It was after changing from the default profile to proactive which indeed would enable the HIPS but in safe mode. The profile change required a restart and it would blue screen the system. This was early years though mind you. Back then it was not uncommon for bugs to be present and cause crashes and issues. I played with CIS up through windows 10. I have not done so on Windows 11 so can not comment on how stable it is there. I can however comment on the advanced settings and the knowledge it takes to use such a product.
Comodo Firewall vs a new Data Stealer
- Thread starter cruelsister
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
bazang
Level 6
- Jul 3, 2024
- 298
Security software is an unregulated product. There is no user knowledge or experience required. A 6 month old baby can use security software and they don't even need a car seat or a rubber baby buggy bumper.
There's just a lot of strawman concern here by a particular individual that have very deep resentments against Comodo. They come here and part of the argument is "Comodo is harming users." OK then. Provide the evidence. Where is it? Provide the evidence that all these inexperienced users are being harmed. Like, anyone who even makes that statement in the first place is being absurd. Then particular Indvidual couch it in "Comodo is unethical because it has a buggy product and bugs hurt people." Complete strawman fake concern about others.
The legal definition of a harm is that an entity has to suffer a loss of one form or another. It does not cover the loss of time nor does it include emotional upset because of a software bug.
Software causes problems and if people - anyone - experienced or inexperienced - encounters troubles that upset them - oh well, sorry about your luck because that comes with the territory. It happens with all software and all devices. It happens with novices and experts.
The more controversial a product, the more people are going to want to try it. That's what good children do. They do the exact opposite of what the parent tells them to do.
The drama created here by one particular individual is just free advertising for Melih.
Last edited:
That absolutely did not make sense, because helping users be informed that there is a level or degree of difficulty is not telling them what to use, it's helping them make informed choices on correct information.
But if we are to use analogy like cars, how about a user that has driven nothing but a automatic their whole life just jumping into a stick shift, hell lets make it fun by adding a suicide clutch. Let's say this driver has no idea what rpms to shift at, or gear patterns as well. This is closer to the reality of using say Norton or other products compared to CIS, but still does not do it justice because in order to use a deny default properly you need to understand what you are allowing and not allowing. Seems pretty cut n dry to me.
- Feb 7, 2023
- 2,349
If Comodo was developed by a market leader with many users and channels of receiving safe files, always updated and maintained, and developed to a high standard, it would have been a dream.
But it’s not, Comodo is an abandonware product, getting updates once in a blue moon, being highly user dependant (almost entirely), and hardly any innovations have been presented in the last 15 years.
It’s OK to use Comodo but it’s not OK to present its alerts and various prompts as protection, even less so calling other solutions “oblivious to malware” because they didn’t issue the same.
I’ve got no issue with the people using Comodo, my issues have always been:
The video on this thread reminds me awfully of the videos Enigma Software used to make on every fake AV. 100% marketing campaign, 0% informational. We already know that Comodo contains and controls the traffic — this is not since yesterday.
But it’s not, Comodo is an abandonware product, getting updates once in a blue moon, being highly user dependant (almost entirely), and hardly any innovations have been presented in the last 15 years.
It’s OK to use Comodo but it’s not OK to present its alerts and various prompts as protection, even less so calling other solutions “oblivious to malware” because they didn’t issue the same.
I’ve got no issue with the people using Comodo, my issues have always been:
- Presenting Comodo as superior to other products when they are clearly lighting years ahead of it
- Using low prevalence malware and unrealistic scenarios as evidence that Comodo is superior
- Issuing false statements that other software can’t protect a user’s machine, using generalisations such as “average user” and thus, tempting people into trying Comodo. Issuing statements that other products are “oblivious to malware” when there is very little evidence of the same.
- Failing to mention that other software can issue some of these alerts and prompts
- And last, but not least, presenting prompts and alerts handled by knowledgeable users as protection suitable for everyone.
The video on this thread reminds me awfully of the videos Enigma Software used to make on every fake AV. 100% marketing campaign, 0% informational. We already know that Comodo contains and controls the traffic — this is not since yesterday.
- Oct 22, 2018
- 590
NO, I've seen it every thread, "experts" trying to tell anybody who chooses CIS or Firewall that, if they aren't an above average user, to leave it alone. None of you are trying to help anybody. Your intent is to keep anybody who isn't an expert, whatever that is, from using the software.
