Hi.
I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
Do you agree with my opinions?
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Herhor wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
>> lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
>> new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
>> vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
>> I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
>>
>> Do you agree with my opinions?
>
> No. For multiple reason:
>
> - Who would be so stupid to install and run such obvious nonsense like a
> "personal firewall"? You even wasted reading a lot about this crap without
> even considering that it's nonsense.
>
> - A good solution to what? Fucking up your computer and making it more
> insecure? No, don't even dare to claim security!
>
> - Who rated it high? And for which reasons?
>
> - There is no improvement. There are changes, usually towards adding more
> crap.
>
> - It is no firewall. Due to the implementation, it's obviously possible to
> build a firewall with that thing.
>
> - It doesn't have any non-negligible potential. Where should it come from?
Nice one Herhor - hook, line and sinker!
Jim Ford
Herhor
>Hi.
>
>I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
>lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
>new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
>vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
>I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
>
>Do you agree with my opinions?
Yes
I got rid of Zone Alarm recently in favour of Comodo
It is free, simple to use and effective
GO FOR IT and ignore any crazy replies you might already have got!!!
Peter
Posting from Peter Rogers
Replace NOSPAM with ntlworld to reply
Peter Rogers napisa³(a):
> Herhor
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
>> lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
>> new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
>> vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
>> I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
>>
>> Do you agree with my opinions?
>
> Yes
>
> I got rid of Zone Alarm recently in favour of Comodo
>
> It is free, simple to use and effective
>
> GO FOR IT and ignore any crazy replies you might already have got!!!
>
> Peter
>
> Posting from Peter Rogers
>
> Replace NOSPAM with ntlworld to reply
Thanks for advice, buddy! I have already decided to plonk all knowitall
gurus. :)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Herhor wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
>> lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
>> new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
>> vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
>> I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
>>
>> Do you agree with my opinions?
>
> No. For multiple reason:
>
> - Who would be so stupid to install and run such obvious nonsense like a
> "personal firewall"? You even wasted reading a lot about this crap without
> even considering that it's nonsense.
>
> - A good solution to what? Fucking up your computer and making it more
> insecure? No, don't even dare to claim security!
>
> - Who rated it high? And for which reasons?
>
> - There is no improvement. There are changes, usually towards adding more
> crap.
>
> - It is no firewall. Due to the implementation, it's obviously possible to
> build a firewall with that thing.
>
> - It doesn't have any non-negligible potential. Where should it come from?
One would have thought that you'd become less of an asshole, with time.
One would have been very wrong.
--
Notan
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>> One would have thought that you'd become less of an asshole, with time.
>> One would have been very wrong.
>
> Indeed. Less that none or almost none is hardly achievable.
>
> Or did you actually intend to criticize the above-mentioned technical
> facts?
>
> Well, judging from the other replies, it seems like the OP just wanted to
> hear what he'd like to hear. But why then did he ask in first place?
Every time someone says something you disagree with, you're condescending.
I doubt you're like that in real life. If you were, I'm sure you would
have been shot by now, or at least had your nose broken. Maybe you have.
So why the attitude on Usenet?
--
Notan
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
I've tried Comodo several times, but personally I don't like it. My gripes
are as follows:
1) It assumes hard approval or denial of each new rule. There doesn't
appear to be a way to establish a rule based on port, protocol etc. when
the first popup occurs. But instead, you have to fiddle with denying an
application first and tailoring the method of access later.
2) It builds a database of applications, which are considered trustworthy
but then doesn't list the ruleset internally to modify.
3) It's buggy, if you change a specific rule several times it sometimes
forgets to display the results of the change or combines them with a
similar rule of the same application incorrectly.
Your mileage my vary, but when I look for a firewall I look for the ability
to lock an application specifically to what I think it should have access
to. Comodo is to much like Zone Alarm or in other words a firewall for the
masses (not flexible for the power user). Personally I think Kerio 2.15 is
the best firewall out there, and yes it doesn't handle leak tests but then
again no firewall is perfect.
