CPF or the Comodo Personal Firewall
toodeloo
I didn't test the CPF fully because some basics are so bad that I don't want
to risk any computer to this/these hole(s).
I will recommend ( and install ) an other firewall.
Yes, even if the CPF is only used for privat purpose.
Downloaded CPF version : 1.1.005
- it is still difficult to find the CPF for downloading.
- still no CPF or firewall info at the Comodo site ( www.comodo.com )
Melih, don't be afraid. CPF is so hard to find that there would never be a
download hype I'm afraid.
There are two programs launched ( CPF and Launchpad ) and there is no CPF
tray icon .
- that should be an option in the config settings if you want tray icons or
not.
- how to kill/stop Launchpad by clicking your right mouse button?
Maybe it's possible, but in that case it could be much easier.
CPF options.
- maybe CPF has the option, but I miss the option to block all until the PC
has been fully startuped.
- there is NO password security. Every idiot can disable or exit
CPF/Launchpad.
( without this option I would never recommend CPF as a serious firewall ).
- viewing applications.
I see a lot but no simple application list.
- setting security to high seems to mean : block all.
Name it 'block all' and not high security. Very misleading.
- setting security to low seems to mean : allow everything.
Again, very misleading. Call it : allow all.
- because of the missing CPF tray icon you couldn't see your security level
if you move with your mouse on the CPF tray icon.
- incoming connection alert screen.
Not possible to move this screen to another position.
Very annoying.
It would be nice to have a <- buttom for going back to your previous
screen.
I got an 'outgoing connection alert' from CLPConfig.exe.
That's the Comodo Launchpad Updater checking for updates.
I prefer a config option to disable that "checking for updates".
I know how to kill it; I killed it and nothing happened. CPF is still
running ( you need another program to watch the running processes, but a
tester should know how to do that ;-) ). Again, there is no CPF tray icon so
you couldn't see or know that your PC is most likely still protected by a
firewall.
Why must Launchpad be a running program? I couldn't find Launchpad by my
startup programs, so it costs more time and other programs than to remove a
startup-program from the default starting up programs.
You know: the less programs are running, the more stable your system could
and should be.
Two positive conclusion :
- CPF seems CPU friendly
- the OS check seems to work.
I need to test it with more software to see if there are no items
installed or left, but the first impresssion is okee,
no garbage left.
Craig
> I downloaded the CPF to know better what I'm talking about.
<stuff deleted>
> - there is NO password security. Every idiot can disable or exit
> CPF/Launchpad.
About the above, I've only tried Zone Alarm...it doesn't have password
security. What personal firewall currently does? Is it that critical
for NT-based OS's (which can require login)?
Thanks for the write-up Toodeloo, very informative.
Craig
David
furiously:
>I downloaded the CPF to know better what I'm talking about.
>I didn't test the CPF fully because some basics are so bad that I don't want
>to risk any computer to this/these hole(s).
>I will recommend ( and install ) another firewall.
>Yes, even if the CPF is only used for private purpose.
>
>Downloaded CPF version : 1.1.005
>- it is still difficult to find the CPF for downloading.
>- still no CPF or firewall info at the Comodo site ( www.comodo.com )
> Melih, don't be afraid. CPF is so hard to find that there would never be a
> download hype I'm afraid.
>
Still no information as to the OS required to run the program.
Melih, I would fire your site designer as I agree with toodeloo that
finding anything is a nightmare.
--
David
Remove "farook" to reply
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
E-mail: justdas at iinet dot net dot au
Gert van der Kooij
(faro...@picknowl.com.au) says...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:44:21 +0100, "toodeloo" <m$@noprivacy.net> typed
> furiously:
>
> >I downloaded the CPF to know better what I'm talking about.
> >I didn't test the CPF fully because some basics are so bad that I don't want
> >to risk any computer to this/these hole(s).
> >I will recommend ( and install ) another firewall.
> >Yes, even if the CPF is only used for private purpose.
> >
> >Downloaded CPF version : 1.1.005
> >- it is still difficult to find the CPF for downloading.
> >- still no CPF or firewall info at the Comodo site ( www.comodo.com )
> > Melih, don't be afraid. CPF is so hard to find that there would never be a
> > download hype I'm afraid.
> >
> Still no information as to the OS required to run the program.
>
> Melih, I would fire your site designer as I agree with toodeloo that
> finding anything is a nightmare.
>
I don't know where you and toodeloo are talking about. You go to that
site to find a free product, so what's the logical selection to
choose on the home page?
You're right, you go to the free product page. The third product
mentioned is the Comode firewall. You can download it and/or read
more information. If you click on 'More Info' and go to the bottom of
the page you can read that only Windows 2000 and Windows XP/SP2 are
supported.
I'm not familiar with the product but their website shouldn't be the
problem.
Craig
> In article <4faau15ehh41cqcku...@4ax.com>, David
> (faro...@picknowl.com.au) says...
>
>>On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:44:21 +0100, "toodeloo" <m$@noprivacy.net> typed
>>furiously:
>>
>>
>>>I downloaded the CPF to know better what I'm talking about.
>>>I didn't test the CPF fully because some basics are so bad that I don't want
>>>to risk any computer to this/these hole(s).
>>>I will recommend ( and install ) another firewall.
>>>Yes, even if the CPF is only used for private purpose.
>>>
>>>Downloaded CPF version : 1.1.005
>>>- it is still difficult to find the CPF for downloading.
>>>- still no CPF or firewall info at the Comodo site ( www.comodo.com )
>>> Melih, don't be afraid. CPF is so hard to find that there would never be a
>>>download hype I'm afraid.
>>>
>>
>>Still no information as to the OS required to run the program.
>>
>>Melih, I would fire your site designer as I agree with toodeloo that
>>finding anything is a nightmare.
>>
>
>
> more information. If you click on 'More Info' and go to the bottom of
> the page you can read that only Windows 2000 and Windows XP/SP2 are
> supported.
> I'm not familiar with the product but their website shouldn't be the
> problem.
Agreed. Two clicks off the home page. Whether going to
comodogroup.com, comodo.net or personalfirewall.trustix.com...they all
led to the same home page with the same, fairly easy to navigate, menu
system.
-Craig
Comodo
Honestly, Thanks for taking the time to evaluate it. I really
appreciate it.
All of your feedback will be considered in an effort to make CPF a
better product (not promising that everything you say will be
implemented :-) , but they will fully be considered in the design
stage)
I would love to understand what you mean by "some basics are so bad".
Can you please expand on this.
I can't understand why you couldn't find the firewall info. just go to
www.comodo.com look at the menu.. click on Free Products and voila! its
there..But maybe we should make it more prominent on the home page
(because we have many products its difficult to put one and not the
other etc. we are not a single product company but I will see what we
can do).
can you pls expand on what you mean with the following statement: " It
would be nice to have a <- buttom for going back to your previous
screen.". Which screen are you referring to?
Comodo Launchpad: Let me explain what we are trying to do: A user
should not have to worry about, firewall, av, anti-spyware, anti-spam
etc etc. We are trying to bring all that under one Product called
Comodo Launchpad. So that you can interact with all "security" related
products from one interface. That is why we have chosen not to put CPF
icon on the sys tray.
Thanks for the feedback, pls let us know as you have more feedback.
Melih
CEO/President
Comodo
s|b
> I'm not familiar with the product but their website shouldn't be the
> problem.
I was sort of surprised too. Didn't take me long to find it. One thing
surprised me though:
<http://www.comodogroup.com/products/free_products.html>
"Comodo Personal Firewall FREE for 365 days"
--
s|b
toodeloo
> About the above, I've only tried Zone Alarm...it doesn't have password
> security. What personal firewall currently does? Is it that critical
> for NT-based OS's (which can require login)?
currently? Oops.
Sygate ( free and pro ) have, but Sygate isn't any more.
But SPF don't need keys or licence renewal or ...... .
Even if there is no support and the company isn't anymore the product does
it job.
I don't know why people stopped using there firewall because somebody else
buyed the company.
You can still find the latest Sygate Personal Firewall version on the
internet.
I don't know if there are more free firewalls.
Is it critical? No, but it must be a possibility if you want to.
You could have a bios password, login security, netnanny's, etc.
There has been virusses/trojans/give-it-a-name programs wich could
disable/exit firewalls/AV software ( don't know if that was true, but what
if it is true. )
If you are the only user of your PC I don't think it's neccesary to work
with a password, but if you aren't?
Some sites are asking to exit your firewall for whatever reason.
A/my firewall must have that protection possibility.
If you pretent to make the best firewall this must be an option.
toodeloo
I still have problems finding that firewall info but that must be my problem
I think. I hope to try it tomorrow on a complete other configured computer.
Maybe some security settings are preventing to display the whole page.
This morning I was going to remove the CPF but found some very unwanted
things.
Where are the logfiles? I wanted to find out why my browser started up
unasked yesterday.
Well, a CPF component hijacked ( so do I call this ) my browser ( with the
help from today's info! ).
CpfLicChk.exe was the parent of my browser and when I started my browser I
got a warning that the parent was changed.
Huh, why should my browser and port 443 be a child from this application?
I got an alert screen that the parent from my browser was changed and if I
do allow that.
I was still wondering what to do but after maybe 20 seconds that screen
diasappears. Did I allow it? Did I deny it?
I don't know.
I prefer working without the CPF firewall then with this sneaky product.
I don't trust the CPF at all.
Comodo
Comodo personal firewall is free, it requires registration after 365
days. However, we are trying to figure out the best way to remove this
so that it will not have this re-registration restriction. I can
categorically state that its a free product even after 1 year. But we
will fix that and let you know soon.
thanks
Melih
toodeloo
let me thank you for your answers.
> I would love to understand what you mean by "some basics are so bad".
> Can you please expand on this.
sorry, but I refuse; I already gave you some hints in other newsgroup
answers. I'm not willing to become a tester for this product. And no, I
didn't already test something. I only installed the CPF and had a first
impresssion.
If you test software it is good to know which version you are testing. If
you are a beta-tester it is a must. If you look in a CPF logfile you see
something like used version is version 1.0 and not version 1.1.005 ( I don't
know exactly which file, but your software people should ). No accurate
information.
It is also very well possible that what I call a bad design that you call it
a great feature. But I'm a afraid that's not the case.
If CpfLicChk.exe becomes the parent of my default browser I call that
hijacking.
Offcourse you have a good explanation for this behaviour. But getting a
warning that the parent is changed when I doubleclick my browser icon
doesn't make me feel good. What should your XP zombie user do?
After a cold restart there are not the same programs active as when you
start your computer the first time.
No licence check ( I didn't see CpfLicChk.exe become and/or stay active )
and I missed more programs. But because I'm not testing it I didn't know
which programs ( I didn't start my monitor software ). What I missed was the
non-asked start from my browser.
> I can't understand why you couldn't find the firewall info. just go to
> www.comodo.com look at the menu
I also don't understand it.
I will try it tomorow on a complete other build-up computer ( linux based ).
> can you pls expand on what you mean with the following statement: " It
> would be nice to have a <- buttom for going back to your previous
> screen.". Which screen are you referring to?
the follow-up screens I think.
I already removed the CPF from my PC.
Going back to the central CPF screen or was it the Lauchpad screen? What
matters? Every browser has that function, even explorer, to go back to your
previous viewed screen.
> Comodo Launchpad: Let me explain what we are trying to do: A user
> should not have to worry about, firewall, av, anti-spyware, anti-spam
> etc etc. We are trying to bring all that under one Product called
> Comodo Launchpad. So that you can interact with all "security" related
> products from one interface. That is why we have chosen not to put CPF
> icon on the sys tray.