- Feb 7, 2023
- 2,349
We don’t care who’s using Comodo, people can use Protegent as well if they want. We don’t like when readers are being led on. I understand that this is not loved by people who are only here to lead on, get 10 minutes of daily “fame”, and support their fanboyism and bias. It is also not loved by their sidekicks and loyal supporters who just can’t wait to react to their content. But that’s the truth.
I tell the users they need to know the operating system and how it works to apply default deny properly because a misconfigured security will leave them more vulnerable than they were with default security and could actually corrupt the system files as well depending, causing damage. It is as stated just above irresponsible to tell users otherwise. I do not do this with just CIS but all software designed for intermediate to advanced users.
What I type is my responsibility, what you perceive is yours.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Oct 22, 2018
- 590
You don't like users being led on, so try to lead them on. Got it.
- Oct 22, 2018
- 590
Sometimes catastrophes such as you mentioned are the best learning experience. Lord knows I did it enough, exactly as you've described. I learned from it. I used an old firewall and configured it without a clue what I was doing, and ended up locking myself out of my own computer. After reinstalling, I was more careful, but did the same thing, and again. Finally I got it right. I learned by trial and error.
- Mar 9, 2014
- 597
It is how I learned as well, though most users neither have the will or desire to learn or the aptitude to go through all that, and it's one of the main reasons it's a responsibility to warn users they face potential issues as such learning this type of security software.
This is the actual reality for most users. Understanding the operating system is just the beginning, then you need to know how the software you are using also interacts with the operating system. It takes extensive knowledge to properly use these type of securities, they are not designed for novice to average users.
- Jun 22, 2014
- 864
The car analogy is a good one as it makes me think of cruelsister as a great driving instructor.
Regards Eck
Comodo's Fanatics = Flat Earthers.
There are always two types of participants who defend Comodo:
1. The dogmatized faithful fanatic, who insists on the argument: “It's good for me, then it's good for everyone” blah blah blah. They are irresponsible people.
2. The High Priests of The Sect, maximum manipulators of The Cult who protect their sacred holiness Melih, protect the perpetuity of the sacred Doctrine, and of course, also protect their own sacred finances earning a lot of money paid by Comodo (they are old known charlatans, always banned from the forum, who like cancer constantly come back disguised as “new users”). They are immoral people.
I repeat and insist, it is worth fighting both fanatics and manipulators. It's not about defending or attacking Comodo, it's about allowing passive readers (those who read us and remain silent) to form their own conclusions based on the arguments expressed here by everyone.
PS: In the case of Comodo, the last decades confirm that even when it was always free, 99.99% of users were never interested in Comodo, never even wanted to test it. Poop is also free, and in the real world, 99.99% of people don't want to use or test Comodo.
There are always two types of participants who defend Comodo:
1. The dogmatized faithful fanatic, who insists on the argument: “It's good for me, then it's good for everyone” blah blah blah. They are irresponsible people.
2. The High Priests of The Sect, maximum manipulators of The Cult who protect their sacred holiness Melih, protect the perpetuity of the sacred Doctrine, and of course, also protect their own sacred finances earning a lot of money paid by Comodo (they are old known charlatans, always banned from the forum, who like cancer constantly come back disguised as “new users”). They are immoral people.
I repeat and insist, it is worth fighting both fanatics and manipulators. It's not about defending or attacking Comodo, it's about allowing passive readers (those who read us and remain silent) to form their own conclusions based on the arguments expressed here by everyone.
PS: In the case of Comodo, the last decades confirm that even when it was always free, 99.99% of users were never interested in Comodo, never even wanted to test it. Poop is also free, and in the real world, 99.99% of people don't want to use or test Comodo.
- Aug 21, 2013
- 90
If every user in the world installed ESET on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 40-50%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 35-45%.
If every user in the world installed Norton 360 on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
If every user in the world installed Comodo on Windows 11 and maintained proper containment settings, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 50-60%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 40-50%.
If every user in the world installed Trend Micro on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
If every user in the world installed Kaspersky on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 40-50%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 35-45%.
If every user in the world installed Bitdefender on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 35-45%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 30-40%.
If every user in the world installed F-Secure on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
"if all the users in the world would install ********, on windows 11 , how much do you estimate the worldwide infection rate would drop ?" - chatgpt
food for thought
If every user in the world installed Norton 360 on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
If every user in the world installed Comodo on Windows 11 and maintained proper containment settings, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 50-60%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 40-50%.
If every user in the world installed Trend Micro on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
If every user in the world installed Kaspersky on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 40-50%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 35-45%.
