Any FREE FW that has OA paid version protection?

v3.9 you will be happy with.

Cheers,
Josh

 

You, guys, are very funny. Thanks for free OA promotion

As for the tests. Ohh, there was a lot of "Comodo managed" tests, but none of them can be regarded as reliable, unfortunately. To run this test properly you should take the matousec pack and run all the tests. Then you should compare the number of fails and the number of popups. Otherwise Comodo surely picks up only the tests that shows their product to be better.

PS. Also everybody could see that every new Comodo version for a pretty long time came with "reduced popups" claim, so it's not correct to say "this is only the beginning". When you, guys, will stop making the fools of the people ?

 

OA's program blacklist is updated every day.

You can also blacklist programs, web sites, IP ranges yourself in the GUI.

 

That would be a much more interesting test. If you run it , please let me know the results.

 

We're including a better antivirus capability in OA AV+ for those that want it.

http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/news090305/

It's currently in private testing, and now we've sorted out our 3.5 release this will be the next thing out the door.

 

Can't wait Thanks Josh

 

Thanks for your concern

 

If you fall of the bike, get back up again and ride.. you never know what you may miss out on if you give up on that bike altogether.

 

Do what I do... create an image of Windows using something like Acronis Trueimage before you install anything new... then if you have problems uninstalling, simply restore image.

 

When will you, Stop bashing Comodo and claiming that CIS doesn't protect again BO when it does? I offer advice about Comodo, you come rambling in about some non sense! blah blah.

This was a test based on RANDOM applications. And yes CIS produced less pop ups, deal with it Alex. So what I don't use Matousec? And no, we will not continue stopping when were doing.

Cheers,
Josh

 

Sandboxie?

 

I'm not sure what is "black-listing component" (technically), but Buffer Overflow Protection does nothing that would be worth of spending the time. I do not mean real Buffer Overflow protection which is hardly implementable due to its nature, I mean a kind CIS implemented. Just enable DEP and you have twice better BO protection than CIS provides.

 

Hi Josh,

We retested today with OA (Full) v3.5.0.9. It generated 9 popups, not the 20 you claim. Did you test with OA Free, or OA Paid? The only way you could get these results is either to use OA Free, change the default settings of OA Paid - or block it's access to OASIS.

Alex's comment is a genuine one. If your random test showed that CIS produced more popups than OA, would you still have published it? I think we both know the answer to that question. That's why independent testing is important.

While you have become somewhat smarter in the way you support CIS, you are a fine one to talk about bashing. I seem to remember banning you from our forum. Of course, regular readers will also note your presence on any thread that mentions OA, promoting CIS and trying to undermine OA. Thankfully most people are smart enough to see through you.

I'm not going to comment on Alex's Comodo comments. I try not to comment on competitors products, snake oil or not. However, I may just run that test Alex suggested myself and let you know the results.

Regardless of whether or not you see value in the leaktests (we see it as a useful resource whether we are currently at the top or not.) checking possibly malicious programs would be a far more interesting test.

You don't know Alex - I've dealt with him a long time on our Beta test team. He can be an argumentative bugger, and certainly abrasive - but he's got at least 20 years of programming experience under his belt and I'd trust his opinion more than a Comodo Fanboy repeating the Comodo marketing doublespeak.

I suppose next you'll tell me that Comodo detects 100% of all viruses it knows about, and keep a straight face.

If people wish to use Comodo it is their choice. If they wish to use Online Armor , or Outpost it is their choice too. I find it funny that for a company that professes not to care about Online Armor the amount of attention we seem to get. I find it unbelieveable that the kiddies seem to worry more about what firewall people are using than the guys that own the company.

That's it for me. I'm not commenting on this thread (or the subject of Comodo versus OA again) unless you post libel or factually incorrect information.

I have work to do. My team have work to do. We're going to do it,and make the best products we can.



Mike

 

Hear Hear!!!

 

Is that a promise? Scouts honour?

 

It does in SOME cases. But it doesn't protect you from 80% of the different BO techniques. I'll stop when they admit this fact, stop calling it "ultimate BO protection" and start to promote DEP, which does better.

 

This is possible, but this takes a LOT of time

I think it would be better if THEY did it (it seems they have a lot of time)

 

Why the talk about pop-ups??
OA has autolearn and CIS has installer mode.Unless i miss something here Installing legit software other than using these features is nonsense IMO.

 

If CIS installer mode was so good, then they wouldn't need to work on the new BETA with less popups

And realise.... the frequency and complexity of CIS pop-ups are relative, and subjective to the individual. What may be easy and not bothersome for you, may be for someone else. There is no universal and generalized rule that is congruent with your own.

 

OA had install mode for ages. One thing to mention is it autodetects the installers and shows alert proposing to enter Install mode. This is valid even for the trusted installers. This is just to avoid Install mode if you wish to track the whole install process or Installers detection produced FP (though, from my experinece it detects Installers quite accurately).

 

Mike can give peoples how OA3 handles the whitelist of applications to trust by OA and users? It is based on application executable file hash value or a sophisticated and trusted way? It is that an executable when runs loads its other components like .dll,...OA definitely does not take care of those thing on the box.

Can you explain something specials OA implemented to it.

 

Just a question. Can't you have both enabled and get the extra protection or does DEP contain everything that CIS has?

Ice

 

Personally, you can't go wrong with either. CIS 3.9 or OA Free. Both in my opinion are great FW/Hips type security programs. I tend to like OA's interface better but slowed down my computer a little. CIS on the other hand didn't slow down my computer but it's interface is overwhelming.

Just my .02 cents
Ice

 

Some Comodo pop-ups are really nuts. Can someone tell what is COM interface {EE140200-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} or better: What is going to happen when an application uses it?
The only plausible, remaining option is to block if you don't trust the app.

OA: I don't like it that u can't make an application trusted in the pop ups when u already allowed it to start. What a stupid concept. How can I know if an application is safe until it performed some actions? But in other areas the OA handling is better, for example if explorer.exe starts new applications. Also to easily restrict applications to Windows limited rights is a nice thing, I wished Comodo would have it.
I also dislike how few features OA Free has, compared with Comodo the paid version is not worth its money. And even if I wanted to I could not use OA because I got a 64 bit OS.

Here is a comment of me about the current usability comparative.