I don't agree. A user should be worried about his AV, etc. software.
And you are arrogant if you say that your product should become the shell
for all security related products.
Agggghhhhhhh a real terrible idea.
When I looked into the application screen I saw some info about the firefox
application but the info for my AV software was empty. There are a handfull
AV application, so how difficult is it to show some info.
> Thanks for the feedback, pls let us know as you have more feedback.
I have tons of feedback but this is not my type of firewall.
Taken over my security thinkings about how to prevent a PC? Oh no.
As I already said : I need a firewall, no total security solution.
If you say 'it works as designed' or better 'it isn't a bug but a feature'
what should I do?
I'm happy with my firewall and the CPF is miles behind it.
We think maybe very different about how and what a firewall should do and
not do.
Comodo
I think you are getting confused with the comprehensive information
that CPF provides with its advanced features.
CPF is the only Firewall that provides full information about the Child
and Parent processes for any application making a connection.
After all, you need to know who the caller of IE is when IE is trying
to make connection to Internet (if it has any). It could be a spyware
making connection by piggy backing on IE's connection and other
firewalls would simply tell you that its IE trying to connect, but in
reality it could be a spyware trying to connect using IE! Also, CPF
knows when a Parent Process has changed. What that means is, if spyware
has hijacked a current process you would be alerted to it. Of course
not every parent change is a spyware. It also shows parentless
processes. All these features are fairly advanced features that should
be used by advanced users only as it could be confusing, not knowing
what these are. That is why in our CPF we are putting all these
features under the Advanced section and trying to keep it simple. This
advanced feature simply tells you (shows you very clearly) what
applications are connecting to internet and how!
You said: "CpfLicChk.exe was the parent of my browser and when I
started my browser I got a warning that the parent was changed" This
is simply because cpflicchk.exe uses IE to make a connection to
internet. Thanks to this new feature you know how each application
connect to internet. And There will be other applications that use IE
to connect to internet and IE will be their child process (eg those
applications will be a parent process to IE). Its very important to
know who is using who (in terms of processes) to make connection to
internet.
http://www.codeproject.com/threads/processes.asp (an explanation of
Parent/Child process)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/creating_a_child_process_with_redirected_input_and_output.asp
(not exactly the right stuff I was looking for, but a good start)
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=17020.0 (they liked this new
feature of giving full visibility about parent/child processes, here is
what one of the users said: "It certainly looks colourful and I like
the identification of the parent application in the Outbound Connection
alert" Also you can see the tests that users of this group has run,
like tooleaky etc. Come to think of it, if you run tooleaky you will
see that CPF will show it as the parent process for iexplore.exe also.
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=17001.30 and some more
discussions..
Toodeloo, I am assuming you have not seen this "feature" in other
firewalls before, is that correct? CPF gives you more visibility about
whats happening in your machine. It's a powerful advanced feature
that, as you rightly suggested, could confuse people thinking "hey
whats all this, whats happening on my machine"! It's a feature that
your average firewall don't have. I think we are the only ones that
provide "Parent Based Rules" in our firewall. This is why we will
put this ability into the advanced section in our next version of CPF
(CPF2).
The Usability issue you mention about the alert screen disappearing is
something we have taken care of and new CPF2 has this resolved.
Thanks for the feedback Toodeloo. (pls keep it coming)
Melih
Comodo
I am sorry that you feel so strongly. I really appreciated your
feedback.
You publicly called our firewall "some basics are so bad". I thought it
would only be "fair" for you to explain what that meant so that
everyone and us could know what aspects that related to. So I am at a
loss as to why you refuse? You were eager to tell everyone publicly
that "some basics are so bad". But not prepared to explain why. Yet you
carry on and explain other things! I am puzzled!
Toodeloo, I think you need to know how Processes work first! Otherwise
you would not make the following statement "If CpfLicChk.exe becomes
the parent of my default browser I call that hijacking." I posted
few links for you to read about what a Process/child process is in my
previous posting with examples of how other people (who understand the
Processes and appreciate this advanced feature).
I take your point about back button on board and will discuss this in
our design meeting.
Toodeloo, the wording I have used might not be very clear, let me
re-phrase it: There is no point in having many sys tray icons for all
sort of security related applications, also in my opinion, all security
products should "work" together. At the moment they are all
discrete and don't communicate with each other. I am trying to change
this. Of course people should care about their AV etc. that was not the
point. The point was the "discrete" nature of the security products
today and their inefficiencies. Also that statement did NOT relate to
3rd party security products but just to Comodo Security Products. We
are not interested becoming the total security solution for other
company's products, just for Comodo products.
Also, I would love to hear from you, please, identifying the main
features of your firewall that CPF lacks. (again pls don't forget, I
sincerely appreciate your feedback).
Toodeloo, I appreciate your feedback, its not about making you use our
product or make you accept my way of thinking, far from it, I was
merely appreciating the feedback. Please don't get defensive (I
really appreciate your feedback), I was enjoying our communication and
hoping that all the good feedback you give will benefit others.
Thanks
Melih
Richard Steinfeld
> Hi Graig,
>
>
>>About the above, I've only tried Zone Alarm...it doesn't have password
>>security. What personal firewall currently does? Is it that critical
>>for NT-based OS's (which can require login)?
>
>
> currently? Oops.
> Sygate ( free and pro ) have, but Sygate isn't any more.
> But SPF don't need keys or licence renewal or ...... .
> Even if there is no support and the company isn't anymore the product does
> it job.
I've been using Sygate in both the free version and a version that used
to be bundled with the commercial program System Suite for at least four
years. I've never seen any password facility in this program, although
it would be logical that the commercial versions would incorporate it as
an option.
> I don't know why people stopped using there firewall because somebody else
> buyed the company.
> You can still find the latest Sygate Personal Firewall version on the
> internet.
> I don't know if there are more free firewalls.
>
My experience with Sygate has been very good. The reporting and menu
functions are somewhat klutzy, but the protection seems solid. I just
installed it on two more computers. The registration web page is still
active, so users can kill the opening nag screen just by essentially
entering an email address on the company database (which has never
launched any communications at me).
> Some sites are asking to exit your firewall for whatever reason.
> A/my firewall must have that protection possibility.
> If you pretent to make the best firewall this must be an option.
>
There are some mighty stupid web designers out there; I have also come
across a few sites that tell users to turn off their firewalls (require
permanent cookies, require script execution as a condition of entry,
come up in Flash, etc). Since these are usually commercial sites, these
are examples of people who would rather play games with customers than
collect money from them. If such a programmer worked for me, I'd fire
the bastard (end rant). My largest regional public TV station uses
RedSherrif spyware to gather stats from all site users, requiring users
to play along. I suggest letting these outfits know why they aren't
getting your business or donations (that is, if you care -- end rant #2).
I think that toodeloo's post is a little harsh on Comodo, but on the
other hand, I really appreciate that he did it -- he's made a few
excellent points, and I hope that the company is listening.
Richard
Richard Steinfeld
> Toodeloo
>
> I think you are getting confused with the comprehensive information
> that CPF provides with its advanced features.
>
> CPF is the only Firewall that provides full information about the Child
> and Parent processes for any application making a connection.
> After all, you need to know who the caller of IE is when IE is trying
> to make connection to Internet (if it has any). It could be a spyware
> making connection by piggy backing on IE's connection and other
> firewalls would simply tell you that its IE trying to connect, but in
> reality it could be a spyware trying to connect using IE! Also, CPF
> knows when a Parent Process has changed. What that means is, if spyware
> has hijacked a current process you would be alerted to it. Of course
> not every parent change is a spyware. It also shows parentless
> processes. All these features are fairly advanced features that should
> be used by advanced users only as it could be confusing, not knowing
> what these are. That is why in our CPF we are putting all these
> features under the Advanced section and trying to keep it simple. This
> advanced feature simply tells you (shows you very clearly) what
> applications are connecting to internet and how!
Hi, Melih.
I've been enjoying this dialog. I've worked in software and enterprise
development, mostly as a writer. In that role, I'm usually the only
person on a project who is in the shoes of the end user; in other words,
writing doc and simultaneously providing usability testing and
articulate feedback. At least, that's the way that I do it: I'm the user
advocate in the shop. It's very different from the way that software
testers work, and a different perspective. In the development
environment, I'm patient and diplomatic (mostly).
Within this forum, people can sometimes become testy and emotional about
products -- and strong reactions can come with the territory. It's
understandable: I've been there myself, too.
The realm of "freeware" includes some people who are looking for free
solutions -- they come into the forum, then disappear. It also includes
people who are interested in exploring new functionality and new ways of
working (and more). The realm of freeware offers the ability to explore,
to try out ideas and products that would otherwise be totally
prohibitive: one simply cannot afford to buy every commercial product in
order to try it out; my own experience has often been that I sometimes
have to live with a package for six months in order to decide whether I
want to buy it or not. I think that I can safely say that this newsgroup
includes many people who are, in varying degrees, software hobbyists and
explorers.
One tries a product with some curiosity, sometimes hope. And then,
strange things can happen -- in the worst case, one's platform is
damaged so badly that it requires a total hard disk wipe and
reinstallation of everything: five days of solid work. As you
undoubtedly know, some programmers write irresponsible code -- I'm sure
that you have had to clean up the wreckage yourself. So, human feelings
can come into play at these times.
And then, sometimes, all the effort has been worth it -- one comes up
with a jewel, such as Irfanview, or the still slightly-rough Spybot
Search and Destroy. It's a pleasure to see some of these packages
develop and become increasingly refined. I sometimes think of
superbly-designed software being as well-crafted as an artist-grade
musical instrument (I'm a musician). I have worked with two writing
programs that have facilitated writing in this way, so I know how good
it can get. Within this forum, you'll experience a range of perspectives
and experiences.
In reflecting on what you've written about your design objectives for
the firewall, I'll make two suggestions here: I'd like to see the
control menus designed so that aspects of the program can be engaged in
the manner of peeling an onion -- making the program usable
out-of-the-box with good defaults, but also allowing for customization
by advanced users. Clear documentation, as well as clear function names,
will be important so that the virtues of the package can be easily
understood and implemented by the end user.
Richard
Comodo
Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate the time you have put into
your answer.
Usability is one of the most important aspects of any product. We have
a new and improved version with better usability and GUI for CPF2 which
will be due out in few weeks. Just like a musical instrument, we need
to refine CPF and we need help from all the "musicians" out there!
Afterall, we are building this product for them! So this is a great
opportunity to help contribute to the tuning so that they can have a
better instrument for themselves. Its not hard to look at other
firewalls and build something similar, but what we want is to build
something for the users, by listenting to their needs, wants, wishes!
Again, thanks for the very useful feedback Richard.
Melih
toodeloo
I could download the CPF without any problems and it was a 30 day trial.
You could ;-) look the CPF yourself.
> I've been using Sygate in both the free version and a version that used
> to be bundled with the commercial program System Suite for at least four
> years. I've never seen any password facility in this program, although
> it would be logical that the commercial versions would incorporate it as
> an option.
options - general - password protection ( down under ).
I used version spf2808 and I have seen it also in version
spf-pro-3311-debug.
But spf-3408-debug and spf-pro-3311-debug have this feature.
If you want I can give you links to these versions or ask someone to
upload it to alt.binaries.freeware.
