Comodo Firewall Pro Vs. Online Armor Vs. ZoneAlarm Free

***Please don't vote unless you've used at least two of the products listed, and therefore have a valid comparative opinion to offer.


I'm using XP, and I've been using ZoneAlarm Free since it was first released. I don't remember for sure, but I guess that's around ten years. That's a long time to stick with a software program. I have never had a single problem with it in all these years. For much of that time ZoneAlarm was the best and for the most part only game in town for a free firewall product, but now things have changed. ZoneAlarm has never failed me, and it's easy to understand and use, but I see that other free products are offering better protection, so I'm considering a switch.

So I'm looking for effectiveness, ease of use, and the least resource usage that I can get. If you've used two or more of these products, which one of these products would you recommend for me? Should I just stay with the tried and true ZoneAlarm, or should I move on to one of the others?

Please share your knowledge and experience with these products.

How do they compare in effectiveness, ease of use, resource usage, and tech support, including user community?

 

I am using Comodo currently.. as i kicked out Norton from my comp.. my comp is a happy kid now

Comodo is highly customizable. & displays all the info.

 

Co-sign. I like Comodo's features alot better then Zone Alarm's. I don' even think ZA has that many features. I could be wrong since the last time I used it was back in September.

 

From what I've heard ZoneAlarm Free is now really poor compared to other free firewalls.

 

I've tried Comodo and ZoneAlarm. OnlineArmor did not have a Vista version at the time, and I never went back to look for an update.

Comodo Free was quite unsatisfactory in my experience.
ZoneAlarm Free was too lightweight for my needs.

I did not end up with any of these.

 

I've used ZoneAlarm for years before I switched to Comodo about a year ago. I like that it automatically knows about most programs and assigns access rights automatically, something that ZA Free still doesn't do. I also think that it uninstalls a bit more cleanly than ZA.

 

What did you not like about Comodo's firewall?

 

Here's the Read

 

I've used all three for XP. I don't like ZA's interface that much, it doesn't automatically recognize most of my programs, increases start-up, and doesn't protect as well as OA or Comodo. I'm not sure if it also uses up more resources. I'd have to check, but I'm too lazy right now. I switched from Comodo to OA during the 3.0 over-active Defense+ stage. Apparently, going off of some posts here, Comodo's recent updates fix the problems. However, OA is a great firewall that I don't really have any problems with. Despite the changes to Comodo, I see no reason to go back. Why would I want to switch when I already have a light-weight firewall with a great interface that offers the best protection for XP? So until OA comes out for Vista it will be OA for XP and Comodo for Vista.

Lastly, user support for OA is excellent as is Comodo. I like OA's support forum better if I had to choose.

 

Comodo will tell you that you're sneezing if you set it sensitive enough, or it'll just watch over you silently as you browse the net if you don't want pop-ups every other second. It's very easy to use, all you have to do is install it. It's ready to go out of the box. It barely uses up much resources, much less than zonealarm if i remember. I haven't used the tech support as you don't need to, but I'm sure they're friendly. Also never had to turn to the community.

 

Its highly customizable.. thats what i like about it.

 

About what?

 

He said he uses Comodo, so I assume that's what he's talking about.

 

Alright, have you chosen yet scoober?

 

I for one didn't like Comodo when the Vista version first came out because it changed my file permissions, which really caused some headaches. Have they changed that?

 

I've never had said problem so i guess they did. Wouldn't it be easier to do a system restore checkpoint and install it to see if you like it now?

 

I may very well do that. I see Online Armor is readying a Vista version.

 

The latest Comodo is great out of the box. Much, much better than the problems AKAJohnDoe and I had with the 1st release. Their forums are great.

 

I might try that out when it comes out.

Yes i do agree. When i installed an update, it had turned on Defense+ but because they improved it a lot to stop asking so many questions i didn't notice it for a while until i opened comodo and saw the Defense+ status as "Active".

 

I remember...I was part of that thread, same problems here. Since I'm a Webroot Spysweeper user anyway, I'm using Webroot Desktop Firewall as it's free _now_. I like it.

EDIT: Webroot worked well, but I found out it was using mucho memory...like 114 megs at one point from 11 megs....smacks of memory leak....I'm using Comodo Pro now

 

Guys, should i turn on Defense+ in Comodo, if i'm using also ThreaFire?
As i understand it is the latest version of free Comodo, right?
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/download_firewall.html

The one thing i don't like in it - they update it too much.

 

Here you go. Also, it's not really recommended to have both running, you can run either one you want but running both is kind of overkill.

