Prevx and KeePass question

I thought I would try one of the password managers. After looking at some of the features, I decided to try KeePass and noticed some suspicious interaction with SafeOnline.

I run LUA and SRP with surun, and while setting up KeePass (but after the install), two things happened which cause me some concern.

1. When saving the initial password database, it tried to run surun, which to me says it was asking to elevate its own privs. I denied and it seemed to save ok.

2. This one is more relevent to this section of the forum. I tried to use a password I had added via URL so KeePass should redirect my browser to the particular URL I added with that entry. When I did this my HIPS popped up saying that KeePass was trying to control Prevx. I denied this also.

So is there any point in continuing this exercise, or should I just remove it and stop here? Is there a good reason why I should see this suspicious behavior from KeePass?

FYI: I'm using Prevx SafeOnline, facebook version, and the HIPS is Comodo Defence+ v 3.14 (or something).

I started a thread at wilders here but maybe it is better in this section of the forums. I did see some threads here about Prevx and KeePass, so I assume the Prevx people are somewhat familiar with it and might have some comments?

 

Unfortunately I'm personally not too familiar with KeePass outside of some high-level testing. I suspect one of the other members here or in the other thread would have a better response, but I'm interested in anything you discover!

 

I have no issues with Keepass and Prevx SOL here. My HIPS shows nothing suspicious. I would be inclined to think that Comodo is giving you a bad alert, although you don't explain exactly what the alert is, just that KeePass is trying to 'control' Prevx. That could mean several things. You're also using a very old version of Comodo.

 

Keepass Password Safe is an open source software. Very difficulty it would be acting in a malicious way, in my opinion.
Anyone is free to study the source code.

Most likely, Defense+ doing what it always did best.

 

Thanks for your responses. I know there is probably nothing to worry about, but the behaviour was uncommon and unexpected. If I find out anything else interesting, I'll post again.