CFP Free v Plus

Hi,

General public (average joe/jane) are not well informed as we are here.

Who is the whistle blower ? Blame him/her. The deal(if in fact there is one) between Comodo and PCSecurityShield is supposed to be like this: Don't ask, and Don't tell.

And now the ceiling is falling. Pity.

 

Pete,
I would like to see your links as well
1. Melith stated he had a contract with them allowing the use of the Comodo engine
Melih did not say he had a contract with them allowing the use of the Comodo engine
2. Clearly the users there aren't happy about it.
I would say this is probably true but I think it Melih's business
How ever I think this will hurt the Comodo Image
3. Melith said he would take another look at it.
Melih did say he was in contact with them through the BBB(better business bureau, not some Porn site in England.

I know Comodo is not liked on this site, but I don´t base my use of firewall on BS from others I have tested it and am more than satisfied If I make intelligent decisions answering alerts it mor than serves my purposes

OD

 

PS in my opinion I would not go for Plus however I might offer similar deal to clients If the let me configure their pc security.

 

I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding cpf3, and I have not used very many of their products (cpf 2.4, cmf, boclean - if that even counts as comodo software) but, with the exception of cpf3, and its nightmare of an interface, in what way are the examples I gave difficult to use, or redundant?

It seems that comodo has a remarkably polarising effect on people, there is little in the way of a middle ground between "They are the best, bar none, and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise", and "they are a steaming pile of horseshit".

As for the topic this thread is supposedly about (cpf plus) I think they'll be lacking in people who take up their offer, especially if they read the fine print. The ToS specifies that the offer is voided if the user does not have D+ active at all times, or if there was malware present on the pc before the installation of cpf3 - though they will have someone attempt to talk the user through the removal, for a fee. I feel that the requirement to have D+ active at all times works against them, in that the typical user who would consider paying for such a service, would also find D+ quite daunting.

 

I just like to add Comodo is not the only one. as you can see there are other big name company doing the same! and yet people are acting like Comodo is the worst company ever. is every body going to start a bashing thread for the other company's also or just turn a blind eye to it and continue bashing Comodo.

1.Kaspersky

2. F Securitys

3. Hauri’s advanced vaccine technology

 

I´ve always gotten the impression they like to bash Comodo although some times it seems they like to bash OA also althought Comodo is the definate favorite

OD

 

Well Kaspersky did have that CHK DSK problem they basically turned their heads to.

 

I was halfway writing a lengthy post when I suddenly realized: ehhh, stuff it.

I think everyone knows for a fact by now that their antivirus is a joke and hasn't improved at all after all these time even with the purchase of BOClean. BoClean itself is a legacy product that made sense back when there was a real need for a standalone anti-trojan scanner. Those times are gone, and so is BOClean's relevence. Memory Guardian would actually be a useful product for those who don't want to use ThreatFire, but that's about it.

The thing about Comodo is that they seem to have a clown for a CEO and a culture of isolationist self-worship at their forums. I have nothing against them otherwise, since they develop and give away products for free, and that's no sin. I hate to generalize, since I'm sure there are exceptions, but from what I can see, their fanbase seems to be built purely on inexperienced newbies who allow themselves to be deluded by leaktest results and the opinion that they actually know how to use Comodo's products to any effective degree, led on by their prancing chieftain that is Melih.

 

This is kind of normal for all new firewalls/HIPS/suites, because they are specifically targeted for inexperienced users. There are not many users which can create or adapt the rules of a security product to their specific situation. Most of them come to the forums and ask for guidance or for a ready-made ruleset. That's why every firewall creator strives for 100% protection out of the box...

 

Well put, Nebulus.

 

I think they are out strait with there antivirus they tell people it's not up to the task they do not hide that FACT read there forum.

the time for some may~be gone but other will disagree with you.

I think many user will disagree with this statement. so I guess it would be safe to put OA, ZA, OP, in the same user base as newbies and not for the Elite user

 

and what about this I would say this is like rounding up the 3 ring circus my self Link


Online Armor Test Results
The only FREE firewall with 100% leak protection - right out of the box.

Online Armor's firewall came in 1st place with a rating of "EXCELLENT - 100%" at Matousec Security, competing against the big-brand security products.

Online Armor's performance in leaktests beats the following brand-name products that you might currently be using:

* ZoneAlarm Pro 7.0.362.000
* Lavasoft Personal Firewall
* Kaspersky Internet Security
* Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2007
* Norton Internet Security 2007
* PC Tools Firewall Plus
* Sygate Personal Firewall
* McAfee Internet Security Suite 2006 8.0
* ZoneAlarm Free 7.0.302.000
* CA Personal Firewall 2007 3.0.0.196
* Windows Firewall XP SP2

We are especially proud of these results because the FREE version of Online Armor passed all these tests right out of the box. No complex setup required!
"Brutal Malware" Termination Tests (NicM)

NicM is a software tester and he did a great roundup of 10 security programs with some of Online Armor's features. During his tests, he found that it is very difficult for Online Armor to be terminated by malicious programs, and Online Armor placed in the second place in competition against ten specialist "HIPS" security programs. The results can be found here.

Gizmo Tests (TechsupportAlert)

The Gizmo tests on Online Armor were conducted on the 1.1 version of the product. These tests were made a long time ago (with an early version of Online Armor) and the test results have not been updated for Online Armor version 2.

Online Armor test results with version 2 would be very different due to the complete new kernel mode architecture and additional features that were added.

We emailed "Gizmo" after these tests and invited him to retest - we're looking forward to the results.

 

We have not updated our site yet - it's in progress and should be done in a couple of days, if not sooner.

 

thats fine no big thing to me it sad to see that if this was not found many people would have been mislead on the fact Comodo also has done the same coming in as #1 right out of the box but what really is upsetting is NO where on that list does it say any thing about Comodo FW and I would say Comodo has never put up stuff like that but they do put up link to editors choice awards from PC Mag and CNET. ps. thanks for take care of it

 

Hi,

I'm of course aware of this - but website changes do not get done in a day. For example, when Comodo's website said that they were "Rated as the #1 most secure firewall in independent security tests" they did not change it on the day we beat them.

They did not change it immediately after the release of CPF 3 (which had not even been tested at the time). I believe in the Comodo case it took about two weeks to resolve.

Is this some sort of horrid conspiracy? Comodo lying to the users and trying to deceive? Of course not. Someone brought it to their attention, and they had it fixed. It takes a little time for everyone, and it's perfectly normal. We know it takes time to sort these things out, and we don't get needlessly upset by it.

Look - Comodo got 100% on Monday morning (Australian Time)... it's now Wednesday morning (Australian Time)... Obviously, we discussed on Monday that change to the website is required. Our marketing guy is working on the new design of the front page - this will go to my web guy once we're happy with the changes. Again, just like when it happened with Comodo - it's a perfectly normal process.

I expect that we'll have the update loaded on all our servers by one of the tech team before the end of the week.

As far as listing Comodo on our website - I do not see why you are upset. The purpose of that page is simply to compare mainstream firewalls like Symantec, Zone Alarm performance with Online Armor.

Outside of the technically aware folks here at Wilders, I'd be hard pressed to find a man in the street who has heard of Comodo, Pro Security, Ghostwall, Look'n'Stop or all of the other non-major brandname firewalls we didn't list.

Nobody has heard of Online Armor either - which is why we compare ourselves to the big brands. In order for someone to make a comparison, you have to have a frame of reference. Comparing two or three little-known products doesn't help people understand anything.

On Comodo's homepage you have a banner "Is your Norton /McAffee Expiring?". They don't they have an "Is your Online Armor AV+ expiring?" banner.

The reason, (and, of course, this is just a guess on my part) is because most people associate Antivirus with Norton or McAfee... to compare or ask questions about Online Armor AV+ (or any other little-known AV product) would not make sense for them... yet

Personally, I am tired of all of the silly posting that goes on when Online Armor or Comodo achieves something, or when one of us makes a mistake or has a problem or some bad news. It doesn't help anybody and makes all involved look a little silly.

If we still have this up on our site in a month - yes, by all means give us hell - but come on, two to three days (or a week or two in Comdo's case) is not a lot to ask.

If you have more questions you can always ask me and I'll give you an answer if appropriate - but, I think I have given you all a reasonable response to the questions you asked, and I am going to leave it there.


Mike

 

like you say an average person on the street would not know any better but if they was too see your site. and see what is there what do you think they would be-leave it's fine to sale your product and it's fine to inform the gen public about how good your software is but to leave out peaces of information. that's not a very good practice. would it not be better to let them know hay we are good see we done this. this is who we beat! why not have Comodo listed you was not afraid to list the others but afraid to list Comodo? you only let the average ST person see what you chose them to see and gave them NO where to turn but to your product.

* ZoneAlarm Pro 7.0.362.000
* Lavasoft Personal Firewall
* Kaspersky Internet Security
* Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2007
* Norton Internet Security 2007
* PC Tools Firewall Plus
* Sygate Personal Firewall
* McAfee Internet Security Suite 2006 8.0
* ZoneAlarm Free 7.0.302.000
* CA Personal Firewall 2007 3.0.0.196
* Windows Firewall XP SP2

 

Hyper unless you can write as much as Mike, i would give up now .

 

Hi, HyperFlow

why do you want to discuss OA's promotion in this thread?
I know you need somebody to hate and someone you can idolize.
But this is a problem of infantilism, not of this thread.

Cheers

 

Hi,

Being a number 1 or number 2, sometimes just make no sense. Very often, merely a fraction of millimeter separates them.

I rather be number 2, because there is always a room to advance to, whereas being #1, the only direction to move is DOWNWARD.

Pocket A's in Texas Hold'em poker is an excellent position going to Flop, but more than often gets cracked by a distant #2 or even 2-4 off suite.

 

I for one see no problem with "promotion" and that's all we're talking about here. No need for attacks just because someone favors brand A instead of B, or B instead of C. I love trying out different security programs and can find something I like and don't like about each one. I do realize of course that all of us can get caught up in expressing our views on the software of our choice, but Mike is right. It doesn't help anybody. When I first came to these forums back in 2006, there were many verses threads and although it created some criticisms about one program or another, it wasn't anywhere near the amount of criticism and arguments I read about them now. If I was new to this forum today I would leave perhaps believing none of the programs are any good. One last thing. People usually go into business or become CEO's of companies to make money. Look at any advertisement today and realize it is designed to "sell" you on the product. Research how good the customer service side is to a particular product though, and I think you'd be surprised to find how many companies don't seem to be all that focused with that aspect of their wares. I currently cannot use Online Armor because of the explorer exe problems that I and a small percentage of people are having, but even so I can say I think OA is a fine product. This isn't however, because it's been promoted in some way to be the best. It's simply because the research on how good the customer service side of OA is, shows the company cares as much about that aspect of it, as they do with the advertising of it.

 

Yep Mike is right. By the way, I never got involved in any of the "Matousec" or "This versus that" threads. I joked around about a couple things, but every application will most likely have a conflict or problem with someones hardware somewhere.

Well now you bring up something that I know a little... Lot about.

 

If you take any marketing book and be patient enough to read it you will get the only correct answer.

1.) marketing is a mean vendors use to present their products in the most profitable way.

2.) when your product is not a brand comparing it to brands is a way to bring attention to your product.

3.) Comodo is not a brand in security s/w development. They have a line of the security products and the only good product (IMHO, of course) is CPF. But let it live at least another 3-4 years before we can talk of a brand.

4.) So, referencing Comodo in your marketing is just free advertising for Comodo without any profit for you. Silly thing, isn't it ?

5.) if you indirectly advertise something (referencing other products) YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ADVERTISE EVERYTHING.

We know well, OA is commercial product, this never was a secret. To survive on the market it needs the both, to work on it and to advertise it. Comodo is claimed to be completely free product. I do not understand why do you care about advertising it until theirs "copletely free forever" product is just a way to promote the paid product v Plus. But then, goto 1;

 

Excuse me Alex but Comodo has been "free forever" since years ago when Comodo 2.4 was released. The AV Smart warranty is new.