Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Comodo Firewall 10 Setup
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AtlBo" data-source="post: 701971" data-attributes="member: 32547"><p>I don't think you would like Qihoo using this comparison. If you look at Processes with "All Processes" checked in Task Manger, QHActiveDefense.exe uses 300K easily. The other active part of 360, called QHSafeTray.exe, uses about 50K.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>She is right. There is option for doing as you would like, however, if you want to protect backups on a backup drive, or really go all the way protecting files. It's a program called EasyFileLocker. This is written by XOSLab, who also wrote Shadow Defender. Shadow Defender is very trusted here at MTs. EFL is very configurable and very well written. You can name locations to protect and then for each location decide which applications can write to the location. Reguires some configuation, but I use it to protect backups on remote drives.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not sure CF will do the job by itself at this point, when adding internet considerations. Comodo has a good system in place with CF. Seems devs are content with that for now, although clearly the game has changed somewhat with Eternal Blue/Double Pulsar (wannacry). The command-line heuristics module is a great idea, but the potential for new types of threats is the reason I would like to see the results of a test of malware against that particular module of CF in a standalone way.</p><p></p><p>Too bad Comodo hasn't been more aggressive with internet protection, especially considering the firewall is already in place and so much information is already being monitored. They have extensions that are in Comodo Dragon, but they are terrible and broken. Maybe Comodo will refine the Firewall and provide better support for site blocking/internet script protection in the future.</p><p></p><p>By the way, I actually had a Viruscope alert today <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite119" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />. I was testing a script to change the desktop background which also changed the registry. Obviously it takes alot to engage Viruscope. Actually, last I heard, it was inactive/inert in CF and being used by Comodo to gather information. This info is based on a desktop message I received from Comodo about VS, following an update. I hadn't seen a VS alert in probably 8 months or so I guess.</p><p></p><p>The small bugginess issues with CF I think explain well where the program is overall. I don't consider the bugs a protection weakness, but I can see how someone might feel so. It takes quite some time to understand why Comodo does not respond to things...literally months of hands on use. It can seem that the program is not doing its job. Also, the settings are straight up confusing without a similar committment to using the program. That said, the protection is good and actually solid, just not as a standalone security application, that is unless Comodo is serious about signatures as has been reported they are becoming. In that case, maybe CIS or CCAV could be good enough to be considered standalone for most. I still wish Comodo could give users just a slight bit more on what is a REALLY risky behavior on a PC, such as script activity. This is a bigger deal with the number of alerts that the program can generate. I would feel better about considering CIS and CCAV as all that is required if this were improved. AND I really hope to see a test of the command-line heuristics module LOL <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite124" alt=":love:" title="Love :love:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":love:" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite119" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />. For me it's the key to the whole thing, since I run unsigned software sometimes.</p><p></p><p>I feel like you are on the right track looking into the deeper issues of protection. For now, it's hard to me to imagine doing it better for free than Comodo + free a-v (avast, BD, QH, Kas) + maybe AppCheck A/RW. I add EMET 5.5 (helps with W7 and earlier) and NVT ERP (sure script monitoring). These aren't a requirement. The best news is there are a good number of serious free a-v applications. BTW, thanks for the tip on the BD extension. Don't know if BD must be installed, but I will take a look.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AtlBo, post: 701971, member: 32547"] I don't think you would like Qihoo using this comparison. If you look at Processes with "All Processes" checked in Task Manger, QHActiveDefense.exe uses 300K easily. The other active part of 360, called QHSafeTray.exe, uses about 50K. She is right. There is option for doing as you would like, however, if you want to protect backups on a backup drive, or really go all the way protecting files. It's a program called EasyFileLocker. This is written by XOSLab, who also wrote Shadow Defender. Shadow Defender is very trusted here at MTs. EFL is very configurable and very well written. You can name locations to protect and then for each location decide which applications can write to the location. Reguires some configuation, but I use it to protect backups on remote drives. Not sure CF will do the job by itself at this point, when adding internet considerations. Comodo has a good system in place with CF. Seems devs are content with that for now, although clearly the game has changed somewhat with Eternal Blue/Double Pulsar (wannacry). The command-line heuristics module is a great idea, but the potential for new types of threats is the reason I would like to see the results of a test of malware against that particular module of CF in a standalone way. Too bad Comodo hasn't been more aggressive with internet protection, especially considering the firewall is already in place and so much information is already being monitored. They have extensions that are in Comodo Dragon, but they are terrible and broken. Maybe Comodo will refine the Firewall and provide better support for site blocking/internet script protection in the future. By the way, I actually had a Viruscope alert today :rolleyes:. I was testing a script to change the desktop background which also changed the registry. Obviously it takes alot to engage Viruscope. Actually, last I heard, it was inactive/inert in CF and being used by Comodo to gather information. This info is based on a desktop message I received from Comodo about VS, following an update. I hadn't seen a VS alert in probably 8 months or so I guess. The small bugginess issues with CF I think explain well where the program is overall. I don't consider the bugs a protection weakness, but I can see how someone might feel so. It takes quite some time to understand why Comodo does not respond to things...literally months of hands on use. It can seem that the program is not doing its job. Also, the settings are straight up confusing without a similar committment to using the program. That said, the protection is good and actually solid, just not as a standalone security application, that is unless Comodo is serious about signatures as has been reported they are becoming. In that case, maybe CIS or CCAV could be good enough to be considered standalone for most. I still wish Comodo could give users just a slight bit more on what is a REALLY risky behavior on a PC, such as script activity. This is a bigger deal with the number of alerts that the program can generate. I would feel better about considering CIS and CCAV as all that is required if this were improved. AND I really hope to see a test of the command-line heuristics module LOL :love::rolleyes:. For me it's the key to the whole thing, since I run unsigned software sometimes. I feel like you are on the right track looking into the deeper issues of protection. For now, it's hard to me to imagine doing it better for free than Comodo + free a-v (avast, BD, QH, Kas) + maybe AppCheck A/RW. I add EMET 5.5 (helps with W7 and earlier) and NVT ERP (sure script monitoring). These aren't a requirement. The best news is there are a good number of serious free a-v applications. BTW, thanks for the tip on the BD extension. Don't know if BD must be installed, but I will take a look. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top