Spf is freeware; spfpro isn't so you need already a valid spf-pro key.
toodeloo
http://207.33.111.31/pspf/Debug_Build/pspfb3311_Debug.exe
http://ftp.sygate.com/spf/Debug_Build/spf3408_Debug.exe
even if they are debug versions, they are rockstable.
bambam
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>> - there is NO password security. Every idiot can disable or exit
>> CPF/Launchpad.
> About the above, I've only tried Zone Alarm...it doesn't have password
> security. What personal firewall currently does?
Kerio 2.1.5 has password protection.
Richard Steinfeld
URLs. Is this Sygate Personal Firewall, free version 3408? Hmmm. I'm
using v5.6 build 2808; I thought that 2808 was the final free version.
Would you please enlighten me?
My only complaints about the version that I'm using now is that there's
a limit of 20 custom rules, the report windows are extremely klutzy in
use, and there's only one "whois" route available (there used to be at
least five).
Thanks.
Richard
Kerodo
rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net says...
Both of those links above are simply beta versions, not official
releases. They may or may not have bugs/problems. The first link is to
a Sygate Pro beta, actually it's not even the last beta available. The
second link is to a beta of Sygate Free. Your 20 rule limit would still
be there, the same, in the beta of the free version. The Pro version
has no rule limit. I tried several beta's of 5.6 Pro and saw no real
advantage in using them, even over 5.5 Pro. I doubt there is much to
see in the beta of the Free version either. Also, use at your own risk.
--
Kerodo
Richard Steinfeld
Kerodo, you've got my interest.
I assume that these beta versions were created before the acquisition by
Symantec -- as far as I've seen, Symantec yanked the Sygate presence
altogether like a hot potato, except that they're maintaining support
for a year for existing customers who'd bought the commercial version.
By the way, I did indeed max out the rule limit; it was frustrating
because I needed to create a rule to accomodate my ISP's latency tester
-- which is still shut out.
Which version do you recommend, and do you have the URLs for the
additional betas? Also, I'd like the URL for the source site for these
downloads -- I never feel comfortable when a poster presents the
download window exclusively; you see, I may want to sniff around the
source site myself and see what I can dig up. Context is really
important to me.
I hope that Comodo incorporates some of the un-patented aspects that
have made Sygate a really useful tool for me. In my experience with two
different Sygate versions, I found the program's usability and the
interfaces a lightyear beyond other products I'd used. In these
respects, I feel that Sygate just blows Kerio away.
I prefer Sygate's rules-based design to having to maintain a list of bad
guys, and when I downloaded someone else's bad guy list for Kerio, I
then found that it was blocking sites that I actually wanted -- and then
it became a slog in order to edit the list. Such a list can become a
hodge-podge of multiple pre-existing lists.
Sygate had put quite a lot of horse sense into their user interface,
which I really appreciated. It wasn't perfect and still handled with
some klutziness, but it still succeeded where the others failed for
flesh-and-blood use. As far as Zone Alarm goes: yeah, there are a number
of people who swear by this program. But I've also read a number of
complaints by people about serious issues with ZA -- enough to make me
want to avoid it.
Thanks very much for bringing these options to my/our attention.
Richard
Kerodo
rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net says...
> Kerodo, you've got my interest.
> I assume that these beta versions were created before the acquisition by
> Symantec -- as far as I've seen, Symantec yanked the Sygate presence
> altogether like a hot potato, except that they're maintaining support
> for a year for existing customers who'd bought the commercial version.
Yes, all of the beta versions are more or less where Sygate was prior to
the Symantec acquisition. And they are probably the last versions
you'll ever see of good old Sygate.
>
> By the way, I did indeed max out the rule limit; it was frustrating
> because I needed to create a rule to accomodate my ISP's latency tester
> -- which is still shut out.
If you need more than 20 rules, then the only solution is to use the Pro
version.
> Which version do you recommend, and do you have the URLs for the
> additional betas? Also, I'd like the URL for the source site for these
> downloads -- I never feel comfortable when a poster presents the
> download window exclusively; you see, I may want to sniff around the
> source site myself and see what I can dig up. Context is really
> important to me.
The last versions for both the Free and Pro seem to be .3408. Here is
where I first heard about them back in December '05:
http://wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=110215&highlight=sygate
Unfortunately, all you get is the direct download link. There isn't any
site where you can browse thru beta's. I think they used to get posted
on the old Sygate forum when it was there (I think it's gone now).
That's about it. These above are safe, I have installed them myself
without harm.
I personally chose to stick with the older 5.5.2710 Pro version. It
seemed to use the least ram and cpu resources on my system, and I
preferred to stick with an official release rather than a beta. The
beta's (in their defense) do seem stable enough though. I believe that
the Pro .3311 beta had a couple of bugs, one was if you hide the tray
icon you can't ever get it back. So beware of that one.
If using the Free version, 5.6 was already released officially, so I
think I'd just stick with that one. But if you're so inclined, feel
free to experiment. :)
--
Kerodo
Richard Steinfeld
Would you please contact me off the NG. Reply to the above munged
address. Thanks.
Richard
Comodo
Could I please ask you to help us identify what aspects of the GUI you
like and how you would see that in Comodo firewall. I would like to
take this feedback from you and feed it to our Usability Engineers
please.
thank you very much Richard.
Melih
Comodo
to be the only firewall that passes all the leak tests! yes we already
tested it :-) ) This version will have the licenses done so that it
only requires one time registration. Also, we just launched a free
Backup product thats bundled with this firewall, you can see how the
licensing work for that, which will be exactly same as the licensing
for V2. Once activated it says: This license will never expiry. As you
can see we are taking your valuable input very seriously and trying to
turn around and deliver products that you feel comfortable with.
BTW: pls let us know what you think our backup product too. We are
trying to create a Secure PC environment that users can enjoy for free.
Thanks
Melih
Craig
> Ok, we are about to launch our Comodo Personal Firewall v.2 ...
Melih;
Let us know when it's ready. (I'd gone to your site after reading your
post but didn't see any explicit indication of what version was available).
And, btw, congratulations. Major releases are always such a...relief!
-Craig
Comodo
its certainly has been a huge work and all the credit goes to the
Comodo Personal firewall team.
We are arranging the launch for the week after (subject to marketing
guys doing their stuff etc).
We also discovered a new type of attacks against firewalls and created
a "leak test" that we are calling Comodo Parent Injection Leak test. We
will make the code available at launch. Its an interesting attack. And
of course, Comodo firewall is the only one that passes that :-)
So lots of fun stuff ahead, including some gui changes to make it
easier to use. I will let you know the exact launch date sometime next
week.
cheers
Melih
meow...@care2.com
> Richard
>
> Could I please ask you to help us identify what aspects of the GUI you
> like and how you would see that in Comodo firewall. I would like to
> take this feedback from you and feed it to our Usability Engineers
> please.
> thank you very much Richard.
>
> Melih
Now theres a type of post I'd like to see more of. Thats how you build
a great user interface.
NT
David
furiously:
My immediate reaction is why bundle extras with a firewall. If I want
a firewall then that is _all_ I want. Other bundled products are only
making it like Zonealarm with its 10MB, bloated download. By all means
include an unobtrusive ad for your backup program but only display it
once. A menu item to display the ad again is generally acceptable.
You still do not prominently display the information that this program
will not work on Win9x. In my opinion this should be on the first page
so that those interested don't spend time downloading other pages
and/or the program only to find it will not work on their system.
That comment also applies to your BackUp program although you do
display it at the top of the second page in a reasonable size font.
If all your programs only work in NT, 2000 and XP why can't you state
this in a large font at the top of your main page.
--
David
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
Comodo
You are right! Bundles should not make the firewall bloated like other
people have done and we don't!
Let me explain: The architecture of Comodo Launch Pad (the integrated
application we built) is such that if you download lets say just the
firewall, u simply get the firewall! nothing else! however, it does
have a very small menu that also makes other applications available.
Please note the other applications are not installed, until you choose
to install them and these applications are not installed or downloaded
when you just install firewall. So everything is on demand! you install
firewall, you only get firewall!
I have asked our web design team to make the changes and it will be
scheduled very soon. Thanks for the feedback David.
Comodo
of course our firewall can do that! :-) go to the "configuration"
click on "network rule" then add a network control rule. you can
specify a lot more details than just ftp.domain.com eg:traffic
direction, port, source, destination etc.
of course leak tests are only one threat model and there are many
others and our Digital Trust Labs are continually working to improve
the way Comodo Personal Firewall fights these threats.
thanks for the feedback.
Melih
Comodo
Thanks, we really are trying to build firewall (and other desktop
security products) with the best GUI possible. The only way to describe
the best GUI is what the majority of users will like. For that we need
feedback, afterall the feedback we get will determine the development
roadmap. This is truly how each user can determine how they want their
firewall to be! We really want our users to be the determining factor
for the future development of our products. There is a direct feedback
mechanism we have set that continually feeds the user feedback back in
to the development (of course there is a prioritisation aspect to it as
you would expect). All our Desktop Security software will be free,
today, tomorrow, and forever. This is a great opportunity for all of
our users to come and contribute to create the firewall that we all
like and get to use it for free.
meow...@care2.com
Maybe you need an faq.
CPF couldnt be reached via your front page, probably because the links
there come out on top of each other. A lot of people arent using the
very outdated IE these days. Assuming you want people to get it via
your front page, it needs to be IE, firefox and opera compatible at
least. Perhaps not Lynx :)
If theres one thing I've never understood, its why these type of
products often require IE, and wont install without them. A substantial
percentage of people arent using IE these days, its no longer a
minority thing to not use IE. You'll lose a lot of users /
recommendations etc this way.
Your english phone no is not what UK customers would dial. Many are
familiar with the clunky international system and how to convert
internat number to domestic, but a lot arent.
Tech support for freeware is unusual, I cant help wondering if that
will empty your funds unnecessarily.
One of the security reviewers made a lot of mileage about ZA's stealth
mode, and how it was absolutely the way to go. Your page makes no
mention of this. Its a selling point that has already been advertised
by others.
NT
Comodo
the CPF is in the front page of our Comodo dot com site where its
listed under free products. (but I will see if the marketing people are
prepared to give CPF more room in the index page)
Strange about links, all our sites designed to be compatible with IE,
Firefox, Opeara, Safari etc. Can you pls email sup...@comodo.com with
the problem pls so that we can see if this is problem our end and if it
is, make sure we resolve it asap.
we will continue to offer tech support (by email and have a forum on
comodo dot com under support menu) for free.
Excellent point about ZA's promotion and how we should also use it, we
should be marketing the features more.
Again, much appreciate your feedback.
thanks
Melih
meow...@care2.com
done
NT
Comodo
You want an ability to add domain name (http/ftp etc) and make sure its
updated regulary against IP changes it might have! No problem, we got
it covered it for you ;-) Go ahead and do the following in the firewall
and your wishes will be granted! :)
1- Add a new Network Control rule
2- Select Source IP -> Build
3- Select hostname option write the host name www.google.com;
4- Press ok
5- Select destination IP - > build then select any Press OK
6- Select Direction In
7- Select Action = Allow
8- Select Protocol IP
9- Select IP Protocol any
we check it periodically (every 3 hours at most).
BTW: what is the only firewall you know that does that too?
White Rabbit, pls go ahead and give it a try and please let us know
what you think of it. And pls suggest ways we can improve it further..
thanks
Melih
WhItE RaBBiT wrote:
> "Comodo" <me...@COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote in news:1141474890.799681.280100
> @t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
>
> > White Rabbit! :-)
> >
> > of course our firewall can do that! :-) go to the "configuration"
> > click on "network rule" then add a network control rule. you can
> > specify a lot more details than just ftp.domain.com eg:traffic
> > direction, port, source, destination etc.
