How is Comodo 3.x (beta) doing? Still buggy?

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by SamSpade, Oct 26, 2007.

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

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415
    I very much like Comodo 3's concept. It incorporates the things I would like in a "firewall/HIPs". But when I tested it recently it was still buggy, hung my system, etc., so is it ironing out these conflicts any better today??

    Thanks.

    Sam



    |||
     
  2. Joliet Jake

    Joliet Jake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    911
    Location:
    Scotland
    Still bugs there to be ironed out. I'm waiting until it's done before trying it.
     
  3. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415
    What's taking them so longo_O?


    :cautious:


    |||
     
  4. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    When version 2 came out it was very buggy, and may have been released in haste. I think they are just trying to prevent making the same mistake. Version 3 has been a work-in-progress for a very long time thougho_O Hope they haven't bitten off more than they can chew...
     
  5. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415

    Yes, I'm impressed that a company (Comodo) would go to the trouble of creating many good security apps, then give them away for free. God bless 'em!! Hope they can make money in other ways to off-set their in-house expenses of making these apps.

    Now that I know more about firewalls, HIPs, and other security functions, I think the idea of a combined FW/HIPs is OK -- seems to be the trend, to integrate several functions into one suite-type app -- but as always the quality of the finished product is what I am after. I don't want a "pretty good" suite; I want a bullet-proof FW and an equally bullet-proof HIPs; same for AV and anti-spy, of course. If this can be done by a suite, more power to 'em. If not, then just an excellent, superior firewall would be fine with me. I'll go get my HIPs somewhere else. (Am currently trialing ProSecurity, and like it fine.)


    |||
     
  6. Searinox

    Searinox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    21
    Define "recent". Comodo released a new beta 3.0.10 just yesterday. Any of you checked it? It gave me no problems.
     
  7. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415

    I had the previous release. But I just realized what my problem was: Spy Sweeper. SS does not play well with other security apps, and especially with HIPs, which Comodo 3.xx FW has.

    So it most likely had very little to do with the Comodo 3.xx release I was using. My bad.

    |||
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  8. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Comodo actually put an inacompatibility list inside its install directory.

    Seems to be only spyware applications. They must react weirdly to the kernel protection?

    Code:
    [prd1]
    Name= Spyware Doctor
    Description=Incompatible with Comodo Firewall Pro
    KeyCount=1
    k1=HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\PCTools\Spyware Doctor
    
    
    [prd2]
    Name= Spy Catcher
    Description=Incompatible with Comodo Firewall Pro
    KeyCount=1
    k1=HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Tenebril\SpyCatcher
    
    
    [prd3]
    Name= Spy Blocker
    Description=Incompatible with Comodo Firewall Pro
    KeyCount=1
    k1=HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\SpyBlocker
     
  9. SamSpade

    SamSpade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Posts:
    415
    If this is Comodo 3 (beta) you're talking about, yes, the HIPs function would almost surely conflict with the "behavior blockers" in most anti-spyware apps; surely this is true of Spy Sweeper which is the most restrictive and heavy-handed of behavior-blockers I have ever seen. It's blocking action would not be a problem IF they gave sufficient warning/explanation what is doing, a la most stand-alone HIPs (SSM, EQSecure, Pro Security come to mind). But Spy Sweeper has a very strong behavior blocking function that is very low level (driver) and it does not give way to anything. |||
     
  10. Searinox

    Searinox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    21
    Vista32: SAV Corporate 10.2 + Comodo Firewall 3.0.10.238 BETA

    No conflicts.

    I believe I've found the perfect and permanent security software combination until the day Vista goes out of service. :)
     
  11. gud4u

    gud4u Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Posts:
    206
    Comodo Firewall 3.0.10.238 BETA is performing very well on my system.

    In addition to the incompatible resident agents listed above, Boclean users also complain.

    I have no other resident agents except NOD32, and it seems perfectly compatible. Not a peep about resident NOD32.

    I installed with Network Defense in 'Train with Safe Mode' and Defense+ in 'Clean PC Mode'. For a combined firewall+HIPS product, it's amazingly quiet. The previous Beta 3 version was much more intrusive, and I replaced with Comodo 2.4 until installing this beta.

    There a still a few problems and omissions, all disclosed in the Comod Forums, but for my purposes I can live nicely with this beta until the final version arrives.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.