Comodo Firewall-now available for Vista

Has anyone had major issues with Comodo Firewall (downloaded from link on pg1) as Comodo has told me that Comodo for Vista is still in BETA (testing stage) & that it would be officially realeased in Dec. this year. They also said it still had alot of bugs that could enormous damage to PC ?!

Mave

 

Read the first 8 pages of this thread. Very detailed explanation of the problems others have been experiencing.

 

And just where did Comodo tell you this?

 

To me this version of comodo is behaving like it is beta software and not a final release product. Perhaps they released it as "final" so that they could gauge users responses to it and identify bugs quickly.

I too am curious maverick where did you read that info about it causing damage to your computer?

 

11 pages of posts - lots of issues - i agreed with few posters here that it sounded scary with this comodo v3 beta. But going on into the 4th day of usage, i have not seen anything that even coming close to the ones u gals/guys have here (knock on wood). This is on both xp and vista.

Only remark i have was that when i reset the router, a new ip address has been assigned and comodo flagged that there is a new network. Either one has to give a new name for comodo database or one just close the promt (i did the later).

at the moment it is running smooth with no prompts (it has "learned" all my apps), so unless a new app/driver is being added or removed or changed, it is tres quiet for me at the moment. So i am crossing my fingers

one of the friends also mentioned that if one has avast, it is best to get avast (fully) updated first (programme, iAvs) before installing this comodo version

cheers ...

 

Just to make sure I absolutely hate the defense+ implementation but the firewall is still one of the best around. I actually re-installed v3 on XP but made sure I disabled defense+ during installation(select basic firewall) and so far so good. No problems other than regular firewall prompts. Plus if you have a clean system and select the 'Training with safe mode' policy then you wont even have to deal with the firewall prompts and it will only prompt for apps not in the safe list and unknown applications.

 

This has been my experience as well. I have been getting nervous thinking I'd better go home and uninstall before it won't boot up???
I am using Vista.

 

What do you mean by a clean system?

 

Basically means your system should be clean of any preexisting Trojan, virus, spy ware/ad ware infections.

 

Ah, OK. I'm tempted to try it again without Defender+, but I think I'm going to wait about a month or two so they have time to fix the bugs happening to some of us.

I think I'm fine, at home, without it, just using the Windows firewall behind a router but, I'd like something better for using on the road at public hotspots.

 

What about Online Armor? Anyone know anything about it?
See results from another thread.
Not good for Vista though

http://www.matousec.com/projects/wi...k-tests-results.php#interpretation-of-results

Download here---> http://www.tallemu.com/online_armor_free.html

 

Since I don't have Vista I should try it. For some unknown reason, I may just wait until Comodo irons out the bugs. Stubborn, I guess.

 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Fool me a third time, shame on us both, was it not?

 

LOL... here's a guy with the same problems we had. I'm surprised it works for anyone.. At one time I thought it may have have been a conflict with NOD32 v3 (I almost positive that's why I failed the leaktest) but now I'm not so sure.

http://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/upgrade_to_v3_disastrous-t15540.0.html

 

On the subject of Firewalls, I downloaded and installed Agnitum's Outpost firewall pro for Vista to-day.It received a 100 rating on leak tests from Matouzek. It lasted exactly 1/2 hour on my laptop: internet slow-down was unacceptable even though I allowed most of my apps in "settimgs". I am slowly getting to believe that MSFT got it right with Windows Firewall. It may not be bullet-proof but is unobtrusive and with the help of a decent AV, anti-malware AND Spybot, it seems to do its job quietly. Isn't that the point?

 

Been using online armor for a few days now and so far it's great. There are very few pops and it doesn't use many resources. I think it actually uses slightly fewer resources than Comodo 2.4, but I don't really remember what Comodo's values were. The only problem with it is that it slows down the internet ONLY when I have firefox and utorrent up at the same time. Even then, there are times when I have both up and it doesn't affect my net speed at all. Nevertheless, this is a known problem and they are coming out with an update soon. At least that's what the online armor representative said on their forum. He was even giving out the beta version of the update to people to try out. So, a solid firewall that's easy to use, plus what seems like some good support, I'm in.

