App Review A Comodo Firewall Beta 2 Quick Dance

[wat0114]

Her setup only suspends alerts; it doesn't help with program installation or update usability. While it strengthens security, it doesn't improve user friendliness.

It's been a while since I used CFW, but if it still has the Trusted Vendors list, then what is the problem with program installation and updates? Maybe I'm missing something here. Also, I feel this could be a great setup for grandma/gramps, or kids, where a tech-savvy and responsible individual is in charge of program installations and updates.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

where a tech-savvy and responsible individual is in charge of program installations and updates.

Needing a tech savvy user to monitor the application means it's not suitable for those average users to use on their own.

 

[ForgottenSeer 100397]

It's been a while since I used CFW, but if it still has the Trusted Vendors list, then what is the problem with program installation and updates? Maybe I'm missing something here. Also, I feel this could be a great setup for grandma/gramps, or kids, where a tech-savvy and responsible individual is in charge of program installations and updates.

While Comodo local and cloud whitelists are excellent, a default-deny or application whitelisting program like Comodo requires user interaction to be issue-free and hassle-free. Comodo is a superb choice if you have an experienced user to handle it.

 

[wat0114]

While Comodo local and cloud whitelists are excellent, a default-deny or application whitelisting program like Comodo requires user interaction to be issue-free and hassle-free. Comodo is a superb choice if you have an experienced user to handle it.

I'm not so sure the containment setup used in the test is a default-deny one, especially in the context of a classic anti-executable or a HIPS setup. In fact, CS explains this in her post #10. It will allow the majority of files if they are safe, with a few exceptions of course, but there has to be some degree of erring on the side of safety when trying to achieve an acceptable balance between security and usability. This is no different when an antivirus program mistakenly flags a safe file as malicious (false positive).

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

I'm not so sure the containment setup used in the test is a default-deny one, especially in the context of a classic anti-executable or a HIPS setup. In fact, CS explains this in her post #10. It will allow the majority of files if they are safe, with a few exceptions of course, but there has to be some degree of erring on the side of safety when trying to achieve an acceptable balance between security and usability. This is no different when an antivirus program mistakenly flags a safe file as malicious (false positive).

I'm not trying to be mean when I say this I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

"I'm not so sure" , " need a tech savvy user" , these are your own words pointing to a couple things, you do not know the application well, and yet feel it needs supervision, yet are defending it.

I get you like the application, no one is bashing it. No one is bashing CS or her test. I'm just tired of all the rhetoric that these tools are just fine for average joe on the streets because they are not. They are advanced tools. Shoving them on average users is irresponsible. Convincing average users they would be just fine is as well.

In your own words, grandma would be ok if someone maintained it for her, this is exactly the point, average users should not be using this tool on their own. There is nothing more to argue on the subject, it's just silly too past this point.

 

[wat0114]

I'm not trying to be mean when I say this I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

"I'm not so sure" , " need a tech savvy user" , these are your own words pointing to a couple things, you do not know the application well, and yet feel it needs supervision, yet are defending it.

I get you like the application, no one is bashing it. No one is bashing CS or her test. I'm just tired of all the rhetoric that these tools are just fine for average joe on the streets because they are not. They are advanced tools. Shoving them on average users is irresponsible. Convincing average users they would be just fine is as well.

In your own words, grandma would be ok if someone maintained it for her, this is exactly the point, average users should not be using this tool on their own. There is nothing more to argue on the subject, it's just silly too past this point.

Although I won't claim to be an expert on it, I know the application better than you think.

Comodo Auto-Containment - comparable to Sandboxie ?

Hi, I have switched to Comodo Internet Security's Auto-Containment; because it works with my YubiKey. Whereas Sandboxie doesn't. Are the 2 products...

www.wilderssecurity.com

Several posts in the thread are mine. As for grandma requiring assistance with program installations and updates, this is no different than if she is using classic antivirus; she typically requires assistance with program installation, setup and usage anyways. However, the majority of home users, those with average skills, could use this setup without expert assistance. But since you don't want to discuss further, I will end it here as well.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

Although I won't claim to be an expert on it, I know the application better than you think.

Comodo Auto-Containment - comparable to Sandboxie ?

Hi, I have switched to Comodo Internet Security's Auto-Containment; because it works with my YubiKey. Whereas Sandboxie doesn't. Are the 2 products...

www.wilderssecurity.com

Several posts in the thread are mine. As for grandma requiring assistance with program installations and updates, this is no different than if she is using classic antivirus; she typically requires assistance with program installation, setup and usage anyways. However, the majority of home users, those with average skills, could use this setup without expert assistance. But since you don't want to discuss further, I will end it here as well.

