Well, then I may have to investigate my blood-line once more... My fuse is short!!

-

- is now the time to tell that I just love Ireland and the Irish? I do! 

I am using Comodo for a while it seems great

I like Online Armour also but with the free version every time there is an update you have to manually uninstall the old version before installing the new one and reconfigure it. They did this purposely to get you to buy it. While the price isn't bad and worth it, it still rubs me the wrong way so I'll stay with Comodo

I like comodo as well, but had various problems with it. Slowdowns, mostly -- but maybe has the software improved. See :

Oh! that explains much. Because Comodo with defense+ DID slow down my internet connection + 6s freeze with farr and Gridmove (both slowdowns related to INI files see this thread : http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=11871.msg96875#msg96875, and this post http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=11871.msg97613#msg97613 — NOD32 had a part to play, but was easily fixed, Comodo with Defense+ had the biggest part when t came to farr’s freezes). That'S the main reason why I finally decided to drop Comodo entirely, especially after reading that Comodo without Defense+ isn't worth much... See that post in this thread : http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=6059.msg98810#msg98810 .

Dunno about Comodo - this zine (scroll down to part 7, Comodo) doesn't inspire that much confidence... I have a friend who works with security (protecting, not blackhatting) who finds these kinds of articles amusing, and URLs me every now and then

A new version of Online Armor was launched today: 2.1.0.85

You can get the "pro" version with a $15 rebate, using dicount code OAFEB

- and yet another new version, also with a discount-giving code to be used soon:

Use the promo code OAMAY anytime in the next 15 days and you can get $15 off any Online Armor product (except renewals).

https://www.tallemu.com/buy_now.html

Too  late!

What is this? Some kind of virus, spreading via the web? Actually I think I understand it, because some weeks ago I said it myself: this a fine firewall. So, you're welcome!

another one that popped up this morning that I hadn't seen before

<a href="http://www.goldtach.com/index.htm">; GoldTach</a> claims to be a very small, very lightweight firewall.  2 versions (free + $)

a quick google doesn't bring up anything other than download locations, so nothing about it's performance or capabilities...

You can find the results of a very good firewall challenge at the following link:

That set of tests and the results posted are misleading.  What matousec was testing there is if the firewall program prevents termination of its processes using various methods of shutting them down.  Yes, it's important to make sure your firewall program is always running, but some would argue that its not the job of the firewall program to do that.  In my opinion, the firewalls that have branched out into HIPS functions like process termination protection can be more trouble than they are worth as they have to dig themselves so deep into the OS to provide those functions.

C

I am not all a fan of Matousec, because I don't fully trust his methods to be as relevant, as he would like us to think, but I don't think his affiliate deals are a problem, on this matter. One is a magazine, hakin9, and the other is the Anti Rootkit site. How can such affiliates be a problem?

Yes, it's important to make sure your firewall program is always running, but some would argue that its not the job of the firewall program to do that.

Any security system that can be terminated without authorization is no security system at all. I really don't see how anyone can seriously advance the argument that it's not the responsibility of a security product to protect itself. That would be like having the police tell you they'll protect you, but only if the criminals say it's OK, otherwise they're leaving.

In my opinion, the firewalls that have branched out into HIPS functions like process termination protection can be more trouble than they are worth as they have to dig themselves so deep into the OS to provide those functions.

Very true. But heuristic-based subsystems do have their place in a security plan. Part of the problem is that they're attempting to protect an operating system that is fundamentally insecure. HIPS may be yet another case of "putting lipstick on the pig," but until somebody in Redmond decides to audit and (potentially) rewrite something like 50+ million lines of source code, I'd like to have all options available.

That set of tests and the results posted are misleading.

I am not all a fan of Matousec, because I don't fully trust his methods to be as relevant, as he would like us to think, but I don't think his affiliate deals are a problem, on this matter. One is a magazine, hakin9, and the other is the Anti Rootkit site. How can such affiliates be a problem?

I think both of you have brought up a very valuable point. 

It is always a good idea to treat any product comparison as "food for thought" rather than revealed truth. In short, take them for what they're worth - somebody's opinion.

Any "shootout" or "challenge" is based on a set of criteria. And there are as many opinions about how to test things as there are people to do the testing. There are a good number of firewall comparison tests up on the web - many legitimate, others less so. You should try to read and understand as many as possible rather than accept any one at face value. Some testing bias will always be inevitable. Legitimate studies go to great lengths to keep it to a minimum.

I don't believe the Matousec report is unduly biased to favor their affiliate's products. Relative rankings aside, their top choices pretty much reflect industry consensus. So they're not alone in their opinion. Nor do I believe they're guilty of a seriously flawed testing methodology. Even experts will disagree on how best to evaluate firewall technology.

I do think Matousec deserves some credit for being very up front about their test methodology and criteria. That's one of the reasons why someone can have an intelligent basis for disagreeing with their conclusions!

(Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Matousec or any other security product or service. However, if Samuel Adams, Fender, or Ampeg would be interested in talking to me, I'm available!)

Quote from: PhilB66 on July 25, 2008, 12:01 PM

No, I said affiliate deals with some of the software vendors.
(see attachment in previous post)

I never knew!

---

Did we learn elsewhere that Eset (NOD32) Security Suite is one of the best?
- matousec doesn't seem to think so:
(see attachment in previous post) (see attachment in previous post)

- or is "Smart Security" perhaps something else I have forgotten about?

Edited for spelling

Hey Curt.

You lost me here. Where are you going with this?