Which is better: VoodooShield free version, or Comodo Free Firewall 10 at CruelSister settings?

  • VoodooShield free version

    Votes: 35 40.2%
  • Comodo Free Firewall 10 at CruelSister settings

    Votes: 37 42.5%
  • Both, in combo

    Votes: 9 10.3%
  • Neither

    Votes: 7 8.0%
  • Default/deny solutions are not for me

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • I hate polls

    Votes: 6 6.9%
  • Total voters
    87

shmu26

Level 76
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
It's the battle of the big: MT's most popular and most talked-about default/deny solutions.
Both are free.
Let's talk pros and cons.
1 Effectiveness
2 Learning curve, user-friendly
3 Bugs
4 Compatibility issues
5 System performance issues
5 Other
 

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
Are you comparing features like whitelisting, firewall, sandbox, HIPS etc?

Do they serve the same, different or overlapping purposes?

Correct me if I'm wrong. VS is meant to block/allow applications. Can it block/allow Windows processes (eg. Skype, One Drive, exe, dll etc) as well?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo and jerzy601

shmu26

Level 76
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
Are you comparing features like whitelisting, firewall, sandbox, HIPS etc?

Do they serve the same, different or overlapping purposes?

Correct me if I'm wrong. VS is meant to block/allow applications. Can it block/allow Windows processes as well?
1 Neither have HIPS (remember, we are talking about CFW at CS settings)
2 VS does not have firewall, but that is not the focus of a default/deny discussion
3 CFW has whitelisting, trusted vendors list, and sandbox. VS has whitelisting, Ai and blocking
4 Both have anti-exploit features

VS free version cannot block Windows processes, in the majority of cases. CFW at CS settings can, if tweaked.
 

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
1 Neither have HIPS (remember, we are talking about CFW at CS settings)
2 VS does not have firewall, but that is not the focus of a default/deny discussion
3 CFW has whitelisting, trusted vendors list, and sandbox. VS has whitelisting, Ai and blocking
4 Both have anti-exploit features

VS free version cannot block Windows processes, in the majority of cases. CFW at CS settings can, if tweaked.
Let's put it this way. VS is strictly an anti-exe with sandbox feature whereas CFW with its firewall, HIPS, manual/auto-sandbox has anti-exe as a feature

I used both free version before. This is my verdict.

Features-wise this round goes to CFW
Learning curve/ease of use will go to VS
Default/deny will go to CFW since VS cannot block Windows processes for its free version. Not sure about its paid version though
Compatibility/system performance issues - I'll give this round to VS although I have no issues with VS or CFW. However, the tendency for issues to appear with many installed software will go up with CFW

Overall I'll take CFW for its many features despite its steeper learning curve......but.......I have both running together the last time before removing them :D
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
I voted neither, because Windows basically now offers lock down settings.

But between CFW and VS........VS

VS blocks before .exe so no resetting sandbox after you've already been scared to death.

And VS only uses like 30mb of Ram

+ No complex settings requirements
You have to know one thing about CFW.

It has virtual desktop and virtual kb for you to run applications, browsers and to allow you to securely enter user-names, credit card numbers and passwords without fear of key-logging software recording your physical keystrokes

VS does not have this feature
 

mekelek

Level 28
it comes down to the question: Do you prefer something being stopped before it can even run, or you want to take your chances and run it in a Sandboxed environment if Comodo deems it unsafe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo and shmu26

shmu26

Level 76
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
Can you please expand on this statement?
In VS free version, you cannot change the fact that the Windows folder is whitelisted.
However, certain vulnerable processes, such as powershell and windows script host, will be blocked when a web app is open.
Generally speaking, Windows processes will be carefully monitored, and if an unrecognized command line string presents itself, there will be a prompt.

With CFW at CS settings, you can make custom block rules for whatever processes you choose.
 

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
it comes down to the question: Do you prefer something being stopped before it can even run, or you want to take your chances and run it in a Sandboxed environment if Comodo deems it unsafe?
In VS case if the file is not in its cloud or if its Ai cannot be conclusive then user has to make the decision either to run or not to run.

In CFW you can be sure you are safe(almost) if you run inside its sandbox. Don't need the user to crack his head to make that decision to allow/deny.
 

shmu26

Level 76
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
You have to know one thing about CFW.

It has virtual desktop and virtual kb for you to run applications, browsers and to allow you to securely enter user-names, credit card numbers and passwords without fear of key-logging software recording your physical keystrokes

VS does not have this feature
CFW is more feature-rich, that is clear. It is also more customizable.
But VS has the advantage that it is not prone to major security failures, like when Comodo cloud lookup occasionally whitelists known malware.
 

askmark

Level 12
Verified
You have to know one thing about CFW.

It has virtual desktop and virtual kb for you to run applications, browsers and to allow you to securely enter user-names, credit card numbers and passwords without fear of key-logging software recording your physical keystrokes

VS does not have this feature
Which is why comparing these two products on their features is mostly pointless.
CFW is effectively a complete security suite, whereas VS is simply an anti-executable with a remote sandbox feature - which incidentally CFW doesn't have!
Both are excellent products in their own right and complement each other well if configured correctly.
 

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
Which is why comparing these two products on their features is mostly pointless.
CFW is effectively a complete security suite, whereas VS is simply an anti-executable with a remote sandbox feature - which incidentally CFW doesn't have!
Both are excellent products in their own right and complement each other well if configured correctly.
But CFW has manual/auto-sandbox which VS doesn't have.

Also, you can't based on CFW's default/deny vs VS's default/deny and then to select CFW, no? VS is an anti-exe whereas CFW has an-exe as a feature only
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 45
Content Creator
Verified
In VS free version, you cannot change the fact that the Windows folder is whitelisted.
However, certain vulnerable processes, such as powershell and windows script host, will be blocked when a web app is open.
Generally speaking, Windows processes will be carefully monitored, and if an unrecognized command line string presents itself, there will be a prompt.

With CFW at CS settings, you can make custom block rules for whatever processes you choose.
Maybe I missed that when I was using VS.

Can VS block Skype, One Drive, OneNote etc if I'm not using them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo

jerzy601

Level 15
Verified
I fully agree with Umbra can not compare these two products are two different products each has different tasks and different roles.
-CFW is a HIPS firewall
-VS is not anti-virus or firewall is an add-on to antivirus and its task is to block files that can get into the system and without the user's consent you will not install anything.
It's so thicker to say.