Author Topic: CFP 3.0.10.238 BETA - Questions about how it works[CLOSED]  (Read 27367 times)

Offline malbeth

  • Comodo Family Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Alert Cancel Button
« Reply #105 on: November 02, 2007, 06:24:50 AM »
When I select cancel on an Alert pop-up, it treats the action as if I had seleted block. Is this working as designed?

Why show cancel if the end result is block?

Al

'Cancel' tells the FW that you can't be bothered with chosing whether to allow/block/treat as right now. Still, the FW needs to act on the event somehow, and you just effectively told it 'decide yourself'. Guess it then falls back to the most core and default rule there is, and if this needs to be hard-coded, I'd rather it be 'block' decision. No idea if v3.0.10 is working as designed here tho :P

Offline adric

  • "Start every day with a smile and get it over with."
  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • "I am not young enough to know everything. "
Re: Alert Cancel Button
« Reply #106 on: November 02, 2007, 07:40:21 AM »
'Cancel' tells the FW that you can't be bothered with chosing whether to allow/block/treat as right now. Still, the FW needs to act on the event somehow, and you just effectively told it 'decide yourself'. Guess it then falls back to the most core and default rule there is, and if this needs to be hard-coded, I'd rather it be 'block' decision. No idea if v3.0.10 is working as designed here tho :P

OK, I understand that, but it should only be blocked for a single instance and disregard the "remember my answer" if it happens to be checked.  If I hit cancel, I don't want a rule being created for that alert.

Al

Offline malbeth

  • Comodo Family Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Alert Cancel Button
« Reply #107 on: November 02, 2007, 08:00:49 AM »
OK, I understand that, but it should only be blocked for a single instance and disregard the "remember my answer" if it happens to be checked.  If I hit cancel, I don't want a rule being created for that alert.

Al

Now that's another story, 'remember my action' checkbox doesn't look like it is related to the 'cancel' button, and it shouldn't be related to it in any case. Just checked it, and we do have this problem. Guess a bug report is in order.

CGPMaster

  • Guest
I have a Question About CPF Beta
« Reply #108 on: November 02, 2007, 08:20:49 AM »
I installed the Beta Verison but I keep on getting an Report From CA Anti Virus Saying there is a Virus,

I'll get the log soon,
but what could it possibly mean for CPF??

Offline pykko

  • Computer Security Testing Group
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
    • Intr-o lume plina de virusi, ai un prieten
hosts protection
« Reply #109 on: November 02, 2007, 09:47:22 AM »
Maybe this is a dumb question, but does Comodo protects host file under C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc from being modified ?

Thank you!

Offline ubuntu

  • Comodo Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: hosts protection
« Reply #110 on: November 02, 2007, 10:53:31 AM »
In the default settings, Comodo V3 protects all files under C:\Windows\system32  folder/sub folders.
Whereof one cannot speak  thereof one must be silent
Comodo Firewall - The Hackers' Choice

Offline Comp01

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Upgrading
« Reply #111 on: November 02, 2007, 03:34:38 PM »
I'm running Comodo beta x64 3.0.9.229, I am wondering if I have to uninstall first to upgrade to the latest beta, or what? Thanks for any help.

Offline kail

  • Mostly Benevolent
  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11277
  • The future is much like the present, only longer.
    • COMODO's free software!
Re: Upgrading
« Reply #112 on: November 02, 2007, 03:44:24 PM »
Hi Comp01, welcome to the forums.

Yes, you should. This is because during alpha/beta testing the structure of data (registry or file) may change & thus be incompatible with a previous version. Also I feel that I must point out that the 3.0.10.238 64bit release is not for Intel CPUs (AMD64 only).
My System Details: W8Px64 with CIS 6, Firefox 26 & Becky! 2.65
Forum Policy.
____
The problem is not the problems, the problem is people's attitude towards those problems.

Offline Chappy

  • Comodo Family Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
Re: CFP 3.0.10.238 BETA - Questions about how it works
« