Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0 (Final) Released Today

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Adric, Nov 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Howard

    Howard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Posts:
    313
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    I am one of many people - as can be seen in the Comodo support forum (when it is accessible :eek: check out the thread "v3 and BOClean ") - who had the misfortune to assume that Comodo Firewall 3.0 would be compatible with Comodo BOClean :rolleyes:

    In reality, with default settings during installation, the firewall simply fired off pop up after pop after pop up after pop up ... in relation to BOClean, demonstrated a complete inability to learn (this led me to think that perhaps I had inadvertently installed the first of a new type of security software, idiotware) and amazingly regarded BOClean as some strange, unrecognized - and unrecognizable - potentially dangerous interloper; my machines were dysfunctional in this condition. Faced with a choice between disabling various functions on the firewall (without really knowing what the implications of doing so would mean for my security and far too irritated to wade through the help file), uninstalling BOClean (which has been keeping a reliable eye on me for several years) or uninstalling the firewall, I chose the last option. Needless to say, the firewall failed to uninstall properly and clean up after itself, so the XP security centre continues to register the presence of the firewall even though it has supposedly been removed. As the thread in the Comodo forum demonstrates, my lousy experience of this firewall with Comodo BOClean - this is by no means the only problem - is not unusual and is shared by several others.

    Frankly, any confidence I had in Comodo has been shattered by this experience: if they cannot get the relationship with their own software right, then what confidence can I have in anything this software is supposed to do - the answer is ZERO, so not only have uninstalled this new firewall but I have removed the previous version as well.

    Not alphaware, not betaware, but awfulware.
     
  2. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415
    Well, that's a matter of opinion: how much is "overkill"?? That would depend on your personal comfort level with the security you have in place. Comodo makes them both now, so they should play together well. BOClean uses about 7 to 12 RAM and will kick in regularly to check files that are being accessed or executed, so a fair amount of cpu time is being used when that happens; but it is usually a quick burst then gone. I haven't used Comodo 3 yet, so I cannot comment on how much of resources it uses. I've gathered that it is very tight and comprehensive on analyzing the files you access, so it may be enough to use w/out BOC.

    Why don't you try them singly, then together, and make up your own mind.

    Sam

    |||
     
  3. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    my CPU usage is usually at a max CPU usage of 2 or 3% and Comodo 3 takes up about 3k-8k of RAM usually in the lower area
     
  4. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Hi, this is a reply to all of those with constant popups for any security program. You must set that program as trusted so it is allowed to do whatever it wants. This setting does not diminish any security, comodo will still alert you if another program is trying to access it. At first i was annoyed as to why comodo kept asking to allow everytime i downloaded a file from opera. I then thought about the "Trusted application" predefined rule and used it.....my problems disappeared. I think most problems could be gone if comodo put in some sort of quick start guide for those who hate help files :D.
     
  5. ultragunnerdcl

    ultragunnerdcl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Posts:
    103
    Location:
    Philippines
    I using it with kaspersky now & it works great.
     
  6. gud4u

    gud4u Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Posts:
    206
    I'm another Comodo V3 user that struggled with trying to make BOClean compatible with Defense+ HIPS. I managed to get a barely-workable workaround - if I were willing to kill Defense+ while I updated BOClean. I gave up on BOClean with V3.

    There is supposed to be (per Comodo Forum) some effort toward creating a 'Comodo Suite' combining Firewall/HIPS/AV/AS functions - while still offering separate stand-alone component versions. From that effort, I would expect that a V3-compatible BOClean may appear.

    I'm really too ignorant to know whether the Defense+ offers protection equal to BOClean. I just feel comfortable with multi-layered defense and would have 'felt better' if Boclean were compatible with Comodo V3 HIPS.
     
  7. Vettetech

    Vettetech Former Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    BoClean is a waste with the new Comodo. Disable balloon tips if you dont wanna be bothered.
     
  8. Howard

    Howard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Posts:
    313
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    I'm afraid it is not as simple as that - as several posters in the thread relating to BOClean in the Comodo forum have noted http://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/v3_and_boclean-t15376.0.html
    The fact is the firewall seemed incapable of responding logically to anything and I was not inclined to accommodate its apparent idiocy by removing a tried and trusted security application.
     
  9. JamesFrance

    JamesFrance Guest

    I had a huge list of files for revue also. There is a purge option which will remove all the entries which do not need to be reviewed, as the files are no longer present.
     
  10. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    Comodo takes long time to fully load compared to other firewall but it doesn't slow down the loading of the programs. These is the time (Not very scientific - only one run) for boot up and open Opera browser in my computer:

    Kerio 2.1.5 - 1:49
    Windows FW - 1:38
    Comodo 3 - 1:50
     
  11. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,161
    Hi,

    Comodo's icon seems to appear the last onto system tray area, ZA has a similar situation too.

