted on the XP one while the Comodo calling it s own DNS was seen on both.
I did not choose to use their DNS service though at install , I also think MY DNS requests info should be taken care of the DNS servers I WANT.

I was shocked to see those DNS stuff having in mind the "noob" rules i usually make.
At least this is what you seem to be saying ,that i to noob to make proper rules.

And 0strodamus is right ,there is nothing stated from you that you ve placed a PC with wireshark installed ,in front of your working PC ,PC that has the Comodo firewall installed.You ve just used some command.

Having in mind your testing methods i am not sure you are paranoid enough ,as you seem to be satisfied with what some standard tool shows you.

If you don t have a second machine to test it s ok ,but stop emphasizing your TRUTH as being the universal one.

Not many or no one took the time to test Comodo based on this thread because they don t care ,there are better choices outthere (and XP is rarely used now) and because Comodo has "hidden" the old software .You should wonder why they took it from all sites maybe.

DNS requests may be gold for some , they show your surf habits.

Oh ,by the way ,the autoupdate was also off and the updates service blocked ,so if the Comodo DNS requests were from the updater it also shows a hole.

I just said what i ve seen ,nothing more.The software is EOL and removed from most of the websites also ,i have no interest to lie or something.

0strodamus thank you for posting.Nice to see that at least one reader here still has the mind opened.

That s all i have to say.If you trust the software it s your problem.