Comodo 3.0.16.295 is out.

You are installing it without D+ so of course its easier. If you disable D+ then its like any other firewall. I only use Comodo with full features.

 

People what's wrong with paying for services or for products for that matter?

Perhaps the only thing that should be free in this world is the work YOU are doing... since it's not so ok for others to earn a living by earning some $$$...

Please do make a distinction between, a worker being worthy of his hire, and GREED!

A thought to ponder!

 

There's nothing wrong in using a free product in order to make a user pool to which later try to sell services. What bothers me more, is that they don't say it clearly.

Read this:

"All we want from our users is their trust!" (And possibly their money, why not say it, it's not something to be ashamed about!)

"We are doing that by building, for our users, unmatched Desktop security products so that they will never have to worry about

1)Which security product they should buy

2)Where they should buy it from

3)How much they should pay for it.

Because we will provide them all of the security products they will need, for free, we are hoping that we will gain our user's trust so that we can be a big brand and this will help our other services that we sell to enterprises!"

Cough...And AV-SMART Warranty... cough! Why not say it? It's not like this that you build trust!


http://forums.comodo.com/melihs_cor..._catch_how_does_comodo_make_money-t764.0.html



Also, don't you find this a bit over-dramatic?

http://www.melih.com/2008/02/04/eno...untability-for-the-desktop-security-industry/

Note statements as " First time ever, A security vendor will give you a peace of mind from malware!"

If i get infected and loose data i will have peace of mind knowing that Melih will clean the PC after the disaster? These are statements of a PC Messiah.

"-> First time ever, A security vendor will put itself between you and the malware!"

Another dramatic statement... As if now there is also Melih's HIPS running on top of the firewall. So the malware must pass personally from Melih too in order to wreak havoc to my PC...

" IT STOPS TODAY, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!"

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!


I suppose it is a matter of style. I would have prefered a less "messianic" and more earthly and honest approach. Like "We make money from selling certificates to enterprises. We decided to make a free firewall project, because we think it is good for pubblicity, we will make a large pool of users and file database, that we can later use at whatever project we like. Hopefully, our sales to enterprise partners will rise and we intend to offer some paid services through our free product to those that will want them. In this way we will be able to gain some of the money we gave for the development of Comodo firewall."

Isn't this what many other vendors have the honesty to say? Isn't that what PrevX was saying? Isn't that what Threatfire does? The only difference is that they say "We have a paid version too", they say "We have an extra feature that you pay for too".

Anyway, it's their policy. I would simply keep my statements more "earthly" and straightforward. It is a matter of taste maybe.

 

Ok... So they changed their melody a bit... But the firewall is still free.
The paid "Service" they offer (If it survives) could hurt businesses like mine but it doesn't scare me much because I have being doing this for many years... And I know that making promises about "Keeping" anyone clean is impossible to keep... I have noticed over the years that often New players or dying ones often pull these types of move before they disappear into tin air...

However, charging for the services and averaging the losses across many users might hopefully allow them to deliver it that cheap... But trust me, I know from experience this wont last.

So instead of being worried... I crack a smile and happily cheer them on

The firewall by the way is exceptional software for the price... I was hoping users would have demonstrated a bit more gratitude for it though.

 

In comparison to some of the other softwares that I have had ,I have no problem at all. I had the old Diamond trojan fighter. That I paid for and it very unexpectedly went by by. At least we have a very good piece of software that works and didn't cost anything. I have had at least 3 other firewalls that I paid for and didn't like. And as far as their making money,fine. I don't have to participate if I don't want to but I can keep the program. You can't beat that with a stick. Money is what makes things happen. The majority of the software I have I pay for because I felt that it was better than what I could get for free. I hope that everything works for COMODO so they can continue to provide me with a great firewall.

 

So what's the bottom line with Version 3.0.16.295?