 

No, a firewall is supposed to control in and outbound traffic. Their firewall is merely closing a once wide open door.

 

I Thought it sounded good but no Vista support. Anybody on their forum say
Vista support is in the near future???

 

tebore, maybe...but teach me: administrative tools/Windows Firewall Advanced Security/Inbound rules/outbound rules...
What is that all about? These are where I have allowed or disallowed apps. So is this worthless?

 

How's it going with the ones that installed Comodo FP?

I may have narrowed down the problem I had by reading the Comodo forums. It appears when I opened Paint.NET and the FW asked permission, I selected isolated app or another similar option, rather than just allowing or selecting trusted app. Anyone here remember if they used that option without problems?

I'm still very reluctant to re-install, preferring they iron out the bugs 1st, but it would be nice to narrow down the possible cause for the crash.

 

still running strong and (very) smooth! the ability to chose between installer/update and training is great. cmdagent averaging less than 8k in memory process.

cheers ...

 

Ah but it's not turned on by default. Their implementation is the problem. To set all the outbound rules by hand would take a while and a normal user won't do it. If they made it have the occasional pop up it would be better.

And not UAC overboard.

 

And so the issue is not cability per se but ease of use? So that if one were to set inbound rules such as to rule out all but those specifically allowed, it would do the job?
And yes UAC out!

 

And outbound.

But in a way yes once all possible rules are set it should be an ok firewall. But still lacks some important application monitoring. I think Comodo 2.4 had it about right with out going overboard. I like that 3.0 has D+ but it's a tad overboard and too restrictive without being bug free.

 

I am still waiting to try comodo again myself but in the mean time I tried out PCtools firewall plus (free firewall). WOW that was a rubbish firewall, it also couldn't past the GRC leaktest which IMO is the most basic test a firewall should pass. The thing is even though I set leaktest.exe to be blocked from connecting to the internet (using the firewall settings) it just walked straight through the firewall like it wasn't even there . After I saw that I removed it and put back on vista firewall control, which I will continue to use till comodo sorts out some of the bugs.

 

I didn't pass the leaktest with the Comodo FP but think I've figured out the problem. NOD32 now uses a proxy and everything runs through it including leaktest. I need to adjust the proxy settings.

I also think I've narrowed down why Comodo itself crashed my system. Upon opening Paint.NET it asked to allow or deny, but I used the drop down menu and selected isolated program. From what I understand the bug is in using any other option except allow, deny or trusted application can cause havoc. This "bug" has been well documented on the Comodo forum. Hopefully the next update will alleviate some of these problems.

 

PC Tools Firewall Plus V2 worked; V3 (current), well, ....

 

Ok, I'm getting it, I think: set inbound and outbound rules as needed and it should be fine. What I don't seem to get is the need to monitor applications if rules have already been set. Defender, Spybot and I am sure a few other free anti-malware apps protect the system from having anything modify it without a warning. If that's the case, pray tell where is the flaw in the Vista Firewall (no irony meant) that another, more intrusive and needing constant user input, will fill? I for one can do without constant and needless pop-ups, reason why UAC has been banned from my laptop

 

This is one of the best and easiest to use firewalls I've ever used.

 

Because I strongly doubt you'll be able to think up all the rules needed for that "firewall" to be affective. My system is clean and has the typical anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall running. Even with just this, my firewall set-up well over 100 rules for everything on my computer. Let's say worst case scenario, you have to actually click a pop-up for all those programs. Would you rather click one pop-up saying allow/block or create rules for each of those programs. Also, if a rule isn't set Windows will give that program free access. So you'll need some prediction powers there. So let's see, create over 100 rules+predicting how something will affect your computer versus clicking some pop-ups for one day while your firewall learns your programs. For online armor I think I only had to actually click a pop-up balloon about 10-15 times, it knew most of my programs. A good firewall will NOT be intrusive or need constant input. It took one day with only a few pop-ups and my firewall hasn't bugged me since. Then if I install anything new (or my computer gets infected or whatever) that needs access, it will ask once and be done. There's a good reason why Windows "firewall" fails every firewall test: no one wants to create those rules by hand and no one can predict how your firewall will be attacked. If you use Windows "firewall," don't run it thinking you are actual protected.