>
> Eh ... perhaps we are on the same page ( or not ;-).
>
> There is, to my knowledge, only *one* software $$-firewall-$$ which can do
> what I have described, so far.
>
> Most of the SF apps allow *only* entry of the IP number/range
> (i.e. X.X.X.X) as a trusted element and will not accept a domain name
> (i.e. my.domain.net), although some will take a domain name, quickly
> convert it to an IP and then neglect to update (TRACK) it successfully,
> adequately, or at all.
>
> Thus, the road warrior with a dynamically updating domain, who uses
> various, constantly changing IP numbers will not be able to have access
> to their home base files, when the firewall will not update their IP
> changes to continually allow them access.
>
> Hopefully, this makes what I attempted to convey more clear.
>
>
> --
> (\__/)
> (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
meow...@care2.com
> Just like a musical instrument, we need
> to refine CPF and we need help from all the "musicians" out there!
> Afterall, we are building this product for them! So this is a great
> opportunity to help contribute to the tuning so that they can have a
> better instrument for themselves. Its not hard to look at other
> firewalls and build something similar, but what we want is to build
> something for the users, by listenting to their needs, wants, wishes!
So many companies dont seem to realise this or do this. Many shoot
themelves in the foot as a result.
The parent process issue further up strikes me as a communication
issue, as perhaps it does all of us. I've long wanted to see a change
to the way software generally communicates with the end user. If I
worked on eg windows I'd add a 3 column monologue with each yes/no
question box. Each column would explain the situation, but in 3
different ways.
Column 1 would be aimed, quite ilterally, at 6 year olds and drunken
half asleep people that cba to read anything, and really couldn't care
less anyway.
Column 2 would be aimed at those who make an attempt and have some but
limited understanding.
Column 3 would be the technical explanation.
Each column has a different tint to it for quicker more effortless
choice. 'Im a blue tint person' 'Im a cream person' etc.
Now, no matter who your end user is, or what state theyre in, your
software communicates to them effectively.
I would also always add an extra button, something along the lines of
'just get on with it.' This default button is for people that either
dont understand whats being asked, do but dont know what the answer is,
or just arent interested anyway.
Understand that end users dont know you from Adam, and are not trusting
of software until its proven itself. What you may perceive as the
latest greatest user protection freeware, some users will probably
perceive as suspected of being hijack/spammer/trojan-ware, because they
just dont know yet. Any attempt of any new unknown software to connect
to the net raises the suspicions greatly, and may in many cases prompt
immediate removal of it. If the software does anything, or appears to
do anything that even _could_ be interpreted suspiciously, you have a
red warning light in user's head situation.
One solution is to be careful how you present the info, so it is seen
as not the fault of the software. Eg instead of IE connecting in
repsonse to playing with cpf, a message says some other app has
requested a connect, so you stay blame free. Add a 'dont show this
again' option and youre home and dry.
Another solution, which surprisingly often works, is a text explanation
of what its doing and why it needs to override the user's security, or
why it gets detected as a virus etc. This is usually enough to get the
user to say 'oh ok then, click.'
I'm saying all this without having tried cpf, so its really nothing but
generalisations in repsonse to some concerns raised in this thread, and
may or may not apply to cpf, microwave meals, power tools, or any other
entity in the known universe. Or outside of it. :)
NT
George Orwell
Message-type: plaintext
In <1141424436....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> "Comodo" <me...@COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote:
>Ok, we are about to launch our Comodo Personal Firewall v.2 (its going
>to be the only firewall that passes all the leak tests! yes we already
>tested it :-) ) This version will have the licenses done so that it
URL please?
Thanks.
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Comodo
however, it looks like sometime next week when it will be launched..
FirstName LastName
>> White Rabbit, pls go ahead and give it a try and please let us know
>> what you think of it. And pls suggest ways we can improve it further..
>> thanks
>> Melih
>
>
> ----
> After downloading and installing the firewall, just register with us and
> you will be sent a license for one year. It is a free, perpetual license
> that simply requires annual registration.
> ----
How can it be perpetual if it stops working after 1 year?
To make it clear:
It's a *free* (not *freeware*) program, that needs registration to
function, with a registration key valid for *one year*, with a option to
renew it.
Is the registration key *hardware bound*?
I presume that is only valid for personal (private, non-commercial, not
for profit, excluding also governments, NGOs, education organizations,
etc.).
meow...@care2.com
> After downloading and installing the firewall, just register with us and
> you will be sent a license for one year. It is a free, perpetual license
> that simply requires annual registration.
> ----
>
> Two things.
>
> 1. Some of us are not keen on making freeware registrations.
>
> ...and...
>
> 2. One year seems more like a limitation to provide for rescission.
>
> Neither of these are likely to inspire usage by very many.
I think so too. It might seem minor to the dev team, but from the end
user perspective there are several free firewalls available, and I'd
far rather install something I know will work forever with no further
mucking about. With a 1 year registration, firstly theres muck about to
get it working, then who knows what you'll do with my email address, so
its more hassle setting up a temp addy, and hoping you get a
registration response today rather than next week ot never, then you
dont really know whats going to happen in a year, maybe just a quick
re-reg, maybe have to uninstall and wish you'd put proper freeware on
there in the first place. Since ZA is a known quantity, safe,
acceptably, effective, easy to use, why would I choose to make my life
harder? I just wouldnt choose it.
For a team to undertake a large project, spend a lot of money and time
finding out what users want, give it away free to the world, and then
have people complain that they have to register it may well seem like
taking the piss. Maybe it is, but thats how capitalism works, the
winner in the user's eyes is chosen, 2nd place gets not a lot. So if we
want to succeed we must make the effort to pander to the user's whims,
even when we think them a bit trivial.
If the aim is as I presume to get people to go to the website, see
what's on offer, use the firewall, like it and want to look at the
complete security package, then registration will act against this aim
quite considerably, even if it seems like a trivial matter to you.
Registering and re-registering achieve more visits to the site, more
exposure to the product. Or at least it seems that way. But it also:
- makes it registerware rather than proper freeware, thus it will be
removed from a lot of free exposure lists
- puts a lot of your possible customers off.
thus reduces exposure.
As a simple example of this, you're getting a lot of free exposure
here. That might stop once people notice registerware isnt quite
freeware.
So, is there a way to achieve your goal of widespread trying out of the
fw plus letting the user know what else you can supply? Yes there is.
First, lose the registration. Second, add a 'more' button, along with
the usual file, edit, window, etc. The 'more' menu lists each app you
provide (at the time of distribution of the firewall), and clicking
each menu option takes the user to the info page on your site for that
product/service.
A couple of points. It is important that the FW does not attempt to
update this 'more' menu via the web. If it ever does this, many users
will get paranoid, remove the fw and refuse to recommend it to others.
You may trust yourself completely, but others wont. This means the more
menu list may get outdated. Include 'update this menu' at the bottom of
the menu, and the process is under user control, users are happy. And
if you choose to include a few trivial interesting things, you may get
more clicks. A few pocket size freeware apps from other authors on your
site is a quick easy way to do this. There are even tiny <10k apps that
wont tax the servers.
_If_ you give users everything they want, including the various bending
over backwards, somersaults etc that capitalism requires, your FW would
then be widely advertised at no cost to yourself, with no further work
on your part, and millions of users would be using Comodo FW. Many
would like it, and would explore that 'more' menu. Result:sales. Dont
forget its not only the fw installing people you'll sell to, others
will see the systems too.
Most companies have it the wrong way round with registration imho. Reg
makes sense from the seller's POV, and is the model we all are familiar
with. However it does not add up for a lot of users, nor does it add up
when it comes to exposure. Time to use a more successful biz model
there.
> System Requirements
>
> * 32 MB available RAM
> * 15 MB of available free hard disk space
> Both of these seem about twice as much as is typically encountered.
I dont see how that would be a real problem though, This is an NT only
fw, how many machines run Winnt on <32M? Probably none, IIRC 32M is the
minimum for 2k. The more features a fw has, the more ram it will eat,
and iiuc comodo is trying to produce a kitchen sink product, not a
lightweight for old pcs.
There are still quite a lot of corporate machines running 98 btw. I
assume its too much investment for a shrinking market.
And less relevantly, a few oldies still on 95. And purely for the
curious, a business machine running 3.1 was recently spotted in a
roadside cafe. And I recently came across a corporate 486 fileserving
from a tiny 120M hdd with Win95. 'Its fast but its run out of space'
Now, enough about this company... here's the antidote to their fw, a
firewall that answers every single complaint above, and is real
freeware:
http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/index.html
NT
David
>WhItE RaBBiT wrote:
>> "Comodo" <me...@COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote in
>> news:1141651977.5...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> After downloading and installing the firewall, just register with us and
>> you will be sent a license for one year. It is a free, perpetual license
>> that simply requires annual registration.
>> ----
>>
>> Two things.
>>
>> 1. Some of us are not keen on making freeware registrations.
>>
>> ...and...
>>
>> 2. One year seems more like a limitation to provide for rescission.
>>
>> Neither of these are likely to inspire usage by very many.
>
>I think so too. It might seem minor to the dev team, but from the end
>user perspective there are several free firewalls available, and I'd
>far rather install something I know will work forever with no further
>mucking about. With a 1 year registration, firstly theres muck about to
>get it working, then who knows what you'll do with my email address, so
>its more hassle setting up a temp addy, and hoping you get a
>registration response today rather than next week ot never, then you
>dont really know whats going to happen in a year, maybe just a quick
>re-reg, maybe have to uninstall and wish you'd put proper freeware on
>there in the first place. Since ZA is a known quantity, safe,
>acceptably, effective, easy to use, why would I choose to make my life
>harder? I just wouldnt choose it.
>
[...]
Just a note here. ZoneAlarm does register itself, it just never argues
about it or requires you to visit a site. One registration and it goes
on forever.
>
>Now, enough about this company... here's the antidote to their fw, a
>firewall that answers every single complaint above, and is real
>freeware:
>http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/index.html
>
>
>NT
How does this compare with SmoothWall other than size?
Comodo
forever. We will not require re-registration after 1 year. you get the
license once and thats it. We did this after listening to your
requirements in this forum. License is purely for email address, not
for h/w.
meow...@care2.com
> On 10 Mar 2006 08:40:58 -0800, meow...@care2.com typed furiously:
> >Now, enough about this company... here's the antidote to their fw, a
> >firewall that answers every single complaint above, and is real
> >freeware:
> >http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/index.html
> How does this compare with SmoothWall other than size?
I really dont know. Its size and method of operation means no need for
a hdd, cd, ide, and possibly no monitor or vid card too. It will run on
under 12M if necessary.
NT
David
Control from your browser?
Log files and other records take up space or doesn't it bother?
Smoothwall does not need video but does need HDD space. Any machine
from Pentium/'586 up will do with 32MB RAM preferred for speed.
meow...@care2.com
> On 10 Mar 2006 17:18:30 -0800, meow...@care2.com typed furiously:
> >David wrote:
> >> On 10 Mar 2006 08:40:58 -0800, meow...@care2.com typed furiously:
> >> >http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/index.html
> >
> >> How does this compare with SmoothWall other than size?
> >
> >I really dont know. Its size and method of operation means no need for
> >a hdd, cd, ide, and possibly no monitor or vid card too. It will run on
> >under 12M if necessary.
