Comparing Kerio v2.x Logs / Rules To Comodo Firewall

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by WSFMem, Jul 6, 2008.

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

    WSFMem Registered Member

    Jul 6, 2008
    I'm testing Comodo Firewall Pro now, and as a long-time user of Kerio v2.x, it's a difficult transition having to deal with the logic (?) of Application Rules, Global Rules (and or WOS rules). It's especially inconvenient not being informed of specifically which rule is triggering a response and not being able to see the actual rules at a glance in the rules editor. I may or may not get used to it.

    However, the real point of this post is translation of Kerio rules into Comodo rules. It seems that some traffic being monitored and reported by Kerio is not the same as the traffic reported by Comodo, and as such, the rules required are different on the same PC.

    For example, when repairing the network (right-click network tray icon -> repair) in Win XP Pro, Kerio reports the following (and I have appropriate rules):

    - In UDP;>localhost:67; Owner: no owner

    - In UDP;>localhost:68; Owner: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\SVCHOST.EXE

    - Out UDP; localhost:68->; Owner: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\SVCHOST.EXE

    However, Comodo only reports this (and requires only one rule):


    Why the difference? Specifically, why no gateway ( traffic being reported nor any rules required by Comodo?

  2. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Oct 22, 2006

    I would say that, since the 192.xx.... address is your local machine's network, Comodo is simply omitting that. Probably buried in the FAQs or Help section.

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.