Is finding Comodo 5.10 really that hard?

5.12 good enough......is it x64 by chance?

Thanks

 

See here

 

Yes im using it.Im on a 64 bit computer.

 

The 5.12 link declares file does not exist.

 

How about here ?

 

Thanks atomomega

Looks like zippy went off w/o hitch. I don't mean to divert or hijack from this Topic's author on his legitimate search for version 5.10. It seems anymore a common practice to yank off air old versions of programs that been laying on servers scattered about anyway for years. Sometimes as I always allude to, newer doesn't always equate to better by any stretch.

Regards EASTER

 

Hey EASTER, I'll post the link in the other thread that talks specifcally about 5.12

 

What does loopback mean what other firewalls stop loopback?

 

Read this.
http://www.justanotherhacker.com/2011/08/incercepting-http-traffic-to-localhost-in-windows.html

 

Loopback varies depending on the application, but normally it is utilized for a good reason. It may not "break" the application noticeably if you block it, but may hinder it in some fashion you're oblivious to. I posted such an example in this very forum when I created a "Web Browser" rule for Comodo FW's predefined policies. In Firefox's case at least, Loopback is a welcome thing. As long as the traffic is kept on the local/LAN side, and not WAN, I would just allow it.

And I can't duplicate what the person says regarding Wireshark anyway. They must have their router and/or FW configured improperly. You aint penetrating my defenses that easily though.

 

Also it appears people are, after all having trouble locating the installers for 5.10, and they're dropping like flies. Give me some time here and I'll get them posted at some file sharing site. I'll let everyone in here know, and when I do PM me and I'll pass along the link, so it doesn't get too much attention and get shut down. Be careful who you give it to... I want it to stay up and help real people, not fall into the hands of corporate swine trying to make everyone stay on the latest build.

They will be the installers for v5.10 ONLY... as I don't have the ones for 5.12. For both the FW/D+ only, and full CIS versions. 32-bit only too. And downloaded right from Comodo's site and scanned by VT Hash Check, but feel free to scan it yourself. They'll be in zip format.

And I'll try to get some other cool apps up there too.

Give me a few days here...

 

I have them if needed ,but the problem is that they let DNS request pass at start up ,5.10 and 5.12.
To bad you don t take the time to test this firewall for real and see to whom your PC is talking while using it on a PC.

 

There must be a problem in the way you've configured yours, because my firewall isn't talking to anybody... unless netstat and various other methods are lying to me.

 

One page back you can read how i ve tested.It s not rocket science to place a linux PC with wireshark installed and watch the PC you are using Comodo.

Start Wireshark watch the connections ,start ,restart PC and so on see what happens in correlation to your network rules of the firewall..

My opinion based of what i ve seen is that this firewall allows DNS calls for apps that ask such at PC start up ,even though you have strong rules .It also calls Comodo DNS which should not happen by my rules as the only DNS servers allowed in my config were 2 of the ISP.

I would use Online Armor Free over Comodo any day.

That is why they are taking them out of any download site most probable.The left over it lets in the temp folder also called home after the uninstall.

 

Again, there must be a problem with the way you have it configured. None of that is happening on my box. If you place it in Custom Policy mode I don't see how it can do anything that isn't implicitly allowed in your rules. I've yet to see it happen. If it was allowing that traffic, odds are you had rules allowing it you were probably oblivious to.

Nothing on my PC tries to connect outbound to DNS during startup. Seems to me that's shady behavior coming from something else on the box, and Comodo is merely drawing your attention to it. I use Comodo DNS servers, but it only uses them as allowed via my custom rules.

I've yet to see it happen for myself, so I can only go by what I observe for myself just like you.

 

I know what i ve seen ,i think i may have the rule set used somewhere in the PC saved
There was a Custom Policy ,there were extremely tight rules for svchost .exe there were all kinds of useless protocols blocked and so on.
Nothing could pass thru that thing in my opinion ,but the linux machine showed me stuff .Everything was locked to the bones in the app rule and what was not specified by me was blocked.
As i don t like what i ve seen i have removed it.

The Comodo DNS is also something i didn t want ,but it still did it s works.
As it does not show up in logs i would say it s a "gift".

If you like it used it ,but don t be surprised if something happens.

 

Luciddream, I need to ask you something: Why don't you use Comodo 5.12 instead of 5.10 version, what are the reasons?
5.12 is the last 5.0 version before Comodo 6 came out.

 

There is no real difference between 5.10 and 5.12.
5.12 was more for compatibility with windows 8 and to fix an issue with the avast webshield.
i did use avast and i can confirm the issue was fixed with 5.12.