> Control from your browser?
>
> Log files and other records take up space or doesn't it bother?
>
> Smoothwall does not need video but does need HDD space. Any machine
> from Pentium/'586 up will do with 32MB RAM preferred for speed.
I've not run it yet, but this is what I've found out so far. Floppyfw
is a minimum pc spec firewall, aimed at embedded pcs and min cost
firewall apps. All settings are done by editing a text file that
resides on the floppy. No hdd is used, and there is afaik no external
network control route. Since everything is on the one floppy, you can
forget log files, though if you have a hdd or 2nd flop it can be set to
do logging.
The floppy is OS and app in one, and is fully self contained.
I figure once the machine works there should be no need for a monitor.
Config tweaks are done by taking out the flop and text editing on
another pc. Corruption cant occur on a write protected floppy, unless
the disc itself fails, in which case inserting another flop is the
quickest option. The only need for a monitor afaics is for repair if
the pc hardware fails, and to see you've got it going ok initially.
Floppyfw is designed to be used in embedded systems with no video.
Min specs are 386 cpu, not sure about ram but I know v1 runs on under
12M. Not so much tiny-ware as tiny 'runs on half a fried 1980s
paperweight' ware. 'More than one floppy is bloatware.'
NT
David
Dave
>
>>We are going to make the next version, out very shortly a free license
>>forever. We will not require re-registration after 1 year. you get the
>>license once and thats it. We did this after listening to your
>>requirements in this forum. License is purely for email address, not
>>for h/w.
>>
>
>
> Seems to be a lot of advertising for something that isn't available yet.
>
>
I just tried CPF and besides a 17 mb download(yikes) took about 29-34 mb
resources. Liked the options and controls but hard to throw away tiny
little Kerio 2.1.5 for this firewall.
Dave
Craig
Dave;
What's the version of CPF that you'd tried? If it's 2.x that's the
version we've been waiting for. If it ain't, well...guess I'll just
keep on waiting.
-Craig
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>> I just tried CPF and besides a 17 mb download(yikes) took about 29-34
>> mb resources. Liked the options and controls but hard to throw away
>> tiny little Kerio 2.1.5 for this firewall.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> Dave;
>
> What's the version of CPF that you'd tried? If it's 2.x that's the
> version we've been waiting for. If it ain't, well...guess I'll just
> keep on waiting.
>
> -Craig
No this was a 1.x version but it was 17 mb from their website and just
11.5 mb from download.com. I think the difference is the one I got from
their site has that "extra goody" -the Comodo Launch Pad(similar to
McAfee's Security Center)All I want is a firewall, not the extras.
Dave
Craig
Thanks for the update. Yea, I'm not looking forward to the "launch
pad." I've seen too many failures (McAfee & Symantec) but, maybe
they'll get the concept right.
I'll be giving 2.x a test-drive when available. I'll post back here.
-Craig
Comodo
I have it installed on my machine and works like magic :-) (not the
public version but the dev version) more logging, more protection and
the only one that passes all the leak tests. Just waiting for all the
launch stuff to be finalised between marketing and technical so that we
can make it available to public :-)
Melih
Aaron wrote:
> "Comodo" <me...@COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote in
> news:1142039626....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > We are going to make the next version, out very shortly a free license
> > forever. We will not require re-registration after 1 year. you get the
> > license once and thats it. We did this after listening to your
> > requirements in this forum. License is purely for email address, not
> > for h/w.
> >
>
Comodo
None of the "extra goodies" are installed by default, they are all
available for you to download and install, but its all user dependant.
We don't decide on your behalf, you do! You choose what you want
downloaded and installed.
Melih
Comodo
Please let us know how we can improve our offering. We are, as you
know, always looking for feedback from our users. We have made the
Comodo LaunchPad so that all of the applications (like Backup, Ivault,
Free email certificates etc) are available to you for you to downloand
and install but never installed or downloaded unless the user goes
ahead and downloads them. So for example, if you only download and
install Personal Firewall, thats all you will get. yes Comodo Launchpad
(just a bit of GUI) will also show you what else is available.
thanks
Melih
Dave
didn't see any option to install just the firewall without the Launch Pad.
Dave
Craig
> Craig
>
> Please let us know how we can improve our offering. We are, as you
> know, always looking for feedback from our users.
...<stuff deleted>...
>
> thanks
> Melih
>
Understood Melih.
I'll monitor this newsgroup for your announcement.
-Craig
toodeloo
> Comodo wrote:
> > Dave
> >
> > None of the "extra goodies" are installed by default, they are all
> > available for you to download and install, but its all user dependant.
be aware for the "normal" goodies or extra's you get installed.
In CPF 1 you have CpfLicChk.exe for example.
CPF is for users who install software like McAfee or Norton on there
computer. CPF is part of a suite and not a standalone firewall application.
> > We don't decide on your behalf, you do! You choose what you want
> > downloaded and installed.
only the firewall is not possible. You have to accept the Comodo Launch Pad
and more tricks as very unwanted extra goodies.
> The Launch Pad itself is what I consider an extra that I don't need. I
> didn't see any option to install just the firewall without the Launch Pad.
they listen to you but they don't change there concept.
The firewall is part of that concept and the Comodo Launch Pad is the
central tray-icon and control agent.
Take it or leave the concept, what I did.
Comodo
The GUI that shows other available free applications we have (that we
call Comodo Launchpad) is what you don't want to see. Ok here is our
dilemma and I will air them to see if we can find a way forward all
together.
We have, and will have many free (means free) products in future. We
need a mechanism to inform the user about the new threats and new
products available for them. for example, Comodo LaunchPad was a great
success at launching the Backup Product as majority of the CPF users
were able to see the availability of the new free Backup product and
went ahead and installed it. Also, there has been many people who
downloaded backup on its own and then realised they can also get Free
Firewall went ahead and downloaded the firewall. We as Comodo need a
communication channel with our users. We were hoping Comodo Launchpad
to be just that. We don't want to send emails for obvious reasons.
Also, going forward, we want Launchpad to be the "main console" for
Comodo installed products (eg: AV, Firewall, Spyware etc and you have
one console to see it all). Its just a GUI component that today acts as
a communication channel with our user and with a view in future to act
as a command center for all Comodo Applications.
I would be grateful for your feedback for improvements, please have in
mind what we are trying to achieve.
thanks
Melih
Comodo
Cpflicchk.exe is a CPF component that checks for licenses. It's a CPF
component.
The only component that comes with CPF that's not part of the CPF is
the CLP (Comodo Launch Pad). This is a GUI application that show what
other products Comodo has available so that users can see what other
threats there are and what Comodo has against these threats that the
user can get for free. Again, none of the application/services
available from the CLP is downloaded or installed without the user
doing so. Please note this is a very important difference. We let the
user decide what to download or install, we don't do it for them. We
merely make it available to them by showing it to them in the CLP
control panel.
Toodeloo, the only we can succeed is by making sure to build a product
that everyone will like. So, I will explain our reasons for having CLP
and I invite everyone please to help us achieve what we want to achieve
with alternative suggestions so that we can all decide how CPF/CLP
should operate going forward. Toodeloo, you must have noticed that we
listened to everyone in this forum and changed our licensing from
yearly to forever etc. So you know we are listening and implementing
suggestions. Of course not everything will be implemented and I am more
than happy to make all these discussions public about what is
requested, what is implemented what is not and why not. I really want
this to be "everyone's firewall" designed by "everyone" .
This is an important step in the "history of Computer security"
where a company allocates sizeable resources to build the product that
people want! We have build the "framework" and the "security
engine", of course we will continually improve it, but we need your
help also. So please do not ever blame us for not listening or
listening and not implementing, that goes totally against what we are
trying to do.
So the only thing that comes with CPF is CLP. So why does Comodo put
CLP (which is just a gui app that tells the users whats available as
freebies etc) with CPF? I will explain the reason why we have CLP and
what we want to achieve with it. Lets all try to come up with an
alternative way of achieving this or improve current CLP together.
Please, Please, Please I ask everyone to contribute. This is a good
opportunity to get your security designed "for you" and "by
you". Try to get CEO of McAfee, Norton, Zonealarm, Kerio, Outpost to
come, listen and execute your wishes and give their product for free to
you! (not the free products they give which is inferior to their paid
for versions and fail leak tests). So this is a good opportunity for
all of us in this group to change the way the security industry work!
Imagine, by our collective work, we can design security products that
are to almost everyone's liking cos its designed by everyone! And the
best of all its free!
Ok here is why designed and put CLP with all products:
1) We needed an ability to communicate with our users about what other
products available that they can use against latest threats
2) We needed a central command center so that a user can get a summary
of "all Comodo" products from one console
That is what we have designed that is available today. We thought that
was the best possible way, but of course "nothing is perfect, which
means : Everything can be improved". So help us improve this process.
How can we make it better, Please help us!
Thanks
Melih
Dave
What I look for in any security app is the "invisibility" factor. once
it's setup and operational the way I want it, I don't want to hear from
it(or see it) on a day to day basis. Kind of a "no news is good news"
approach. I don't need constant alerts or toolbars or icons or whatever
unless I'm going to change something or use it(in the case of virus
scans).i think one of AVG's slogans about "forgetting that you're using
it" sums up what I want in security apps. The Launch Pad is one more
step or one more click that I don't want(or give me the choice).If I had
all of your products installed I would still prefer to be able to access
just one at a time.rarely do I need access to all security apps at
once.I use toolbars extensively so I would put a single icon for
anything I need to access. I hope I've explained what I look for. I do
like the interface and options on CPF and will try it again. ,just like
to be able to break it up if I want to.
Dave
meow...@care2.com
I'm going to it point back to you now :) You're seeing that users dont
like the way youre doing it, even if you wonder what the probem is. I
explained a system that as far as I can see would solve all these
problems in the thread several days ago. So, let me pass this back to
you and ask you in what way that suggestion is not upto the job, then
between us all perhaps we can look at further posibilities with a
clearer picture of the issues.
NT
David
furiously:
>Ok here is why designed and put CLP with all products:
>
>1) We needed an ability to communicate with our users about what other
>products available that they can use against latest threats
>2) We needed a central command center so that a user can get a summary
>of "all Comodo" products from one console
>
>That is what we have designed that is available today. We thought that
>was the best possible way, but of course "nothing is perfect, which
>means : Everything can be improved". So help us improve this process.
>How can we make it better, Please help us!
>
>Thanks
>Melih
1. I would like to see it work with Win98.
2. While I appreciate your intentions with the CLP I would like the
opportunity to not use it if I so desire.
3. I want a firewall which sits in the background and does its job of
protecting me from direct attacks from the net.
4. It does not need to inspect every program, e-mail or document file
on or off the computer.
5. It should monitor the network interface, whether LAN or MODEM. If
any program attempts to use the interface, particularly to access a
URL outside the LAN, without previous authorisation from me, via the
keyboard or the mouse, then that program should be blocked until such
authorisation is granted. I should be able to specify a permanent
permission unless the program is changed/updated in some manner.
6. Simplicity in use and User Interface. Skins may look wonderful but
they do not add to the functionality of any program.
7. I do not object to an occasional e-mail informing me of updates or
additional programs. I do object if those e-mails become too frequent
(more than once per month) or are not related to the installed program
and its purpose. I also object to HTML in e-mails.
83 My e-mail address should not be advised to any third parties, use
BCC to distribute e-mails to multiple people.
toodeloo
> Cpflicchk.exe is a CPF component that checks for licenses. It's a CPF
> component.