1) It can't be installed as an upgrade to the earlier 3.0 install? 2) It has an on-demand virus/malware scanner that the previous version didn't have. 3) It's defense + has been reworked for less pop-ups/configuration problems 4) you can purchase this optional ""protection service to get professional help in basically solving Virus/malware removal and other CFW related issues? ​

My questions are 1) is the Version 3.0.16.295 FW and Defense + basically the same as in the older 3.0 version but with some factory setting adjustments changed so out of the box it's less of a pain to configure, or is this a whole new FW/HIPS engine that should've been called Comodo 3.4 or 4.0 instead of 3.0 version ---? ​

I've got 3.0 on another HD (2.4 on this one because of nasty KAV problems when I tried it with 3.0) All with confirmed separate images up from the basic XP build. I really didn't see any problems with the previous version of the 3.0 (with XP), but I've only used it 3-4 hours and I actually liked all of the "well-explained" PUs because it lets me learn what a program accesses when it's opened or when a program accesses something different in the background.

I'm just guessing, but it's probably that CFW is the hot item, and C-A/V and C-AM just aren't a hot ticket right now and Comodo is trying to get them more exposure by including an on-demand scanner in the CFW. I've got no problems with this as long as the on-demand AV doesn't take up any extra resources, doesn't constantly annoy you with PUs that it's definitions are out-of-date, and isn't configured to bypass CFW to automatically get updates w/o asking you. ​

What I really would like to know is ---Is this a whole different FW/HIPS engine or is it just some factory-initial-install settings adjustment in the older 3.0 version and with an A/V on demand scanner and an optional service-agreement thrown in----Excluding the extraordinary high # of PUs & pendings, is this new version a better self-protected FW & HIPS or just more user-friendly? And btw, can you import your FW & HIPS settings from the previous 3.0 build?

 

It's basically just more user friendly. I'm not sure about importing rules but I think you can. As far as the warranty thing goes, like you said, it's optional. Lots of people can/will benefit from such a service. I don't understand why some people have to bash something that has no effect on them at all. Comodo is arguably the best firewall available period, and it's free.

 

Thank you........................

 

It sounds like they are offering a paid service where the others mentioned are paid products.

 

These are semantics. Do you pay for TF? No. They tell you that they have a PRO version. In Comodo the "PRO" version , has 1 year virus cleaning. But they don't call it PRO... It's the service that changes. But basically, they give you something for free, hoping to get something more. When PrevX 1 came out, they weren't charging anything. Their "profit" was from the comunity reports, which helped them build a database (same that Comodo does with file submission). PrevX didn't come out with dramatic statements that they are saving the world.



Anyway, as i said, it is a matter of style. I don't like drama queens. What should open source developers do then? Apply for Sainthood? They would be much more entitled to bold statements, since they honestly don't make a single cent from their development.

In any case, just because they give something for free, doesn't mean that they buy my conscience or opinion. Just like they don't force me to pay, they don't force me to become their opinion slave or fanboy either. It's their choice to have their policy, it's mine to have my opinion.

 

Actually I managed to install the 3.0.16 version and it works seamless.

 

"open source" (free software) developers don't starve.
-Some develop for the joy of developing, use the programs themselves, and at the same time share the program along with the source, giving full freedom for others to change the program and share themselves. The program ends up better almost as a side effect. It's all about cooperation and freedom.
-Others get paid for it.
-Others just plain sell it. Yes, you can sell free software. You just have to give the source code, let ppl change it and distribute it themselves, in order to be called free software. Free as in free speech, not free beer.

 

I just think a lot of people are being hard on them. They are giving away a great free firewall. Recently they are just trying to sell a service. Yes announcement was over the top but why should that change things?

 

Right. If folks don't want the service they can click no and continue to enjoy the free firewall.

 

I don't get it what is the big deal either.Are the features of the cfp .pro cutt down if u don't choose av-smart?No they are not,it is the same powerfull product.