Tell you what, in this forum of last words and i have to be right no matter what, i will this one time, post one more too.

Tell Stapp and the staff illumination says hello, i used to be a member over there at one time also. Matter of fact, stop in the Comodo forums and tell Melih, Egemen, and the boys i said hello there as well, as i used to be a part of the forums there too, back when i Beta tested the product and it was just a firewall before it became an internet security suite. So the product, i know it well, i have played with the advanced settings and all the bugs of growing enough to know exactly how quickly one can render a system unusable. I know that those urban legends as put here in the thread are not that, go look in the comodo forums yourself at bug reports, stop taking users words for it. Just because you can install it on one machine and it runs ok, does not mean the next person will be so lucky. If your lucky enough to be tech savvy enough to know what to do iif it misbehaves, well good for you, not everyone will be so lucky. So again, without derailing the main fact "its not suitable for average users", think upon this before your next response, because many average users may be reading this, and how would you feel if you influenced one right into a couple hundred dollar repair job at their local bestbuy.

 

[cruelsister]

Many superb points made above, and I would like to thank all who contributed to this topic (wish I could be more Artsy-Craftsy in video production, but alas…).

Anyway, a few points:

1). Please note that the all the malware used was new, and the only detection made by VirusScope/Cloud) was on the final sample. This is why I do NOT recommend using the full CIS application (with the on-demand AV scanner).

2). Far too many issues can occur with the mishandling of the HIPS module (even any HIPS in the most aggressive mode makes nasty Ophelia purr with infectious delight); with Containment enabled having HIPS at any level active is superfluous and thus not recommended.

3). Yes, although some legit applications that are not yet vetted by C will be plopped into the Unknown category, it is barely an inconvenience to make them trusted (either at a Containment popup (when not in Silent Mode) or via the main GUI. It is, however, far from inconvenient to have financial and other user data sent to Malware Command. I personally find this a beneficial tradeoff.

4). CF will maximize the freedom to do what one wants on the Net, protecting those who don’t know better as well as those who DO know better but happen to be on a video conference and didn’t mean to click on that link (not that I would know, of course…)

5). Setup is simple and can be done in seconds, and if the AV module is not used there really is no update issues as the main protection modules of containment and Firewall are essentially static.

6). For Grandma and little sniveling, whining vermin, my setup with the addition of password protecting the same will allow browsing independence with safety.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

.

4). CF will maximize the freedom to do what one wants on the Net, protecting those who don’t know better as well as those who DO know better but happen to be on a video conference and didn’t mean to click on that link (not that I would know, of course…)

5). Setup is simple and can be done in seconds, and if the AV module is not used there really is no update issues as the main protection modules of containment and Firewall are essentially static.

6). For Grandma and little sniveling, whining vermin, my setup with the addition of password protecting the same will allow browsing independence with safety.

Maximizing freedom to do what one wants on the Internet. I just whispered this into my magical unicorns ear and he grinned.

I was unaware CIS was so good it could protect users from themselves, magical indeed.

I stand by my opinion that it's unsuitable for average users. There is a reason it's not popular, well known and in the same line up with Norton, Kaspersky and the likes.

 

[ForgottenSeer 97327]

Her setup only suspends alerts; it doesn't help with program installation or update usability. While it strengthens security, it doesn't improve user friendliness.

To be honest, my grandma has never installed a program. Like most people with low PC interest or PC knowledge they like to keep their PC as it is.

So although your point is valid the likelihood of running in a situation in which a program is silently blocked while it should be allowed is very low IMO.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

To be honest, my grandma has never installed a program. Like most people with low PC interest or PC knowledge they like to keep their PC as it is.

So although your point is valid the likelihood of running in such a situation is very low IMO.

There seems to be an understanding that an average users consists of children and grandmothers and anyone above that must be advanced users.

Average users do not know how to maneuver advance settings, or to fix system files, or set rules, they barely know how to get around the Internet on a browser and use certain programs.

In these talks it keeps getting stated average users can use this software, and it's simple, no they can't, they will bork their system clicking on things or if the application itself stops something not just from needing whitelist but because of an internal issues such as a bug, they will have no idea what to do with it. Let's face it, comodo has a long history of I just borked my system installing it, let alone adjusting it's rules.

So to deflect we take it to Grandma le el instead of facing facts it's an advanced software not meant for the average user.

See I figured if I say it enough, it might sink in on some that I'm not putting down the software, I'm not bashing the fanboy products. I'm not stating it's ineffective. I'm just saying it's too advanced for users who should be using built in windows security, or simple set n forget softwares.