Good Luck,
FM
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Herhor
> I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
> lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
> new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
> vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
> I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
> Do you agree with my opinions?
It's very obvious that this is a fake posting with a fake question done
by the marketing people of Commodo to advertize here in Usenet.
You're a f*cking Spammer!
People, please don't buy Commodo until they stop spamming Usenet.
Thank you,
VB.
--
"Pornography is an abstract phenomenon. It cannot exist without a medium
to propagate it, and it has very little (if anything at all) to do with sex."
Tina Lorenz
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Herhor
> NO! I am new firewall user without much experience in that area who
> looks at good and free program of that kind.
Ridiculous.
VB.
--
"Pornography is an abstract phenomenon. It cannot exist without a medium
to propagate it, and it has very little (if anything at all) to do with sex."
Tina Lorenz
Volker Birk napisa³(a):
> Herhor
>> I have been trying to choose new personal firewall. Well, I have read a
>> lot of tests, comparisons and rankings in that area. It seems to me that
>> new Comodo Pro firewall is a good solution. It is high-rated now and its
>> vendor promise to improve Comodo continuously in the future. That is why
>> I think this firewall has a huge potential and it is freeware as well!
>> Do you agree with my opinions?
>
> It's very obvious that this is a fake posting with a fake question done
> by the marketing people of Commodo to advertize here in Usenet.
>
> You're a f*cking Spammer!
>
> People, please don't buy Commodo until they stop spamming Usenet.
>
> Thank you,
> VB.
Mr. VB in his riotously post above stated I am some Comodo's shill and
spamer???
Scat into my KF, bozo! Mr. SG is waiting for you there!
NO! I am new firewall user without much experience in that area who
looks at good and free program of that kind. Of course, my present point
of view is based on self-made searchings. If I am not right any
constructive help is welcome. I am not stand pat on Comodo! Maybe
another personal free firewall is better: Jetico, Kerio, Ashampo or
maybe all personal firewalls are piece of crap? I don't know and that is
why I subscribed this newsgroup.
Cheers!
Sebastian Gottschalk
> Then why can't you even differ a firewall from a host-based packet filter?
Maybe your definition of "Firewall" differs. Fighting for definitions
now?
Yours,
VB.
--
"Pornography is an abstract phenomenon. It cannot exist without a medium
to propagate it, and it has very little (if anything at all) to do with sex."
Tina Lorenz
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
B. Nice wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:17:17 -0500, Leythos
>
>> In article
>> b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:34:48 -0500, Leythos
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:12:23 -0500, Leythos
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:03:01 -0500, Leythos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>> * taking a break from political correctness *
>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between being PC and being polite.
>>>>>>> Are you saying that one can't be PC and polite at the same time?
>>>>>> No, I'm saying that being polite and being PC are not the same. PC is a
>>>>>> left leaning thing that often abandons truth, being polite doesn't mean
>>>>>> hiding from truth, even if it hurts.
>>>>> And I am saying that PC is gaining terrain.
>>>> And I'm saying that being PC is much like telling lies, talking false
>>>> things, and saying things that may not be the truth - which, sadly, is
>>>> gaining ground in the world.
>>> That's just an opinion. Being PC does not by definition imply lying or
>>> talking false things.
>> No, but you "CAN" be PC and lie, directly, because being PC means that
>> you have to appear nice, even when it's not the truth.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Being Nice is not the same, I can be nice while telling someone that
>> they are going to die, that their wife has been cheating on them, that
>> they have bad breath.... If I was being PC I would just say "see you
>> later" to the person about to die, or I would say "No, I've not seen
>> your wife in ages" or I would say "I have to be going" to the person
>> with bad breath....
>
> Erhmm, no... that does not describe being PC.
My own two pen'orth is that the term 'politicaly correct' is grammatical
nonsense cooked up by 'spin doctors'. As nonsense, it can be used for
whatever purpose the user considers appropriate - so you're all right!
Jim Ford