 

I don't believe it's a different engine, however the option to make the firewall "leak-proof" without relying on Defense+ is made available during the install. From what I read on the comodo forum if you update from a previous version using the built-in updater you can't configure the firewall in this way even though you wind up with the same version. If you use Defense+ it doesn't matter, but if you don't use it then the firewall "leaks".

 

OK, so exactly what has changed in the new CFW-3 besides the 1) service-agreement and 2) the virus-malware scan? and if this is all that's changed, why couldn't you just update a previous version of CFW 3 with these 2 extra features? I DL it to a clean image of XP, declined the service-agreement, and imported my previous CFW-3 settings (stored on a separate partition), into the ""new CFW 3 w/o any problems. Ran the AV/AM scan, and it came up with nothing (which was expected since this was an updated base-xp except for ATI).

So what is the difference (if any) in CFW/Defense+ ? Do you still need Boclean for real-time protection, with the CFW HIPS as well as the on-demand AV-AM scanner? I didn't look real close, but will you need to update the AV/AM scanner (or should I updated it before the scan) or is this just an initial one-time shot included in the new CFW-3 to make sure that people that get the service-agreement have a fairly clean system (as possible) on the initial install? And how good is this new AV/AM scanner compared to running an one of the AV manfs on-demand scanners and afterwards running SAS/SBSD/ or one of the other anti-malware scans? ​

Ok, so if you use the FW only (w/o the HIPS) you need the new CFW-3 so it doesn't leak, but if you use the old CFW 3 with Defense +, it doesn't matter? Is that what they're saying? thx

btw, CFW 3 has so many options for both the FW and Defense +, that I'm thinking about printing out CFW-3's tutorial, sitting down for a couple of hours and reading their (imo) excellent help section while making notes on the side, since I'm just a rook compared to most of the guys I see posting. It looks like the CFW 3.0 help section is a great FW tutorial just in itself.​

 

Read this. No reason not to use D+.



http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackco...o_firewall_pro_3016295_released-t19142.0.html

 

Yes, I believe this is correct. In the versions previous to 3.0.16.295 the Defense+ module enabled the app to pass the leak tests. If you turned Defense+ off CFP failed the tests. When I did a "clean install" of this new version on XP there was an option to "leak proof" the firewall without enabling Defense+. I haven't run leak tests on my system yet to confirm this though.

 

I got the GRC leak test,PC Flank test and the System Shutdown test to pass using D+. I really dont know why anyone doesnt want to use D+.

 

Was this a "selective install" option, only available if you didn't want to install the defense + ? I just don't don't remember seeing it, but I was watching a CBB game while reinstalling (mounting it--whatever), the OS image and installing the new CFW 3.0. ....

.. so now if have "the new CFW 3.0 (why didn't they just call it 3.4?), and you have defense + installed but later want to turn it off and just use the FW (if you decide to run another HIPS for instance),----- are you screwed with a ""leaky FW, because you didn't select to enable "leakproof the FW without enabling defense + ? Perhaps, I should make another image with the "new" CFW 3.0 installed without the HIPS and the "leakproof the FW without enabling defense +" checked. Luckily we had a 500 gig HD advertised at a good price in the Sunday paper. I'm going to need it to hold all the images after this "new and improved CFW 3.0" rollout. ​

 

The antileak mode only becomes visible once selecting basic only during the install. This could be problematic to some not knowing there is an easier but still strong mode. I am using the new antileak mode which still uses defence+ but has a lot less popups and still passes all the tests on firewall leak tester. I tested all the tests and i pass all of them with 2 or less alerts which is a drastic change i would say. There must also be some internal changes to cause less popups because the file/reg protection shows less alerts to.

 

From what I'm gathering, but I may be completely off-base as well, --if you install the "new" CFW "with everything on it", but later decide to run it without D+, you'd be better off uninstalling it completely, and then reinstalling it in the "anti-leak"mode without D+? Is that the program? thx

 

Yup ya rite

 

does any one know what the difference is between the anti-leak mode and the defense+ mode?

like what monitoring protections get shut off or are left on?