Why and what licence check??? Why does your firewall demands a very active
background license program? For me
is this a very unwanted program. Is it possible to complete deactivate this
checking program ( or better never become active ). I'm afraid it couldn't.
> Again, none of the application/services
> available from the CLP is downloaded or installed without the user
> doing so. Please note this is a very important difference. We let the
> user decide what to download or install, we don't do it for them. We
> merely make it available to them by showing it to them in the CLP
> control panel.
otherwise your product should be offered as a total suite solution.
My browser have a lot of restrictions and limitations and I don't like the
idea of downloading software with the CLP.
> Toodeloo, the only we can succeed is by making sure to build a product
> that everyone will like.
sorry, that's impossible.
> Toodeloo, you must have noticed that we
> listened to everyone in this forum and changed our licensing from
> yearly to forever etc.
in that case it would be nice if your website was updated.
It says : Comodo Pefrsonal Firewall FREE for 365 days.
( link : http://www.comodogroup.com/products/free_products.html? )
You still seems to need an activation code, what means it still isn't free
forever.
YOU write that these problematic items ( for some of us ) are changed but
your company doesn't make the changes.
Why should I believe you?
It's very easy to write I listen, but that doesn't mean I do anything with
what I hear.
> So please do not ever blame us for not listening or
> listening and not implementing, that goes totally against what we are
> trying to do.
I don't blame you or your company for not listening, I only try to get some
things clear.
Don't blame me that I don't like the concept.
Listening and implementing wishes are two complete different things and we
have only suggestions. Implementing whishes must be possible and don't
change the way how a program works.
I think I have a lot of understanding why things are not implemented.
But if you want :
we ask you to put some taglines in your replies containing links for the
CPF.
You don't.
> Ok here is why designed and put CLP with all products:
>
> 1) We needed an ability to communicate with our users about what other
> products available that they can use against latest threats
Your companies need isn't the users need.
Afraid that your company email disappears in the delete-box without reading
it? That means your company uses CLP-popups or activate a browser to show
your promotional stuff? That's an option people love to deactivate.
> 2) We needed a central command center so that a user can get a summary
> of "all Comodo" products from one console
1 help screen could already do this trick.
You don't need the CLP.
Maybe you listen to us, but implementing our ideas? No. We only want a
firewall; no popups or whatever to get an "all Comodo" freakshow. This
whish doesn't fit your companies idea so we have to do it with the
product "as it is".
That's the price we have to pay for using your companies "free products".
That's why I wrote I don't like the concept or going to use the CPF.
> So help us improve this process.
> How can we make it better, Please help us!
first of all we have to know and see how the CPF-2 looks and feel..
If some or maybe a lot of our whishes are already implemented.
After deinstalling CPF-1 I found still CPF stuff. Is a real total cleanup
possible in CPF-2?
Comodo
you said:
" But if you want :
we ask you to put some taglines in your replies containing links for
the CPF. You don't"
We have not launched CPF2 yet as I made it very clear in my previous
postings. So you can't possibly show that as a reason that we don't
listen to you. We do listen and I can't post a link because we don't
have one yet and I made it very clear in my postings!
Comodo
feedback into items to see if I have covered everything. Pls help
expand/modify/add to each
1)Option to switch off the CLP
2) Win 98 compatibility
3) It does not need to inspect every program, e-mail or document file
on or off the computer (David, this was your suggestion and I will need
more explanation pls on this actually items 4&5 of your posting as this
would be changing the way the firewall would be working drastically and
won't protect your fully as far as I can see)
4) Remove license checking program
5) Total cleaning after uninstall
Anything I missed?
toodeloo
> > We are going to make the next version, out very shortly a free license
> > forever. We will not require re-registration after 1 year. you get the
> > license once and thats it. We did this after listening to your
> > requirements in this forum. License is purely for email address, not
> > for h/w.
why?
A lot of email addresses are fake.
You get a license number by email? Yes. That's not what we asked!
We ask for a really free product. A product we could use even after your
company stopped working or if we want to reinstall an older version of the
CPF software ( in case we don't like the newer version ).
You wrote we could use in the future every CPF version without problems; but
if I have to license an old CPF version I'm curious if that's possible.
I could download CPF-1 from a lot of other sites, so if CPF-2 is really free
and available from the same downloadsites you didn't know I use CPF-2 ( in
this case only testing ;-) ), but how about the CLP?
The main purpose is to be a gui and a promotion platform for Comodo
products.
Or does CPF-2 first to be registered to work ( CPF-1 doesn't ).
toodeloo
> We have not launched CPF2 yet as I made it very clear in my previous
> postings. So you can't possibly show that as a reason that we don't
> listen to you. We do listen and I can't post a link because we don't
> have one yet and I made it very clear in my postings!
there is a Comodo site isn't it?
You could have started with that link.
CLP is a "productplatform" so you could refer to the Comodo website in
general.
You could interest people in the other Comodo products.
Comodo
its www.comodo.com (all the free products are under a menu section
called "free products")
the personal firewall site is: http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
I thought you were looking for the new CPF v2 link which we don't have
yet.
cheers
Melih
Comodo
was requested by you guys and we implemented! (if you check the Backup
product we have, it already utilises that system of register once work
forever system).
thanks
Melih
Dave
for any decent program to have in its list of features
Dave
David
furiously:
>Ok guys good feedback thanks. I will try to summarise all these
>feedback into items to see if I have covered everything. Pls help
>expand/modify/add to each
>
>1)Option to switch off the CLP
>2) Win 98 compatibility
I feel that there are many Win98 machines still in operation which
could benefit from a slim, good, easy to use firewall. It would only
assist your company's reputation.
>3) It does not need to inspect every program, e-mail or document file
>on or off the computer (David, this was your suggestion and I will need
>more explanation pls on this actually items 4&5 of your posting as this
>would be changing the way the firewall would be working drastically and
>won't protect your fully as far as I can see)
Kerio V4, as far as I could tell, inspected every program and, unless
I gave permission, would not let any program, batch file or link
operate. Its control was absolute. It would not even let the computer
be shutdown from the keyboard. It lasted less than an hour on my
machine.
ZoneAlarm, on the other hand, has^Whad a rather easy interface until
they started getting into virus-checking, spyware-checking, e-mail-
supervision and other areas which are really not the concern of a
firewall in my opinion. Their mail check interfered with the ability
of my mail programs to do their job.
So I am stating that the _only_ business of a firewall is to sit
between the computer and the Internet and monitor that interface. It
does need to check on outgoing traffic as well as incoming.
I have an anti-virus program running constantly. I frequently run
Adaware and Spybot Search and Destroy. Spyware Blaster performs its
function well. I do not need the firewall to perform these functions
as well as attempting to monitor communications. It could miss
something.
Incoming traffic, obviously, should be limited to requested data.
Incoming firewalls are available in routers, modems and other hardware
forms so this is not a vital function for me but I consider that it
should be there as part of a personal firewall. At the moment I sit
behind an ADSL modem with a firewall, a Smoothwall firewall box and
ZoneAlarm V2.5.
Outgoing traffic is more important in this day and age and should
should be monitored as to its source. Has the requesting program been
authorised to contact the outside world? Allied to that is the
question as to whether an authorised program has been changed? e.g. By
updating or a virus.
If so authorisation needs to be reconfirmed preferably from keyboard
or mouse and not from automation. The window that informs the user of
available options needs to be always on top, appear immediately and
grab focus. Access should never be allowed until permission is
granted. Sound should be an option that can be turned on but defaults
to off. Keyboard and mouse buffers need to be emptied completely. The
default answer should be to disallow access for safety. Keyboard
operation of all functions is vital. I dislike taking my hand off the
keyboard to use the mouse if it can be avoided.
I tried one firewall where the option window took nearly a minute to
come up, often disappeared without waiting for any input and did not
prevent the unauthorised program from accessing the net during the
interval. Once I installed AdAware, told it to update its database and
the update process had actually completed before the firewall realised
what had happened and asked about permission for the program.
ZoneAlarm performs well in the outgoing control department. It
maintains a list of programs that have requested permission to access
the net. Each program has three possibilities in two categories.
Connection can be allowed, disallowed or ask-every-time. The same
options are available for Server rights.
The firewall function may extend to LAN connections. Once again these
should be of the set-and-forget variety unless drastic changes occur.
The operation of M$ Intenet Connection Sharing should not affect the
operation of the firewall. In the free version of ZoneAlarm it does.
>4) Remove license checking program
>5) Total cleaning after uninstall
>
>Anything I missed?
There should also be an easily accessible STOP mechanism which allows
the user (not administrator) to immediately stop all communication to
any place outside the computer. Resetting the STOP mechanism may need
Admin access or a password if desired although I do not think it is
really needed as the user should be allowed to control the traffic.
Stopping the communication may often be shutting the stable door after
the horse has bolted but it can sometimes limit damage and allow the
user to reverse a previous decision on access before opening the
machine up again.
I hope this helps as this is what I want from a firewall. I don't want
helper add-ons just a straight firewall that works.
John Fitzsimons
>toodeloo
>its www.comodo.com (all the free products are under a menu section
>called "free products")
< snip >
"All" ? What about your Comodo BackUp program ? Isn't that a free
product ?
Bye the way. If one uses that to copy all files to a second eg.
removable (D) drive then would that drive be bootable if one then
replaced the (C) drive with the copy ?
Regards, John.
John Fitzsimons
Hi Melih,
>toodeloo
>cheers
>Melih
Actually what was said was ;
"But if you want :
we ask you to put some taglines in your replies containing links for
the CPF.
You don't."
He didn't ask you for the sites. He asked you why you hadn't added
a signature file ("tagline") to your posts. A sig giving a link to
"freeware" programs is "on topic" for this newsgroup.
If you make the freeware changes suggested then the second link would
be appropriate. If you linked to "Free Products" page then that would
probably be acceptable too.
My "tagline" or "signature file" is as below. Be sure that yours has
the proper signature delimiter or people will probably complain. See
the dash dash space. That means it gets removed on replies.
Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
Comodo
You touched on some sensitive subjects there about the function of the
firewall :-) The line between some behaviour analysis for spyware and
Firewall is blurring, and we are seeing lots of "preventitive"
technologies being added to firewalls that helps protect users. But i
think i understand what you need, just like when i buy a mobile phone,
the only i think i want is the mobile phone functionality and not the
mp3 player, video player etc that comes with it. This is why CPF does
not really come with the other applications as such. Also I think it
does a pretty good job of giving you a full insight about applications
trying to connect to internet and information about their parent
processes and gives plenty information about if the application has a
parent, if the parent has changed, if it has no parent, if its an
invisible application etc etc.. all the stuff that could be useful to
make a judgement to allow it or not.
Another little innovation we have done is the "allow db" we have put
in. This is a list of some popular executables, their description etc.
This way we can also inform the user about whether the applicaiton
making a connection to internet is a security risk or not. We
constantly improve this db (of course we are never going to have 100%
but its getting better).
The issue of "one click and stop all comms outside" its already there
in CPF v1. All you have to do in the summary page increase the slide
dial to High from Custom, that stops all comms.
Much appreciate the feedback. Lets pls keep it coming and see how we
can build this together.