 

[ForgottenSeer 97327]

There seems to be an understanding that an average users consists of children and grandmothers and anyone above that must be advanced users. (1)

Average users do not know how to maneuver advance settings, or to fix system files, or set rules, they barely know how to get around the Internet on a browser and use certain programs. (2)

In these talks it keeps getting stated average users can use this software, and it's simple, no they can't, they will bork their system clicking on things or if the application itself stops something not just from needing whitelist but because of an internal issues such as a bug, they will have no idea what to do with it. Let's face it, comodo has a long history of I just borked my system installing it, let alone adjusting it's rules. (3)

So to deflect we take it to Grandma le el instead of facing facts it's an advanced software not meant for the average user. (4)

See I figured if I say it enough, it might sink in on some that I'm not putting down the software, I'm not bashing the fanboy products. I'm not stating it's ineffective. I'm just saying it's too advanced for users who should be using built in windows security, or simple set n forget softwares. (5)

5) I am not a fanboy

4) Fully agree that Comodo is an advanced software to be configured by an advanced user. But in many families a more digital skilled member, takes car of software installation and setup for less digital skilled people.

2 +3). Like most people with low PC interest or low PC skills they USE their PC (for surfing, mailing, writing, streaming, etc) and are not playing with settings of security software nor are the installing software. So although it is true what you say at 2 and 3, I am convinded that the chances of them changing something on their PC is minimal.

1). I mentioned my Grandma as an example who never installed a program, did not mention kids or toddlers that are your words.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

5) I am not a fanboy

4) Fully agree that Comodo is an advanced software to be configured by an advanced user. But in many families a more digital skilled member, takes car of software installation and setup for less digital skilled people.

2 +3). Like most people with low PC interest or low PC skills they USE their PC (for surfing, mailing, writing, streaming, etc) and are not playing with settings of security software nor are the installing software. So although it is true what you say at 2 and 3, I am convinded that the chances of them changing something on their PC is minimal.

1). I mentioned my Grandma as an example who never installed a program, did not mention kids or toddlers that are your words.

5. Just means you are attacking others so often you take things personally, as that part was not meant towards you. It was in general for the thread. Some get defensive no matter how good a persons intentions are and how much they state no offense or dis towards users or products, but alas someone always has to look better and cause issues instead of just helping others with fact. There are many average users here for example that come in the forum to learn, they are not ready for this type of stuff. Just like users that come in wanting to learn to test and play with live malware, it's not responsible to encourage that, actually couterproductive for a supposed security forum to do. I'm not sure how this can not be understood.

 

[ForgottenSeer 100397]

I'm not so sure the containment setup used in the test is a default-deny one, especially in the context of a classic anti-executable or a HIPS setup. In fact, CS explains this in her post #10. It will allow the majority of files if they are safe, with a few exceptions of course, but there has to be some degree of erring on the side of safety when trying to achieve an acceptable balance between security and usability. This is no different when an antivirus program mistakenly flags a safe file as malicious (false positive).

Modern default-deny programs have approved software lists and block any not on those lists. Comodo is one such program that only allows software it has vetted. Default-deny setups are best suited for experienced users or those willing to learn the basic required steps. Kaspersky or ESET disable or keep default-deny capabilities in passive mode to prevent issues. Comodo is an easy-to-use default-deny program with great whitelists and minimal customization needed. However, it is not suitable for average users with no knowledge of it.

 

[ForgottenSeer 100397]

To be honest, my grandma has never installed a program. Like most people with low PC interest or PC knowledge they like to keep their PC as it is.

It is an excellent security measure for static or managed systems.

 

[ForgottenSeer 100397]

3). Yes, although some legit applications that are not yet vetted by C will be plopped into the Unknown category, it is barely an inconvenience to make them trusted (either at a Containment popup (when not in Silent Mode) or via the main GUI. It is, however, far from inconvenient to have financial and other user data sent to Malware Command. I personally find this a beneficial tradeoff.

Some of us are discussing the point here. Marking an unrecognized file as trusted is inconvenient for users who do not know about the program. It may seem easy to us, but it is not for clueless users. There are also risks associated with trusting an unrecognized program or file. Comodo is great for static or managed systems or a lockdown approach. Average users must have a basic understanding of Comodo's concept and features to use it efficiently and effectively.

 

[Trident]

@Ultimate Vision

Great posts. Kudos!

PS1: "bugs are urban legend" = Comodo's Fanboys / Fangirls = Reality deniers = Comodo's flat-earth fanatics.

PS2: Beta 1 was a disaster, it looked like a second hand undeveloped alpha. It took an eternity to go to Beta 2.

PS3: Beta 2 is old Comodo, just with a new "lifted face". Old same bugs are there, no new features, bad reviews from objective experts, Comodo' retail market share remains negligible.

