A Secure Browser

[Photon]

I guess Opera didn't offer Mrizos any money.

PC Tools paid Matousec to test their firewall, so Matousec put it up against outdated brands of fw's so it would be on top.

Most recently Comodo paid Matousec to again test their fw and put it in a line up against outdated fw's so Comodo is now on top.

You can read about this in Wilders forums.  It was also mentioned in OA's forum, someone wanted to know why Matousec didn't do the tests with the latest version of OA.

I've been using Comodo's firewall for about 3yrs now. Highly satisfied with it. About a year or so ago I was the target of a directed denial of service attack, Comodo kept me safe. When I used to use Zone Alarm Pro, that same type of attack left the firewall hosed. Locked not only the firewall but Windows itself. Damn near had to reformat to cure the problem.

Comodo passes ShieldsUp with flying colors.

[rdmaloyjr]

Photon,

This thread is about browsers, not about firewalls.

I was using Matousec to make a point about Mrizos's possible motive for bashing Opera.

[normishmael]

I really like the new Opera 10,it is dead fast,no question.
That is a bigger issue to me than security,because ignorant as I may be,
I thank all of the major browsers are as secure/insecure as their fellows.
It is also lighter on RAM than Firefox 3.5.3 on my machine.
I also like the default windows skin for Opera,rather than the default Opera 10 Skin.
The only problem is even with Turbo turned off,images still look fuzzy to me.

So I will stick with Firefox.

[normishmael]

I guess Opera didn't offer Mrizos any money.

PC Tools paid Matousec to test their firewall, so Matousec put it up against outdated brands of fw's so it would be on top.

Most recently Comodo paid Matousec to again test their fw and put it in a line up against outdated fw's so Comodo is now on top.

You can read about this in Wilders forums.  It was also mentioned in OA's forum, someone wanted to know why Matousec didn't do the tests with the latest version of OA.

Thank You. It needed said.

[Dch48]

I guess Opera didn't offer Mrizos any money.

PC Tools paid Matousec to test their firewall, so Matousec put it up against outdated brands of fw's so it would be on top.

Most recently Comodo paid Matousec to again test their fw and put it in a line up against outdated fw's so Comodo is now on top.

You can read about this in Wilders forums.  It was also mentioned in OA's forum, someone wanted to know why Matousec didn't do the tests with the latest version of OA.

I don't believe a word of that.

[normishmael]

not rising to the bait,drone.

[Dch48]

not rising to the bait,drone.

I'm not a drone, they have it wrong. Comodo REQUESTED that Matousec test the newest version of their product instead of an older one that they used in their last tests. In that previous test, the newest version,3.12, was not used even though it was available. That seems like a reasonable request to me. Once again I am  reminded why I never go to the Wilders Forums.

[normishmael]

Everything you said,Amen
Comodo 110%!!

When I request extra pepperoni on my pizza I normally have to pay.
that Old Matousec boy,is really accommodating!!

About Widers? I agree. ate up with Comodo fanboys.

[Hermite15]

guys why not take a break and leave those flame wars between forums for what they are, not that important after all. What matters is the software and what it does once you got it up and running on your system. I couldn't give a s**t 'bout what Matousec or Wilders or what's his name tells in his reviews (although I admit newbies are vulnerable to the readings), I only care about the performance, and as far as I'm concerned and from what I've experienced for a couple of years now, both CIS (without the AV) and Avast are top notch products. The rest is just the rest, useless gossips and drivel

[normishmael]

OK, Logos,lets take it from  there.
Only the performance of the software count.

Lets say there was a cure for cancer,or Lupus,or Ms,or aids.

The only problem was that cure was developed from
medical experiments in a Bosnian concentration camp?


Is it ethical to use it?
Is it fact immoral to use it?
Further, let us say one dollar in ten made on the cure goes to the administration of the concentration camp.

This is the same with Comodo,certs to malware domains,and Kissy-Kissy with Ask!,a highly suspect search engine,and still the heart and soul of Hop-Surf.

You are from the land of Sartre and Camus.
Tell me,is it?

[Hermite15]

I understand your statement about ethics...and I myself have difficulties accepting to continue using CIS I admit it and I say it...but until I find a suitable replacement (which is exactly what I've been looking for a few days now...)...I'll have no major problem using it. After all I've spent enough time there beta testing CFP (as well as cpf   )...they owe me that...just kidding, that's not related...I'll just keep using it until I find an equivalent, that's not very moral but I don't care.

[Dch48]

There is nothing immoral or unethical about anything Comodo has done. All of the certificate issuers have issued certs to malware domains without knowing it. Comodo has been the fastest at revoking them when it is found out. There also is nothing wrong with offering the Ask toolbar, or anything powered by Ask. The big brouhaha about Ask has been shown to be nonsense and greatly exaggerated. When you query people why Ask is so bad, you can never get a coherent explanation. Ask is no worse than Google, who have their toolbar, and other things, offered up in many software installation packages.

[Hermite15]

look for me it's not that: in one of my first posts on their forums about three years ago, when asked about how we felt about their web site main page, I answered "I don't like web pages that look like Christmas Trees, I stay away from them...". Same goes today with "Comodo TV" etc...it all sounds so fishy...all those speeches about Internet security etc...I just can't stand that...again that's cheap stuff; another world when compared to the standards of CIS, but still reflected with "hopsurf" suggested at setup time...it's hard to be oneself a honest person and trust Comodo at the same time...it's not even hard, it's impossible 

[Dch48]

I don't find it hard or impossible, I trust them as much as any other software provider. That means not 100%, but as long as I have no problems, all is well. I certainly don't think there are any malicious intentions there at all. I trust Comodo more than I do Google for one example. I was talked into trying Gmail a while back. (I use another free web based email called GMX which I think is as good or better and never has outages). Almost immediately after creating my Gmail account and email, my Gmx inbox was inundated with advertising spam. I had given the Gmx address as the alternative one while creating the Gmail account. I never get spam mail as a rule and it has taken me about a month of asking to be removed from those spammers lists and now things are back to normal. I regret ever going to Gmail. And since I know people will suggest it, no, I do not believe it was a coincidence. I'm convinced Google was the culprit.

[bob3160]

I thought this thread was a discussion about "secure browsers" not Comodo