BTW: David, have you tried CPF v1? I would love to hear how we can
improve the GUI or other functionalities you might want to see in it.
thanks
Melih
Comodo
If you can create a mirror of the HD, then it would be. However, its
tricker then you think even though possible.
thanks
Melih
Comodo
Comodo
cheers
Melih
BTW: interesting site you have there;-)
Comodo
meow...@care2.com
> Also I think it
> does a pretty good job of giving you a full insight about applications
> trying to connect to internet and information about their parent
> processes and gives plenty information about if the application has a
> parent, if the parent has changed, if it has no parent, if its an
> invisible application etc etc.. all the stuff that could be useful to
> make a judgement to allow it or not.
>
> Another little innovation we have done is the "allow db" we have put
> in. This is a list of some popular executables, their description etc.
> This way we can also inform the user about whether the applicaiton
> making a connection to internet is a security risk or not. We
> constantly improve this db (of course we are never going to have 100%
> but its getting better).
these both sound good, and hopefully there will be a user button
somewhere that tells/permits cpf to go get the latest app db.
> The issue of "one click and stop all comms outside" its already there
> in CPF v1. All you have to do in the summary page increase the slide
> dial to High from Custom, that stops all comms.
Is this page on screen on top at all times during use? if not, its not
a 1 click solution.
A simple way to implement a 1 click stop is for one click on firewall
tray icon to pause all traffic and bring up a menu. From there on the
user can either select STOP, or select other options, in which case
traffic flow restarts. 1 click stop really does mean urgent, some shts
going down here.
I also find myself wondering what precisely you wish to achieve with
registration There may be a better way for all involved.
We cant expect Comodo to implement anything requested here, all ideas
have various issues to discuss both here and back at Comodo, and
various interests to consider. Then it all takes time. Hopefully Comodo
is genuinely looking to implement at least some of them, or if not then
using the feedback to look at other options that would prove more
satisfactory to Comodo. Time will tell.
NT
Comodo
Ok registration was a way of getting user's email address so that we
could inform them about other relevant free Comodo products. Then we
thought of CLP, but now there is a resistance to it by some people. As
Comodo we want a communication channel to users. Any suggestion would
be appreciated
thanks
Melih
Craig
> As Comodo we want a communication channel to users. Any suggestion
> would be appreciated thanks Melih
>
Melih;
Fwiw, I don't mind registering (giving Comodo an email) for such a
product. As far as communication channel though, over the last 6-12
months, I've come to plug into a company's communication via their
"forum" and/or newsgroup.
So, for example, I participate in comp.graphics.app.gimp for, you
guessed the proggy Gimp. I'm in the forums for Irfanview (it was the
way I found out about the batch-mode bug). Openoffice, , Mozilla,
Win2k, Nvu, Scribus, etc etc, forums or newsgroups are how I stay in
touch -not just with the company but- with the greater community.
I don't really like email channels because, more often than not, they're
one-sided. That is, I get a blast from "sa...@foobar.com"
but...<shrughs> who's that? I'd rather see a "sticky" in the forum. Of
course, the down-side is that a company wouldn't have a metric to wag at
executives such as "Last fiscal quarter we had a 8.72% increase in
number of valid emails harvested from the registration process."
hth,
-Craig
p.s. It's the weekend, Melih, knock off for a few will ya?
David
furiously:
>Great feedback David. Thank you very much.
>You touched on some sensitive subjects there about the function of the
>firewall :-) The line between some behaviour analysis for spyware and
>Firewall is blurring, and we are seeing lots of "preventitive"
>technologies being added to firewalls that helps protect users. But i
>think i understand what you need, just like when i buy a mobile phone,
>the only i think i want is the mobile phone functionality and not the
>mp3 player, video player etc that comes with it.
That is exactly what I mean. If I were to purchase a mobile phone, (I
do not have one) I would not be interested in MP3, Camera, Video or
anything else. Just the phone capability is what I would be after.
>This is why CPF does
>not really come with the other applications as such. Also I think it
>does a pretty good job of giving you a full insight about applications
>trying to connect to internet and information about their parent
>processes and gives plenty information about if the application has a
>parent, if the parent has changed, if it has no parent, if its an
>invisible application etc etc.. all the stuff that could be useful to
>make a judgement to allow it or not.
>
If a previously authorised program, or its parent, has changed in any
manner then re-authorisation should be a requirement.
>Another little innovation we have done is the "allow db" we have put
>in. This is a list of some popular executables, their description etc.
>This way we can also inform the user about whether the applicaiton
>making a connection to internet is a security risk or not. We
>constantly improve this db (of course we are never going to have 100%
>but its getting better).
>
I feel that this db is fine for installation purposes although
confirmation of authorisation should be required even then. Outside of
that time all programs should be treated as possible threats.
>The issue of "one click and stop all comms outside" its already there
>in CPF v1. All you have to do in the summary page increase the slide
>dial to High from Custom, that stops all comms.
>
I'm talking about a right-click option on the icon a la ZoneAlarm or a
big red "STOP" button as per the same program's user interface (V2.5).
Using the slider could result in sliding the wrong way perhaps. A
button with a single purpose cannot result in any wrong directional
mishap. ZA uses the same button for reconnection after changing the
description.
>Much appreciate the feedback. Lets pls keep it coming and see how we
>can build this together.
>
>BTW: David, have you tried CPF v1? I would love to hear how we can
>improve the GUI or other functionalities you might want to see in it.
>thanks
>Melih
>
I'm one of those on Win98 so, no, I have not tried it.
meow...@care2.com
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > Comodo wrote:
> > I also find myself wondering what precisely you wish to achieve with
> > registration There may be a better way for all involved.
> NT
>
> Ok registration was a way of getting user's email address so that we
> could inform them about other relevant free Comodo products. Then we
> thought of CLP, but now there is a resistance to it by some people. As
> Comodo we want a communication channel to users. Any suggestion would
> be appreciated
> thanks
> Melih
Hi Melih
I'm mildly puzzled because I discussed this several days back, and am
not hearing where the problem lies with what was suggested, the 'more'
menu.
Let me put it this way. Say we're friends and I've got some goodies for
you. So I come up to you unanncounced, and physically push you to where
the goodies are. How are you going to feel? Pissed off I reckon, and
you're not going to be interested in those goodies any longer, even if
you were before I showed up.
Contrast this with me leaving you a note saying hey, I got you
something, come on over.
This expresses the end user experience. No matter what way you want to
force communication, a lot of end users will object and refuse to put
themselves in that position in the first place. I personally will not
install adware, (with one exception), nor do I give email to get
freeware, nor in most cases can I be bothered messing with a diversion
account. And I'm not unusual.
And its not just freeloaders that see it this way. One of the bits of
software I hated most was paid for, but it still installed pestware.
Man was I pissed off. I fixed it but have never had any desire to
purchase any of their stuff again, and never have. There are plenty of
competitors, so I've bought other brands since.
If you want top ratings, you have to find a way to give the end user
what they want, and more so than the competition. Not less. Zonelabs
does not contact me any time for any reason. Nor do they need to, I
know from when I dl'ed what other products they offer. The result is
their reputation stays good, I'm happy to recommend their firewall, it
gets used a lot, word spreads, etc.
If you stay with marketing in ways the end user objects to, you'll
never be the no 1 firewall.
Which all leads to the big question: can you really make a business
work without active pushy marketing? Well, ZA already does, so that
seems to be answered already. You just need to provide a fw that
appeals to your end users more than ZA. From what you've said to date,
maybe you can. I'm aware za is not perfect, and if you can improve on
it, you can expect a lot of good reviews, which is all free
advertising. Capitalism is all about what the end user wants.
I accept you probably dont want to go along the lines I'm suggesting,
and will likely stay with launchpad or email spamming, but if so youre
never going to hit that no 1 spot. And why would anyone dl the no. 2
free firewall if they can dl the no 1 freebie, and without the hassle?
You can put your other products info into the firewall without any need
for forced communication, either with a 'more' menu, an 'about' screen,
or other ways. Yes, its not autoupdating, but I still think you'll see
more users and customers in the end that way.
NT
meow...@care2.com
built in list would get updated this way.
You may well also find user acceptance of a once per month autoupdate
of the more menu, as long as it just updates quietly and doesnt make a
pest of itself. Must be declared honestly in the eula.
I wonder if the bar is a bit higher than you realise.
NT
Comodo
CLP had two points of which one was where you could see other products
the other was having one central point for security summary for Comodo
products (for people who wanted it). We got the requirement from this
group that CLP should be optional (eg: give an option to switch it off.
I have taken that on board along with other stuff we talked and will
air it in the next meeting we have). We do NOT physically push the
goodies, we simply say: Here is what you can get also, its upto the
user to get these goodies. Can I ask you to expand bit more on how you
would put this other than how we put in CLP? You seem to be suggesting
the way we have done in CLP. Have you had a chance to play with
CLP/CPF?
thanks a lot NT..
Melih
toodeloo
news:1142778734.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ok guys good feedback thanks. I will try to summarise all these
> feedback into items to see if I have covered everything. Pls help
> expand/modify/add to each
> 2) Win 98 compatibility
let me answer this.
If the firewall was a standalone product you could give this a thought.
But, the firewall and the other products are part of the Comodo Launch Pad.
That means the company has to make the complete CLP-suite W98 compatible.
That's no option so that will never happen.
That a CEO bargains away the most secure firewall ( at this moment ) and
didn't seems to realize that the firewall is part of a suite and not a
standalone program is not funny.
The CLP software concept doesn't fit W98, so even offering the possibility
makes me very nervous and I'm very happy that I don't have a CEO who puts my
great software at risk or ask me to make it a friend with everybody.
Comodo
I have tried to explain many times before. There is no Suite as such.
When you download, you get the firewall and a menu (that we call CLP)
that explains what other free products you can get from us. What suite
are you referring to?
thanks
Melih
meow...@care2.com
> NT
>
> CLP had two points of which one was where you could see other products
> the other was having one central point for security summary for Comodo
> products (for people who wanted it). We got the requirement from this
> group that CLP should be optional (eg: give an option to switch it off.
> I have taken that on board along with other stuff we talked and will
> air it in the next meeting we have). We do NOT physically push the
> goodies, we simply say: Here is what you can get also, its upto the
> user to get these goodies. Can I ask you to expand bit more on how you
> would put this other than how we put in CLP? You seem to be suggesting
> the way we have done in CLP. Have you had a chance to play with
> CLP/CPF?
>
> thanks a lot NT..
> Melih
Hi Melih
wrote this last night...
I think this takes me to the point where I doubt I can offer whats
needed, as I'm not currently running an OS that CPF supports afaik, and
am not happy to put something on an organisation's machine that I
havent checked out properly first. The current software testbed machine
(aka working reject with the necessary monitoring installed) doesnt
have xp, I'm one of the few that advises clients against it.
I would have to use CLP to be able to respond to your points sensibly.
The only one I could answer would be a bit more about how the more menu
works. But I'm not sure where the non-clarity is, so maybe I cant!
I'll have a go... most software has a toolbar with file, edit, view,
help, etc. This wont be seen very often on a firewall, but now and then
I will bring a FW up to set or check something. I suggested adding
another button on here, marked 'more,' perhaps just left of the help
button. When you click 'more' the user sees a menu of Comodo's
products, one per line, and when each one is clicked it displays your
info about that product. All with no connecting to the net.
The last entry on that menu is 'update this list', this updates the
list info via the net, adding any new products you've got, and updating
the info entries.
FWIW a few useful freeware utils on the list would much increase the
click rate. Clicking these entries would take the user to the Comodo
freeware page, which has side ads of your products. There are plenty of
best of breed freewares that are free to distrib for free.