 

OK, after testing all three I've came to the conclusion that I don't like Online Armor at all, it feels more like a beta program than a finished product, and it left many ports open, failing port scans. Comodo Firewall Pro is best for the tech savvy user, and offers the best protection of the three. ZoneAlarm Free is best for the average less technical user, and does a good job of protecting the system, and provides full stealth without any additional configuration necessary.

So the bottom line is that I would recommend Comodo Firewall Pro for the more tech savvy and power user, and ZoneAlarm Free for everyone else.

 

Whatever the latest version was a couple of days ago.

 

Now i feel content that it was through my coaxing that he started using Comodo Firewall Pro.

 

I did try Jetico awhile ago, but it left ports open too, and was a real pain to configure. You had to make custom rules just for normal use; a real pain, but I've heard it's good for an expert user.

To me ZA and CFP are the best of the bunch, and for the reasons I previously stated. They are both well polished and thought out products, ZA being the more intuitive.

 

I am using comodo firewall because it doesnt lagged up my pc unlike zone alarm that it takes up my memory .

 

WARNING LONG POST

The only thing OA fails at is ping, however this is what OA says about ping: "A ping is not a leak. OA does not (default settings) stop pings. If it were using a TCP connection, or resolving an IP address (which would use DNS) then it would be stopped."

GRC Shields up! Results for OA version 2.1.0.95.Free:

File Sharing:
Your Internet port 139 does not appear to exist!
One or more ports on this system are operating in FULL STEALTH MODE! Standard Internet behavior requires port connection attempts to be answered with a success or refusal response. Therefore, only an attempt to connect to a nonexistent computer results in no response of either kind. But YOUR computer has DELIBERATELY CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND (that's very cool!) which represents advanced computer and port stealthing capabilities. A machine configured in this fashion is well hardened to Internet NetBIOS attack and intrusion.

Unable to connect with NetBIOS to your computer.
All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.) Relative to vulnerabilities from Windows networking, this computer appears to be VERY SECURE since it is NOT exposing ANY of its internal NetBIOS networking protocol over the Internet.

Common Ports:

All of them have stealth under status and for security implications: There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer) exists at this IP address!

All Service Ports:

Solicited TCP Packets: PASSED — No TCP packets were received from your system as a direct result of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed below — they are all either fully stealthed or blocked by your ISP. However . . .

Unsolicited Packets: PASSED — No Internet packets of any sort were received from your system as a side-effect of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed above. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system remained wisely silent. (Except for the fact that not all of its ports are completely stealthed as shown below.)

Ping Reply: RECEIVED (FAILED) — Your system REPLIED to our Ping (ICMP Echo) requests, making it visible on the Internet. Most personal firewalls can be configured to block, drop, and ignore such ping requests in order to better hide systems from hackers. This is highly recommended since "Ping" is among the oldest and most common methods used to locate systems prior to further exploitation

Messenger Spam:

None received

I have not made any changes to the firewall beyond hiding the boot splash window, not having it notify me when programs are auto-trusted, and I don't send info to OA about the programs I use. In other words, these are basically default settings for OA. I'll test another port scanning program if you want, but I believe Shields up! is the one most commonly used.

 

As far as which firewall is best, the answer is that whichever one you can use the best/are the most comfortable with is fine, as long as the choices you are looking at are technically proficient. With that said, of these three choices, ZoneAlarm Free is the weakest. In terms of basic functionality and effectiveness, Comodo (CFP) and Online Armor (OA) are both comparable to any paid products in both technical accuracy as well as common comparatives such as leak testing. ZoneAlarm Free in considerably weaker than the paid version, and so is not really worth comparing against these other choices.

(Long Post)

As far as whether CPF or OA, you must first distinguish what a firewall is supposed to do. If all a firewall must do is filter internet traffic and allow/block stuff as configured, than either product, as well as other contenders such as the free version of Jetico, are fine. If you feel that more HIPS functionality and protection against leak-tests is desirable than CPF with its Defense+ is probably preferable, with OA tested only as an alternate. Firewalls nowadays are being asked to incorporate functions previously not considered the firewall's duty, and modern security is becoming increasingly based around HIPS as well as more all-one-security solutions rather than standalone products.

As far as testing, both OA and CPF past most, if not all current leak tests. Properly configured, both will also past port-scan based tests as well, and any failure to do so is mainly an indication of misconfiguration rather than weaknesses in the product. Neither leak-testing or port-scanning are considered fully credible means of testing defenses by any means, abd for good products are used best as a way to verify that everything is working properly, not as a tool to say that one is better than another. CPF is considered the standard firewall choice for various reasons, but it is important not to simply eliminate the other contenders without giving a fair chance.