This just proves that the most logical has not been done and is not getting done at all. This is namely to unite the codebases of Xcitium, already regularly updated and free as OpenEDR and the Comodo home products. Which is the case with many home + business products. Comodo won’t be rosy until that’s complete.

 

[wat0114]

Too bad a product test thread has devolved into another Comodo bashing thread, and anyone who says anything remotely positive about it is brandished, even if indirectly, a Fanboy/Fangirl. Anyway, I took another look to verify how CS installed the beta test:

1. De-selected AV component
2. Set to Proactive
3. HIPS disabled
4. All else is at Default
5. Set to Silent Mode

This is clearly not a complicated installation approach. Also, a computer novice does not necessarily mean the person is a dummy or a half-wit, and therefore clueless about how to use the product. It just means they may have to put in a bit of time and effort to figure out some of the menu options and how to install a safe program that isn't recognized. This should not be too difficult if it is set up the way CS did for her test. I'm also not suggesting the Beta is bug-free, but so far in CS' testing she hasn't reported anything as show stopping. In my very thorough testing of the last final release, I did encounter the long-standing bug where the HIPS rules all disappeared on me. I wasn't impressed, but I quickly restored them from a backup I had made.

In short, if the final release works as advertised, it could be a very effective security solution, even for computer novices who don't mind taking the time and effort to figure it out, if set up the way CS did for the test as an alternative to the mainstream AV products or for those who don't trust the effectiveness of built-in Windows security.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

This just proves that the most logical has not been done and is not getting done at all. This is namely to unite the codebases of Xcitium, already regularly updated and free as OpenEDR and the Comodo home products. Which is the case with many home + business products. Comodo won’t be rosy until that’s complete.

If Comodo' bugs are "urban legend"... why Comodo' staff [sic - attached below] "is fully committed to fix everything that was listed for years"? Why Comodo will be committed to fix bugs that Fanboys/girls here at MalwareTips are constantly denying their existence? Please, don't answer, is a rhetorical question.

These posts are took from Comodo' Beta Forum, just days ago:

View attachment 279400

Official Comodo' Staff answer: see attached image.

And this is the link of bugs, posted and officially recognized by Comodo' staff in the post above (the unofficial list of bugs is even larger!):

List of current bugs

PS: Fanaticism or denial of reality... will not make Comodo a better software.

They should definitely merge codebase

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

Too bad a product test thread has devolved into another Comodo bashing thread, and anyone who says anything remotely positive about it is brandished, even if indirectly, a Fanboy/Fangirl. Anyway, I took another look to verify how CS installed the beta test:

1. De-selected AV component
2. Set to Proactive
3. HIPS disabled
4. All else is at Default
5. Set to Silent Mode

This is clearly not a complicated installation approach. Also, a computer novice does not necessarily mean the person is a dummy or a half-wit, and therefore clueless about how to use the product. It just means they may have to put in a bit of time and effort to figure out some of the menu options and how to install a safe program that isn't recognized. This should not be too difficult if it is set up the way CS did for her test. I'm also not suggesting the Beta is bug-free, but so far in CS' testing she hasn't reported anything as show stopping. In my very thorough testing of the last final release, I did encounter the long-standing bug where the HIPS rules all disappeared on me. I wasn't impressed, but I quickly restored them from a backup I had made.

In short, if the final release works as advertised, it could be a very effective security solution, even for computer novices who don't mind taking the time and effort to figure it out, if set up the way CS did for the test as an alternative to the mainstream AV products or for those who don't trust the effectiveness of built-in Windows security.

Too bad the opposite side is never acknowledged and leads to this. All that was initially mentioned was that this product was in no way designed for novice/average users. Snide remarks were made about sniveling children, and urban legends denying in a cruel way if you will. Everyone instantly on guard because someone is not praising the test or comodo like its the best thing since slice bread. Once someone speaks up they are automatically bashing CIS, even though nothing untrue was spoken. Then we pull the equivalent of the racist card by stating they are calling us fanboys while still stating this product is just fine for users of all kinds. Its the same crap every time, lets not discuss it like adults but just point fingers and bash.

This is a security forum, dedicated to helping others learn. I have seen CS state its ok to use this product for average users, no its not, its a damn nightmare most of the time for average users. I have also seen young kids encouraged to play with live malware here, i mean, wth folks.

Take a look in the mirror before you throw any more towards others. I have no problems with comodo, obviously i used to beta test it back when i used windows machines. I have a problem with encouraging folks that should not be messing with these type tools. I have a problem with telling folks to play with malware, this is not a game.

Im done here, hopefully the ones that need to think upon this will.