CPF or the Comodo Personal Firewall

[Comodo]

oh ok, thanks for the clarification John.

cheers
Melih

BTW: interesting site you have there;-)

 

[Comodo]

oh ok, thanks for the clarification John.

cheers
Melih

BTW: interesting site you have there;-)

 

[meow2222]

Comodo wrote:

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]

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

 

[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 "(e-mail address removed)"
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]

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.

 

[meow2222]

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

 

[meow2222]

Just to add another note, people change computers mediumly often, so a
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]

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

 

[toodeloo]

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]

Toodeloo

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

 

[meow2222]

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]

Melih

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]

Toodeloo

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" <[email protected]>
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]

Guys.... good news all being well on Tuesday 28th March we will
have CPF v2 launched publicly.

Melih
Comodo

 

[Comodo]

Guys.... good news all being well on Tuesday 28th March we will
have CPF v2 launched publicly.

Melih
Comodo

 

[toodeloo]

Craig

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

 

[David]

toodeloo wrote: [...]

Thx for the response. If you don't mind me asking:

- Are you planning to stick w/Win98SE beyond MS' end-of-life? and
Yes

- Do you have a migration plan?

Linux.