Personally, CPF's business plan and support for their firewall doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I have seen significant testing, development and consistent support from the OA forums. OA is in essence a continuous beta test, with each new version correcting previous bugs or adding new features, usually at a cost of introducing new bugs. The last to current official versions were released because the customers of paid OA wanted to have an official release rather than numerous beta releases, so it is possible that any current user using the latest version is finding bugs that normally would have been reserved for beta testing. If you use it and don't like it, that is a justified opinion, but before criticising thorough effort should be at least attempted on your part, otherwise criticism is somewhat unfair.

 

So, which one is better ( CFP or OA ) for one who don't want a system hog by a firewall and at the other hand a good protection. ?

 

CFP installs pre-configured to operate your system stealth, OA does not. CFP is the more polished product, and much more user friendly IMO.

 

Those were default firewall settings that I tested with except for the things I mentioned which are cosmetic. I don't consider hiding the boot splash window, not having it notify me when programs are auto-trusted, or not sending info to OA about the programs I use as a substantive change to the firewalls settings. It seems we had drastically different experiences for some reason, despite using OA's default settings. Perhaps its a program you have? I don't know. However, we both have firewalls that work for us, so it's all good.

I say test both, that's what I did. Neither is tough to uninstall if you don't like it. Both were highly rated by Matousec. Comodo got an excellent and OA got an excellent 100%, I believe they test with default settings. Site was laggy so I couldn't check. OA is only for XP. I say OA for XP and Comodo for Vista.

 

seems Comodo is more suitable for me. So should i remove ThreatFire if i'm going to use Comodo with def.+ Off ? Calvin said that Comodo+ThreatFire is overkill, but earlier Calvin also said that combo of ThreatFire+ Comodo with def.+ Off is ok, and is the good one.

 

Either way is fine, some people like TF more than D+ but they're basically the same thing so it doesn't matter either way. I used to say that when D+ was acting up but now D+ is very refined.

 

My testing was done on a clean install of XP with no other third party applications involved. Comodo produces the better overall product IMO.

 

I suggest just using CFP with Defence+. It's an alll in one solution that works great and doesn't require you to use and manage an additional third party program. Just be patient and make the right choices while it's learning. You'll have to let it know about new trusted programs, which ones are installer/updaters, and other permissions, but it's no big deal, and it's really easy to do. If it catches an installation taking place, it will ask you if you want to switch to installer mode, which you should. After about 5 minutes it will pop up and ask you if you want to switch back to the previous (normal) mode. If you want to you can open the program interface, and in the bottom right hand corner of the "Summary" screen you can switch back to the previous mode without waiting for the pop up to give you the option to switch back. You can also manually switch to Installation/Updater mode there before doing an install.

 

Calvin, scooberdoober, thanks for your comments, I didn't know that Def.+ has improved, this is great news.

 

Yes, it's gotten a lot better than since i started testing it out.

 

Worth uninstalling OA and going back? I couldn't stand D+, but that wasn't the only problem I was having. I was most frustrated with Comodo not recognizing or remembering trusted programs. This was about four to six months ago. OA, on the other hand, tosses me popups exactly when I expect them, which tells me it's working correctly.

 

I have not experienced any problems at all with CFP. You just need to make the right choice per event, it's not hard or anything.

 

Yes, very worth it.

 

If you were to add an "Other" to your poll ...

 

That would be off topic and defeat the purpose of this thread.

 

... or perhaps add a bit of validity to the statistics.

 

This is a thread about Comodo Firewall Pro Vs. Online Armor Vs. ZoneAlarm Free, not others, just Comodo Firewall Pro Vs. Online Armor Vs. ZoneAlarm Free. That would defeat the purpose of the thread and give some free space for it to go off-topic.

 

OK. Your poll. I vote "other".

 

You're lucky. I made the "right choice per event" dozens of times and I still got popups repeatedly. (This included after I disabled D+ which was completely broken in my version.) As I say, this has never happened with Online Armor. YMMV.

 

As has been posted, the current version of CFP has been much improved, and I have not had a single problem with it. If you're interested, you should try the new version, it's worked great for me.

 

Can I vote negative on Comodo?

 

If you troll this thread again, I'll get a mod. Please do not make any more off topic or trolling posts in this thread.

No need to respond, as it would just be another off topic post.