If every user in the world installed Bitdefender on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 35-45%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 30-40%.
If every user in the world installed F-Secure on Windows 11, the worldwide infection rate could initially drop by 30-40%, with a more sustainable long-term reduction of around 25-35%.
"if all the users in the world would install ********, on windows 11 , how much do you estimate the worldwide infection rate would drop ?" - chatgpt
food for thought
You forgot something in the mix. The topper that drastically drops the percentage is ... Drumroll please....
LINUX
- Oct 22, 2018
- 590
The dogmatized Comodo haters, who insists on the argument: "It's NO good for me, so it's no good for anyone" blah blah blah. They are irresponsible people.
Flat earthers........can't you argue a point without that sort of stuff. You're intelligent, I'm sure you can.
- Aug 21, 2013
- 90
"In essence, keeping all PCs shut down would provide a drastic and almost immediate reduction in infection rates due to the cessation of malware activity and propagation." - chatgpt
but oopsie, at least we know now it looks like is doing great on windows 11 systems
I actually considered that response myself but felt it wasn't necessary. The initial issue with malware and security was plain to see in what I did post. Although to be honest I'm not sure what these security abilities to protect users "which I'm sure depends greatly on how customized the product is" (Something chatbot did not consider in its assessment of products) has anything to do with users abilities to understand operating systems or default deny systems.
Hi @Chuck57 ,
I'm among the 0,01% of the users that for years and years tested Comodo, so not only I do know the software intimately, but I also know all the existing versions of "hardening comodo" (including the Cruel versions).
But different from the 0,01% of the Comodo's fanatics, I never suffered from the mental illness of having pathological emotional attachments to any software. And I always remained a critic of Comodo, not in the sense of attacking it, but in the sense of actively participating in the Comodo Forum as a tester, or as a bug reporter etc. And it's precisely the years and years of seeing Comodo neglecting the software and censoring critics, which led me to alert other users.
So, it's not about "Comodo is not good for me", it's about "Comodo is not good for anyone". And if someone in his full freedom decides to eat poop, it's not about prohibiting that, it's about alerting users that a minority eating poop does not mean that everyone has to eat poop.
Finally, hypothetically, even if Comodo would have been excellent for me, considering that I'm a responsible person and not a fanatic nor a manipulator, I know that what is good or bad for me has nothing to do with others, who are free to do what they want.
If you pay attention, you will see that my true objective has nothing to do with my person, or with Comodo or its fanatics or manipulators, my participation here is aimed exclusively at the passive readers of today and tomorrow, those who reads silently, or those who will visit this post, and they'll draw their own conclusions.
And I'll always act this way, anywhere, and in relation to any software, because it's all about OBJECTIVITY, not allowing fanatics/manipulators to distort reality, contaminating the conclusions of third parties (passive readers).
Play fair!
Use the truth!
Call things by their real name!
Do not be selective!
... and I promise that you will never see me again.
I'm among the 0,01% of the users that for years and years tested Comodo, so not only I do know the software intimately, but I also know all the existing versions of "hardening comodo" (including the Cruel versions).
But different from the 0,01% of the Comodo's fanatics, I never suffered from the mental illness of having pathological emotional attachments to any software. And I always remained a critic of Comodo, not in the sense of attacking it, but in the sense of actively participating in the Comodo Forum as a tester, or as a bug reporter etc. And it's precisely the years and years of seeing Comodo neglecting the software and censoring critics, which led me to alert other users.
So, it's not about "Comodo is not good for me", it's about "Comodo is not good for anyone". And if someone in his full freedom decides to eat poop, it's not about prohibiting that, it's about alerting users that a minority eating poop does not mean that everyone has to eat poop.
Finally, hypothetically, even if Comodo would have been excellent for me, considering that I'm a responsible person and not a fanatic nor a manipulator, I know that what is good or bad for me has nothing to do with others, who are free to do what they want.
If you pay attention, you will see that my true objective has nothing to do with my person, or with Comodo or its fanatics or manipulators, my participation here is aimed exclusively at the passive readers of today and tomorrow, those who reads silently, or those who will visit this post, and they'll draw their own conclusions.
And I'll always act this way, anywhere, and in relation to any software, because it's all about OBJECTIVITY, not allowing fanatics/manipulators to distort reality, contaminating the conclusions of third parties (passive readers).
Play fair!
Use the truth!
Call things by their real name!
Do not be selective!
... and I promise that you will never see me again.
Last edited:
Similar threads
