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="Decopi" data-source="post: 702297" data-attributes="member: 67091"><p>[USER=11847]@josinpaul[/USER],</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So my question remains valid: There are lot of browser online-dangers that I don't know/understand how CF+CS' settings could block them. Your explanation as other explanations are based in the past, not based in today zero-day attacks or future zero-day attacks able to harm bypassing CF+CS' settings. Also, is not based in pure online-dangers.</p><p></p><p>Please, don't misunderstand me!</p><p>I love CF+CS' settings. I am using it!</p><p>My only point here is to understand/know why CS recommends CF alone, without AM/AV, when most of the average users are going to be hit by browsers, online-activity, an other internet dangers.</p><p>I repeat, I am not saying CS is wrong. I just want to know how she foresees average users using only CF without anything else, regarding internet dangers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Most of the regular AM/AV have some kind of web-shield or online-protection. I am not saying that these tools are perfect. But at least, for average users are ok, much better than nothing.</p><p>These web tools try to cover common online-pests like phishing, malicious scripts, fake websites etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am totally agree with you that browsers have a big homework to do, and can help a lot regarding security/privacy.</p><p>The point is that this is not realistic, and never will happen, because browsers need ads, tracking, privacy invasion etc in order to financially survive.</p><p>The few browsers taking care of security/privacy, sadly they kill the web experience.</p><p></p><p>However, as I said, external help exists.</p><p>AM/AV can help with web-shields.</p><p>And add-ons/extensions can help with lots of security/privacy tools.</p><p>So, in my ignorance, I believe that CF+CS' settings needs an AM/AV in the case of 1) False negatives (as happened in the past with CF cloud mistakes), and also needs in the case of 2) Browsers, online-activity, and other internet dangers (where CF has zero protection there).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this is not my point.</p><p>I am not criticizing CF+CS' settings.</p><p>I am not defending AM/AV alternatives.</p><p>I just want to know/understand how CS can recommend CF without anything else, regarding browsers, online-activity, and other internet dangers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 702297, member: 67091"] [USER=11847]@josinpaul[/USER], So my question remains valid: There are lot of browser online-dangers that I don't know/understand how CF+CS' settings could block them. Your explanation as other explanations are based in the past, not based in today zero-day attacks or future zero-day attacks able to harm bypassing CF+CS' settings. Also, is not based in pure online-dangers. Please, don't misunderstand me! I love CF+CS' settings. I am using it! My only point here is to understand/know why CS recommends CF alone, without AM/AV, when most of the average users are going to be hit by browsers, online-activity, an other internet dangers. I repeat, I am not saying CS is wrong. I just want to know how she foresees average users using only CF without anything else, regarding internet dangers. Most of the regular AM/AV have some kind of web-shield or online-protection. I am not saying that these tools are perfect. But at least, for average users are ok, much better than nothing. These web tools try to cover common online-pests like phishing, malicious scripts, fake websites etc. I am totally agree with you that browsers have a big homework to do, and can help a lot regarding security/privacy. The point is that this is not realistic, and never will happen, because browsers need ads, tracking, privacy invasion etc in order to financially survive. The few browsers taking care of security/privacy, sadly they kill the web experience. However, as I said, external help exists. AM/AV can help with web-shields. And add-ons/extensions can help with lots of security/privacy tools. So, in my ignorance, I believe that CF+CS' settings needs an AM/AV in the case of 1) False negatives (as happened in the past with CF cloud mistakes), and also needs in the case of 2) Browsers, online-activity, and other internet dangers (where CF has zero protection there). Again, this is not my point. I am not criticizing CF+CS' settings. I am not defending AM/AV alternatives. I just want to know/understand how CS can recommend CF without anything else, regarding browsers, online-activity, and other internet dangers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top