The key points to this more menu system are:
1. There is no unauthorised conection to the net at any time, which is
something that really does worry end users that dont know you from
Adam. If you want to be recommended and used far and wide it is
necessary to maintain full user trust at every turn. This is something
very easily lost. If I install an app that doesnt need to connect to
the net and it tries to, 9/10 times it gets removed there and then.
Unauthorised connection is a clear security risk, given that I cant
just take the vendors' word these days, and its a waste of computer
performance I paid good money for, and dont wish to then throw away on
loads of junk processes I dont want running.
2. Users will typically click through this toolbar to see what does
what, so they will generally see the list and what youve written for
each entry.
3. Note they did this out of their own curiosity, at no time did you
try to push them or take advantage of them not realising what CLP was
when they mistakenly said yes to installing it. Thus goodwill is fully
maintained. I know you might not see it that way, but end users do.
4. The user can update info totally effortlessly if they have the
remotest interest. And the updating will not worry them at all.
5. If they dont, despite seeing what you sell, theyre probably not
prime customer potential. And theyve still seen your entire list of
offerings anyway. And youve maintained 100% goodwill with them, leading
to more firewall recommendations and more users aware of the other
products.
5. Even if they dont have the remotest interest, the info is still
updated each time they change computer, maybe every 18 months, or
reinstall, change OSes, etc.
5. The end user does not see this system as intrusive, spam, pestware,
insecure or untrustworthy. To be the no 1 recommended firewall you must
behave the best or as good as the best in each and every area.
Appreciate that firewall performance is not the prime issue for the end
user. That may sound odd, but understanding this is one of Microsoft's
good points. What does the user want? Well, as a user, I want the
following first:
1. it wont mess up my system
2. it wont annoy me with spam, gobbling cpu time, RAM, popups, etc
3. it wont connect unauthorised to the net, wont serve, wont dl god
only knows what
4. it wont be a pain to get or install, eg require giving an email
addie to who knows who who will presumabnly then spam me or pass it on
to spammers (why else would they want it?)
And _only_ when all these are satisfied am i looking for the best of
the remaining candidates. Whether its leek proof or zucchini proof very
much takes 2nd place for the end user. I know for example ZA isnt all
it could be, I have one app that walks right past it and it doesnt even
notice, but first it meets all the above, and 2ndly I read some good
reviews of it, IOW its well known and reviewers like it based on
technical abilities. And 3rd its user friendly, unlike some fws. And
ease of use also comes before performance, most users for example wont
understand talk of parent and child processes, hence the other
suggestion of 3 column explanations.
Ah boy, too late. G nite!
NT
toodeloo
> > 2) Win 98 compatibility
> never
suite or not you didn't deny the answer.
> As Comodo we want a communication channel to users.
> Any suggestion would be appreciated.
As I already wrote a lot of times to you :
this isn't the place to discuss how we could improve software.
This isn't the (beta-)products discussion group for Comodo software.
This place is to help people who have problems with software or
want to know which freeware product they could use.
1) Google-groups have specialized product newsgroups
but ... not everybody wants to write in the Google newsgroups.
2) Comodo could make their own newsserver with some groups.
( maybe already the case, but I'm afraid it isn't )
3) .....
ask your people how to open a door for users discussions and/or
a communication channel.
They are clever enough.
Option two is the best option. No retention so a (new) member could (re)read
it all.
If I have a problem or find a bug I'm going to look in the right newsgroup
on your companies newsserver if the problem is already solved or if someone
else has found this problem. Other users could recreate a problem on their
own computer and be helpfull for your programmers. Every problem,
every hint, every solution could be read or found in the companies newsgroup
"knowledge-base".
Option one is the option for poor companies or privat (freeware) software
writers.
IF I have to take you serious you should have given us a link to become a
beta tester and maybe a link to the beta version.
That's the way how a serious company deals with software. They don't ask in
a public newsgroup how to improve their software. They ask in the appropiate
newsgroup(s) for testers ( to give you a hint : newsgroups dealing with
firewalls ).
Craig
> IF I have to take you serious you should have given us a link to become a
> beta tester and maybe a link to the beta version.
> That's the way how a serious company deals with software. They don't ask in
> a public newsgroup how to improve their software. They ask in the appropiate
> newsgroup(s) for testers ( to give you a hint : newsgroups dealing with
> firewalls ).
>
That is not my experience.
I've managed a few engineering pre-release projects at two so-called
"serious" companies, both were closed-source environments.
1) We did not give open access to our pre-release programs. Most often,
we didn't broadcast it at all. It would overwhelm and break the
feedback loop. It would paralyze that group of engies and admins tasked
to verify and classify bugs, etc at a time we could least afford it.
Signals would be crossed, important stuff would be missed. Chaff would
overwhelm the wheat. It would badly try the patience of the testers.
So we vetted. For the smaller, less strategic projects our vetting
would be light, almost casual. For the more important projects, it'd be
like arranging to see the President. Whatever the project though, all
testers were vetted.
The only exception to that would be the skunkworks.
2) On the flip-side of that coin, we talked and listened to anyone who
was willing to listen and talk. We tried to go everywhere. We had
manifold contacts reaching into any number of communities. Some were
quite broad in charter, others were laser-focused. All were related
somehow to what we were doing. We wanted to:
- net a broad array of ideas w/o necessarily showing our hand,
- get reactions to statements we'd made (aka "the flagpole run")
- sell the "mystique" of our technologies,
- generate anticipation
- market all of this back in-bound and, above all
- build brand awareness.
3) Always, there was a stage of the pre-release cycle where we
explicitly avoided experienced users. They're just too blinded by habit
to be of any use. Always, we kept an eye open for fresh blood in new
places to replace the poor sods who'd burned out on our previous betas.
4) In this particular instance, Comodo representatives have been talking
about upcoming freeware. They're talking about it in alt.comp.freeware.
They've gotten feedback and ideas. They've raised awareness about
their product line and company. They've generated anticipation (at
least in this chair). Sounds on-topic.
Sounds like a serious company.
-Craig
p.s. Thinking about those pre-rel programs reminds me of our recent
experience with Dean & his free blackjack offer. I'd always have to
beg, threaten & cajole to get engineering cycles on that extraneous
stuff like "doc." Some things never change <grin>.
Comodo
You said: "As I already wrote a lot of times to you :
this isn't the place to discuss how we could improve software."
BUT
You started this thread, on 4th Feb having tried CPF, with your
suggestions about how the product can be improved! (check below) So I
am a bit puzzled with your posting saying we should not talk about
improvements.
************************************
From: toodeloo - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 4 2006 10:44 am
Email: "toodeloo" <m...@noprivacy.net>
Groups: alt.comp.freeware
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
I downloaded the CPF to know better what I'm talking about.
I didn't test the CPF fully because some basics are so bad that I don't
want
to risk any computer to this/these hole(s).
I will recommend ( and install ) an other firewall.
Yes, even if the CPF is only used for privat purpose.
Downloaded CPF version : 1.1.005
- it is still difficult to find the CPF for downloading.
- still no CPF or firewall info at the Comodo site ( www.comodo.com )
Melih, don't be afraid. CPF is so hard to find that there would never
be a
download hype I'm afraid.
There are two programs launched ( CPF and Launchpad ) and there is no
CPF
tray icon .
- that should be an option in the config settings if you want tray
icons or
not.
- how to kill/stop Launchpad by clicking your right mouse button?
Maybe it's possible, but in that case it could be much easier.
CPF options.
- maybe CPF has the option, but I miss the option to block all until
the PC
has been fully startuped.
- there is NO password security. Every idiot can disable or exit
CPF/Launchpad.
( without this option I would never recommend CPF as a serious
firewall ).
- viewing applications.
I see a lot but no simple application list.
- setting security to high seems to mean : block all.
Name it 'block all' and not high security. Very misleading.
- setting security to low seems to mean : allow everything.
Again, very misleading. Call it : allow all.
- because of the missing CPF tray icon you couldn't see your security
level
if you move with your mouse on the CPF tray icon.
- incoming connection alert screen.
Not possible to move this screen to another position.
Very annoying.
It would be nice to have a <- buttom for going back to your previous
screen.
I got an 'outgoing connection alert' from CLPConfig.exe.
That's the Comodo Launchpad Updater checking for updates.
I prefer a config option to disable that "checking for updates".
I know how to kill it; I killed it and nothing happened. CPF is still
running ( you need another program to watch the running processes, but
a
tester should know how to do that ;-) ). Again, there is no CPF tray
icon so
you couldn't see or know that your PC is most likely still protected by
a
firewall.
Why must Launchpad be a running program? I couldn't find Launchpad by
my
startup programs, so it costs more time and other programs than to
remove a
startup-program from the default starting up programs.
You know: the less programs are running, the more stable your system
could
and should be.
Two positive conclusion :
- CPF seems CPU friendly
- the OS check seems to work.
I need to test it with more software to see if there are no items
installed or left, but the first impresssion is okee,
no garbage left.
Comodo
have CPF v2 launched publicly.
Melih
Comodo
Comodo
toodeloo
you have a lot of good points and Melih has got a lot of input to think
about.
> 4) In this particular instance, Comodo representatives have been talking
> about upcoming freeware. They're talking about it in alt.comp.freeware.
their product isn't freeware; it's free to use.
> They've gotten feedback and ideas. They've raised awareness about
> their product line and company. They've generated anticipation (at
> least in this chair). Sounds on-topic.
if all the stuff was freeware it's is on-topic.
But this newsgroup isn't a platform to discuss software problems.
We are in a twilight zone. Willing to help beyond the scope of this
newsgroup and to get a new ( the best?? ) firewall for the W98SE platform
was something I couldn't resist. The CPF specs are XP+SP2; that's not what
we hoped for.
> p.s. Thinking about those pre-rel programs reminds me of our recent
> experience with Dean & his free blackjack offer. I'd always have to
> beg, threaten & cajole to get engineering cycles on that extraneous
> stuff like "doc." Some things never change <grin>.
yes, I know. Making extended documentation isn't my strongest point.
I'm paid to solve problems, not to document them ;-).
First we had internal documentation, but then things went wrong.
For one line code-changing you had to document one week.
But you must familiair with all the 1000 and 1 other excuses.
Craig
>
> their product isn't freeware; it's free to use.
OK, I'll bite. Why isn't the upcoming CPF v2.0 considered freeware?
> ...Willing to help beyond the scope of this newsgroup and to get a
> new ( the best?? ) firewall for the W98SE platform was something I
> couldn't resist.
I probably missed something but, did Comodo say they were developing for
win98? Considering MS will no longer support nor provide *security
patches* for win98 past this July, I'd be hesitant to build a product
for it.
> The CPF specs are XP+SP2; that's not what we hoped for.
My impression is the specs were the same as for CPF 1.x:
> * Windows 2000/Windows XP SP2 * Internet Explorer Version 5.1 or
> above * 32 MB available RAM * 15 MB of available free hard disk space
> I'm paid to solve problems, not to document them ;-).
Reading this is giving me deja-vu. <grin>
Toodeloo,
Thx for the response. If you don't mind me asking:
- Are you planning to stick w/Win98SE beyond MS' end-of-life? and
- Do you have a migration plan?
Reason I ask is that I'm mightily trying to veer from Win2k to Linux (or
BSD or Solaris) /before/ MS drops support next year sometime.
-Craig
John Fitzsimons
>Guys.... good news :-) all being well on Tuesday 28th March we will
>have CPF v2 launched publicly.
Better news would be "......for win 98 systems" and "...with a non
expiring licence."
Regards, John.