    Just wonder whether its protection function has been initiated the moment window boots up or has to wait until icon shows up ?

    Take care.
     
  12. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Protection is on but gui is not yet.
     
  13. pilotbiffster

    pilotbiffster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Posts:
    16
    I've used Comodo 2.4 for quite a while and been very happy with it. I have tried the upgrade for the last two days. I've always like Comodo's minimal system overhead, but I just can't believe that the new version isn't slowing things down a little bit. Maybe that's a price you have to pay for the added protection. Just "how risky" is it to run Version 3 with Defense Plus turned off? Any opinions?

    pb.
     
  14. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    I am confused. You said it isn't slowing things down and its a bad thing?
    It is pretty risky. Most new viruses use other programs to access the internet.
     
  15. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    Despite what the manual says Comodo doesn't seem to check the checksum of the executables.
    I replaced in safe mode the Opera executable with another program (a small autoit program written by me) that access internet. After rebooting in normal mode I executed 'Opera' (actually the other program) and Comodo allowed the program to execute and access internet without any prompt o_O o_O :thumbd: . (Image Execution was set to Normal)

    Can anyone else repeat the experiment (leaktest.exe is not suitable as triggers a heuristic alert) and report the findings?
     
  16. ChicknDip

    ChicknDip Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Posts:
    59
    You've set opera.exe as trusty, right ?

    Ain't that a great thing, using Comodumb 3 you either give it all freedom to do whatever it wants OR you have to answer a few thousand popups.

    Be clever, dump that marketed hype and get yourself a GOOD hips. ;)
     
  17. Dwarden

    Dwarden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Posts:
    176
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    wow i wonder what Comodo staff says on this ... o_O
     
  18. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    No. Opera is allowed TCP Out 80/443 UPD Out 53 and no special permissions in defense+. Firewall is in custom mode and defense+ in paranoid mode.
    I removed the 'executable' group from my protected files but that didn't prevent comodo from asking about modification when I tried to rename the opera executable. Anyway even disabling monitoring of protected files shouldn't cause the problem as the 'Image Execution Control' is the responsable of checking the checksum.

    I will test again with the executable group in my protected files.
     
  19. DickDiver

    DickDiver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    51
    Please do so and inform us.
     
  20. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    I tested again with "executables" group in "my protected files" and this time "image execution control" set to aggressive. Result: several prompts when running other programs but none when executing the program that replaced Opera!

    I if make the change in normal mode rather than safe (the execution is always done in normal mode), I get several prompts when renaming (manually) the EXEs but none informing about a change in the checksum or anything else when the "new" program runs!

    It can be a problem with my computer. That's why I'm asking somebody else to repeat the test.

    EDIT: I found this: https://forums.comodo.com/cfp_beta_...d_executables-t12362.0.html;msg95782#msg95782
    It's about 3.0.0.229 Beta

    However if that is true in current version then contradicts the documentation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2007
  21. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    I don't know if this is pertinent, but i tried renaming TCPView as "Mozilla Firefox", and i got a prompt for "Mozilla Firefox" accessing DNS. I had a rule for TCPView already. I have D+ disabled, only firewall.

    Is this the same?
     
  22. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    I placed TCPView in Firefox's folder, renamed it "firefox", used ff's shortcut, then opened Spybot to update (tcpview will look up the ip address) and had no prompts (i had deleted tcpview's rule before). The icon for firefox in the application rules was changed to TCPView's....

    I'm now uninstalling it, i don't understand this behavior.

    I hope this is clarified, or fixed. Either way v3 is on hold for me. :doubt:
     
  23. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    ChicknDip. It is your every right to not like this product. But please refrain from these less then civil types of remarks. Move on or go to the comodo forums and make requests about the product.

    Thanks,

    Pete
     
  24. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    According to my test and that thread (I edited my previous post) in the comodo beta forum CFP3 doesn't check the hash but relies on the file monitoring to detect/prevent unauthorized modification. That isn't a problem by itself but the help file says the Image Execution Control checks the hash, so either it's a overlooked bug or the documentation is incorrect. Both cases may lead the user to made wrong decisions like disabling or ignoring the file monitoring.

    Anyway as both Image Execution Control and file monitoring are part of defense+, running CFP3 with it fully disabled (but I'm not sure if deactivating it disables it completely) can be actually worse in leaktest performance than e.g. Kerio 2.1.5
     
  25. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    It still doesn't make sense imo if that's the case.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.