OA phoning home with invasive quips

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything, but your way off base. I don't think anyone is bashing Online Armor. They are just voicing their opinions. I would consider a firewall/HIPS a very important part of a security setup and if anything "weird" or abnormal appeared within the software, I would be very concerned. Wouldn't you be a little concerned?

I saw the OP's post and hesitated to answer because there were many things that needed consideration. Even after reading it, I later that night hovered my mouse of OA2's tray icon and saw the same thing. I admit, I got a sick feeling in my stomach. A sick feeling that I had when I had thousands of files infected in 2001. For a moment, I felt my most important security software had been compromised. I wasn't expecting anything out of the ordinary out of my machine or my trusted softwares.

Having said that, I really like Online Armor and I trust what Mike has said about the matter. I think it's common knowledge that computer security is a serious business and I'm sure that poor programmer now knows this too. I just hope they weren't too hard on him/her.

 

Perhaps I was off-base slightly, though in all honesty that kind of message would not have startled me. I simply would have gone to their forum to see what was up. The rest of my points I stand firmly by.

 

personally I wouldn't get much scared about such a message. In particular with free or open-source software, I saw a lot of such things.

On the other hand, if it comes from a commercial piece of software ... Imagine e.g.: I am a system admin and I recently convinced my boss to spend a few thousands to install this new security app on all our machines. Then suddenly this strange message comes out. I would probably spend the whole day answering phone calls and convincing people that it is not a virus, but just some strange joke from this new software we spend so much for. Also I would somehow have to explain this to my boss .... I would probably feel quite stupid in that situation, but luckily I am not a system admin, so no problem for me ...

 

Beside OA only makes sense in combo with SSM otherwise not secure enough.
I think every coder has his own kink, so don´t be surprised.

 

It's also known that OA's Endpoint restriction ranges aren't even working.
So, it actually contains more easter eggs than protection.

 

It's also known that OA's Endpoint restriction ranges aren't even working.
So, it actually contains more easter eggs than protection.

 

Be far better and much easier for users if Tall Emu provide some decent documentation that explains how to use OA's features/settings.

Current releases of OA do not even have a Help file, and the "Online OA Help" is woefully outdated.

 

Agree, this is worth to get excited, not this negligible popup.
Every security program should have a appropriate Help/Manual.
I don't care if it's a local file or online, but it should be at least up to date.

But this is handled carelessly by Tall Emu and even more embarrassing, everyone there likes to quip about this outdated incomplete mess.

Cheers

 

There have been problems in the past with the IP ranges, but this is resolved, certainly with the latest release I have installed (131)

Where the problems/confusion come into this is how OA defaults to only allowing valid netmask ranges, certainly not what most will consider or know about. Even attempting to explain this in a fully understandable way is difficult. I will need to think about a good explanation that will not confuse more than it helps.

- Stem

 

Hello Stem:

Yes, I agree.

The coder may have been well intended, but they failed to realize the bad impression it creates. OA should restrict it's birthday greetings to it's own forum like Wilder's does.

Years ago I had a programmer who felt the organization needed a morale boost. He put a joke out on the company network for all to see. Problem was not everybody shared his sense of humour and my phone lit up like a Christmas tree! he meant well but didn't think past his own point of view or consider consequences.

 

Bad impression? I don't think so.
I use OA paid and took no offense by it.
Glad to see someone has a sense of humor down under.
People gotta lighten up a little.
Some just take everything to seriously.

 

Was lurking at the OA forums last night and came across the serious firewall BUG topic that OP inquiring about OA's restrictions not working; reply by Mike Nash that "Ranges must fit within the same mask to work".

Again, no big surprise that the Online Armor Help for using Restrictions is minimal, and has none of the "how to" info provided in luc's or Mike's replies to OP.

Edit: Fixed typo

 

Yes I'm glad about humour as well! Like you I paid my money as well!

I took no offense to it myself but, IMHO (we all have them)
it is bad business practice for a security product like OA to have that occur !

Mike Nash has indicated it should not have happened and he is correct.

It indicates to me and many that code can slip in to a product dedicated to security that should not have that code. It's a matter of QA.

Security is a serious business it is not a personal thing but a business matter.

There needs to be a different way to do the humor thing

 

Your points are noted, valid and do make sense.

 

Thanks danny 9: See you on the learning thread!

 

I just stumbled on this topic too and read thru all the replies, concerns etc.

So then would all this indicate that Comodo D+ would be a far more informed choice then OA now or has been all along?

Just curious because embedding new hard code, at least even if it was just a joke, obviously does far more than just raise questions and concerns from what i seen here.

Same goes for the security coverage aspect.

 

I didn't know i made any conclusions aside from the members who obviously have voiced concern over i guess a practical joke?

I will add though as a real conclusion that in these times & days where security is taken very seriously both inside and out of the internet, that one must be very careful on how you present things to the public if only a joke, and as concerns PC Security Apps i think all points from both sides of this issue have been properly addressed.

 

I agree totally.

This pop-up by OA happened to me shortly after I had re-installed OA. I figured I had a malware on board, and it had penetrated OA to the extent that it was teasing me about it with this pop-up. A scan found nothing, Even so, I felt it would be prudent for me to revert to an image that I KNEW was clean. I did so. Of course, OA was not on that image. Back to Comodo for now. Tut.

 

It may have been a harmless message, but I gotta agree with Stem.
Computer security is serious business.

 

I agree also. About the only thing a popup like that can do is make the application look less professional.

 

I don't blame you one bit for your re-action. I just hate to see Mike's rep hurt by this, he has put many hours into helping users in this forum, me included. It just seems a shame that Mike has to pay for someone else's "indiscretion"...

 

If this joke was published why people even doubt that other "jokes" not so visible are also published.
BTW, Where is fix?