COMODO Internet Security 5.3.174622.1216 Released!

Thanks for the update

Killswitch and CCE has been updated a couple of times, still beta, I guess that the final release is close.

 

Hi

Comodo has just release a new Version of CIS

Whats New in 5.3.175888.1227 ?

FIXED! CIS causes unnecessary DNS queries and update checks
FIXED! AV does not properly validate the revocation status of the SOME certificates
FIXED! AV scanning freezes if rootkit scanning is enabled
FIXED! FW shows too many listening connections
FIXED! AV scanning crashes on some compressed files

What's New in 5.3.176757.1236?

FIXED! CMC message is persistently shown although users close the dialog

https://forums.comodo.com/news-anno...eleased-updated-to-531767571236-t67084.0.html

 

considering going back to Comodo FW since managing application rules in Avasts FW is an unorganized mess, worst firewall rules interface ive seen to date, how is the new version of Comodo FW?

 

Here's a couple of screens or you.I find rules creation/tweaking a breeze with CPF,but everyone's taste is different.

 

thx for the screenshots, Comodo offers a lot more granularity than id ever use but its rules are clearly laid out, organized and easy to maintain/cleanup, thats what im looking for, Avasts FW fails hard in that area, so ill give Comodo's a shot

 

Comodo bug, hole or ...is it my fault

I have some https pages set on "ask" in the firewall, and experience problems with new COMODO v5.3. When I start browser (Firefox/Opera) with https page set in firewall for "ask" I'm prompted to allow to load page... I'll click 'yes' then all others https pages set on "ask" are loaded automatically not asking for permission anymore!!! When I click 'no' then all secure pages set on "ask" are blocked and restart browser is needed.

I have met this problem with some earlier versions of COMODO but version 5.0 worked perfect, at least for me.
Exactly error is caused by "cfp.exe" v5.3, I know that because I did a lot of checking... if I copy "cfp.exe" version 5.3 into COMODO folder with installed version 5.0 the same problem has occuring, I did more testing and I'm absolutely sure that "cfp.exe" v5.3 is in some ways faulty!

Any help or advice? Maybe someone try to check it by yourself. Thanks.

Regards


Ps. Sorry for my English, it's my third language...

 

some screenshots enclosed....

 

@slovak could you please explain more about what are you doing, i mean how to create a global rule specifically for browser. i like to test in my pc too, dude can you tell little bit more on how you set it, thanks in advance for posting the answer for my question

 

In Firewall/Network Security Policy/ Aplication Rules make folowing rules on any browser (Opera, Firefox, IE), I did that on Opera:





...next post, please

 

next steps...




Now enter first site:
you should be asked for permission

https://moj.multibank.pl

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


enter second site:
again pop up asking for permission should appear, if not it means that in Comodo v5.3x is bug/hole.. I'm sure that bug is in "cfp.exe"

https://online.eurobank.pl/bi/bezpieczenstwo_logowanie.ebk

 

Is the AV engine still poor?

 

CIS is the best suite in my opinion, you can find better free av's that works well together with Comodo, you can always choose not to install the AV.

The good thing is that if you choose not to install the AV you still get the cloud behaviour blocker and the cloud AV.

A good combo that works without problems is Avast and Comodo Internet Security (without AV component).

I'm running Comodo AV in CIS anyway I consider more than the enough and a faster solution than install another AV.

 

man this is really good i will try and say it works for me or not later anyway thanks for the tutorial. step by step that is.

 

pretty much.

 

Do you know about any recent comparative?

 

how can i, Comodo refuses to be a part of any legitimate ones and still goes on touting how good they are. im talking out of what ive seen/experienced so far myself, and im sure most can agree with my conclusion.

 

Do you have any example? or you invented that one?

 

its already been discussed on these forums numerous times, typically resulting in closed threads so ill let u do the forum searches.

 

Ok, now is clear that you invented that Comodo refuses to be tested, nice try.

 

I tried Comodo and I was never fascinated about the AV part but hell its good AIO suite you get so many features for free

 

indeed..with all the features provided and the robust D+ its really hard to get infected if you have comodo installed

 

Any testing I have done, Comodo AV has done as good as the best AV engines I've tested it against and in some cases even better. So I think this statement is out of left field personally.

 

Yes, hard, but not impossible. During testing last night I tested some samples against CIS and nothing got through the AV/D+/Sandbox other than a piece of malware that was able to change and cause issues with the Internet Security Zone which in turned caused issues with Active X controls loading upon reboot, namely those loaded through Sidebar.exe.

Emisoft Anti-Malware was the product I was testing. It achieved the exact same results.

MBAM was able to fix the invalid security zone issue, but I have to wonder how that got through. You would think the sandbox in CIS would have at least not allowed the unknown piece of software to not change the registry key.

I have to look into this further. Perhaps the "partially limited" default setting of programs running in the sandbox is what caused the issue.

Edit: Although, just reading now, that default setting should not have allowed that program to write that registry key: Partially Limited (Default) - The application is allowed to access all the Operating system files and resources like clipboard. Modification of protected files/registry keys is not allowed. Privileged operations like loading drivers or debugging other applications are also not allowed.

 

it doesnt look like ur new to these forums, so im sure uve seen plenty of threads talking about how Comodo never gets itself tested and Melih's "excuses" about methedology. the proof is right in front of us, do u see Comodo in any legitimate AV tests? cuz i sure dont...

 

I guess you believe in all these tests to assess a given product. Inorder to take part in these test a vendor requires to register its name which also requires all the $$$. IMO I feel better to invest money on building a good product then waste money in these tests. And one thing I am not against these tests infact I do like to read the indepth test results but its just what I feel.