 

This question will probably be somewhat off-topic, but I think it's still related. What are the advantages of using 5.10/5.12 instead of 6.x? Is it simply a matter of liking the old interface, not needing the new virtualization features, etc? Or are there some other more serious advantages to 5?

 

For me its pure usability.The navigation in version 5 is far more superior to v6 in my honest opinion.
The layout in v5 is far more accessable and generally easier to use.
I use sandboxie so the added virtualization in v6 is simply not needed.
Version 6 is a fantastic program but has stuff i dont need.

 

Exactly what Amiga said... I didn't need it. It addressed compatibility issues with Win8. It wasn't even pushed to the automatic updates of the program, you had to go to the website to download it, at least initially. So that shows how unimportant it was to most users.

And to answer the other question, v6 has extra fluff I just don't need. No real marked improvements to the modules I do use. And v5 has a much more intuitive interface IMO. Easier to navigate and use. And it is slightly lighter, though there's not much of a difference there, v6 is very light too, especially considering everything that's under the hood.

And nice setup Amiga! Pretty much identical to what I used to use too. Avira was my favorite AV of all time... just so light & simple, does what an AV should do without extra fluff. And that's why it's so compatible and doesn't conflict with stuff like other AV's do. But after using SBIE for awhile I felt like a real-time AV was just a dead weight, and extra attack surface I didn't need. I'm actually more secure without one, lighter, and my box is even quieter. HD works less hard too which can only be good for it.

 

Thank you.
I was running avast with 5.12 but there were bluescreens at boot up.I removed avast and the BSODS disappeared.

Avira has been very much lighter than avast and the computers fans are a little quieter too as to when avast was installed.

I absolutely agree with you on all your observations on avira and it works flawlessly with comodo.

Kind regards.

 

Well I have extremely tight svchost rules too... it's blocked outright. I also have both cmdagent & cpf blocked from internet access. I don't know what they're supposed to do, and only know it's not necessary, so I block it.

I know also when you set the stealth ports wizard to stealth all ports it adds some app & global rules in there, which some people are oblivious to. Like allowing all outbound and some "System" rules. I delete them as well. So maybe those things were causing the activity you mention and you didn't realize it? I think that's bad practice on their part to add that stuff there without making you aware of it.

I modify my predefined rules for Web Browser & Outbound Only and make them as tight as possible. The default ones are a bit loose for my taste. And I add block rules (for IP, TCP/UDP, and IMCP) to the bottom of ALL my app rules after the allow rules. There's just no way DNS could leak for any of my apps, in addition to having svchost blocked outright.

Then in global rules I have IP blocked In, TCP/UDP blocked In, and ICMP blocked In & Out. Then TCP/UDP blocked Out for many ports I know no good can come of my machine connecting to on another one.

Custom Policy, Very High Alerts, and all Advanced settings checked.

Set it up this way and you won't have your DNS leaking. Again, there must be something you're oblivious to that was causing that to happen. Or maybe cmdagent and/or cpf were causing it? Or maybe you chose to use Comodo Secure DNS when you were installing the app, then chose different DNS servers in your network settings, and it was confused. I only know that I've set things up the way I have it on several boxes and have never seen the type of activity you mention. But if you do, then of course go with something else. We can all only go with what works for us. And believe me I test any app thoroughly before it becomes a part of my setup. I'm flat out OCD about it in fact. If something gives me a reason to distrust it, it's gone. I axed a PDF reader that's very popular in here because it was doing shady looking things during an update. I'm always watching what the things on my box do, very closely. You're not talking to some grey rookie here...

 

Out of nothing more than curiosity because I don't use Comodo, how are you testing that your setup is not leaking? Are you using another system on the network like Sm3K3R did? That sounds to me like the best way to test, so I'm curious as to why you keep disputing his results. Setting up the world's tightest rule policy won't stop a broken application from leaking and I don't see anything presented to counter his testing method.

 

I don't see anything presented from him either... it's just hearsay. And if there was any substance to it you'd see a ton of people in here bringing it up, don't you think? What makes you inclined to take his word for it over the scores of other Wilders members that use it and mention no such problems?... many which are even (far) more thorough than I am in testing these products. Almost guaranteed he doesn't have something configured properly.

I've done exactly as he's suggested to test it myself. Plus I'm paranoid, and always thinking I'm being backdoored or something. So I set up a machine between my router/modem and my wall to check for any leaks periodically. There never are any... but I still think they're out to get me.

Or maybe he's using a post XP OS, in which case it's flat out impossible to stop your box from leaking and still having it function. Since he specifically mentioned svchost and all... That's something you just have to live with on these new OS's though. And why I have no desire to "upgrade".