|
Re: Free security s/w products from Comodo Group:
de Comodo 06/06/2006 10:10
Huss wrote:
> In message <1149553340.915935.177530@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Comodo <melih@COMODOGROUP.COM> writes
> >
> >Huss wrote:
> >> In message <447ce858$0$96952$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Melinda Meahan -
> >> take out TRASH to send <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> writes
> >> >Craig wrote:
> >> >> Understood. I passed on Comodo stuff for other reasons as well. My
> >> >>earlier response was just to straighten the record before this became
> >> >>y.a. urban legend.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >So what firewall do you recommend if one has bad experiences with zone
> >> >alarm, Kerio, Outpost, Sygate, and TinyPersonalFirewall? I recently
> >> >finally got around to changing from Outpost because it kept crashing,
> >> >and had already made my way through the others and found them
> >> >unsatisfactory. I tried a number of freeware ones I found and Comodo
> >> >was the first one that I found that I liked, that worked with what I
> >> >needed it to work with, and that I felt I could use.
> >>
> >> Since this is a matter of security, surely the only firewall worth
> >> having is one that is subject to continuous development? I am not yet
> >> able to trust a freeware firewall. Contrary to beliefs held by most
> >> windows users, it's not enough to install and forget, as exploits are
> >> continuously being generated:
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=firewall+exploit
> >>
> >> Remarks about, e.g., faults & exploits on freeware Outpost are now
> >> dated; sure it used to crash, and sure you could kill it off, but that
> >> is a very old piece of software, V 1x, and V 4x comes out inside a
> >> month.
> >>
> >> None of the earlier firewalls can cope with the newest more serious
> >> threats, and freeware firewalls seem mostly to be older products and
> >> thus now undeveloped/not meeting new challenges.
> >>
> >> I can't comment on the Comodo offering, and perhaps Melih will; how does
> >> the Comodo firewall check outgoing applications to see if they have been
> >> altered (e.g., code injection)? Does it use MD5 checking, or does it use
> >> the more secure hash algorithm (SHA) 256 verification routine?
> >>
> >> The buried question here is will it stop a root kit? If it can/will,
> >> then I believe that it is the first freeware firewall to do so, and I'll
> >> try it.
> >> --
> >> Huss
> >
> >Huss
> >
> >Indeed security is the most important factor!
> >
> >CPF passes more leaktests than any other firewal afaik. But pls go
> >ahead and try it yourself and test it using the leak tests. you will
> >see that its a very powerful firewall. This is not a trialware or
> >crippleware, its a full powerful firewall. Did you read the PcMag
> >article about it?
>
> I did, but what about MD5 vs SHA 256 verification? I've not been able to
> confirm what it uses.
>
> >thanks
> >Melih
> >
>
> --
> Huss
>
> They come together like the Coroner's Inquest, to sit upon the murdered
> reputations of the week.
>
> William Congreve
we use the SHA1 algorithm for verification.
thanks
Melih