 

Excellent answer. Makes sense. rep!

 

Well put. The answer I was thinking of but couldn't type.

 

I'm not a coder here, but any attacks that are made to take place at boot up will hose you anyway, right? The point is windows firewall is _probably_ good enough. Comments on this welcome. thanks

 

Nope you're completely off. If that was the case then they're be no way to stop virus's and trojans.

By Default the Windows Firewall loads at the very first boot up locking down the system. Comodo protect's it's own reg key and various other operating system files. It does this by setting permissions.

 

That's how my permissions got screwed up....lol...thanks (I'm not going into it)

 

hmmm. I think it might be a good idea to make a thread asking about the benefits of a firewall or about windows firewall specifically. There would probably be more responses and this thread is supposed to be about Comodo. I'm sure others also wonder about windows firewall.

 

Yep Jin07...it's a hot item on security forums. That's why I didn't go into it here.

 

Thanks, tebore and Jin. I learned; re-installed Comodo but this time in "basic" only. Install went fine and pop-ups ended in about 15 mins. So far no annoying pop-ups and I can do stuff without having to stop and allow or deny. Security level is "train with safe mode" and defense is "Clean PC mode".

 

What's basic only if you have defense+? If you happen to approve a app in anything other option than allow and trusted, let us know if you have any problems.

 

What's basic? During install I ticked off "basic", chose the train with safe mode and the defense as Clean PC. I have approved apps as browser, installer, trusted, even disallowed WMP. IT's been a day and no problems so far. I installed the update for SeaMonkey and received the proper warnings, used Skype, ditto. Seems OK.

 

Basic disables D+.

It can easily be re-enabled through the options tho.

 

If he unticked Defense how/why is it set to clean PC mode? I think it's not even supposed to install Defense+ but does.

 

It's installed just not enabled when set to basic. You can still set the options but there's 1 check box under advanced that enables or disables it completely(Stops it from loading in to memory). The Slider only turns it on and off while it's in memory. That's the only difference I can find.

 

I think you are both right: I checked the summary and while Network Defense is set at Train with Safe Mode, in Proactive defense, Defense+ is inactive and is deactivated permanently. I tried activating it and my take is that it acts like UAC...not for me, thanks. I have taken the trouble to tag my apps as "trusted" and only new ones will trigger an alert. I like it this way. Thanks both! reps

 

What you do is install all your apps then activate D+. It'll image your whole computer and lock it in to "Clean PC". When you need to install something set it to installation mode. It won't ask anything. Then when it's done set it back and it'll add the new app to the image. If anything tries to install It'll fire and alert. I think it's a good idea, and works well it just has a few bugs in that sometimes it forgets prompts.

 

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Topic for another thread.

 

What are you talking about?

I'm answering his question. And I mentioned how Windows protects itself and how Comodo protects itself.

 

Well, it worked like this as my apps are already installed: Activated D+train; fired up each app in turn and closed app (about 20 mins); Comodo got busy learning each one and the services or hardware it need to access(even the keyboard), asking for permissions; when all done, reverted to Clean mode. This seems to do the trick up to now as I am no longer seeing popups.
Now I have a question concerning "files that need your attention": I tried to move them into my safe zone w/o success and ended up removing them w/o apparent ill effect. Is this the way?
Thanks for your help!

 

I've been reading over at the Comodo forum and I think that's how it's done, although I haven't seen the definitive answer. Any files you don't recognize you have either have analyzed or purged.

They're promising an update over there in the next couple days to forum users 1st. I'll try again, especially now that I know how to avoid most of the problems I had. Regardless, I hope they eliminated some of the bugs users were having with this newer version.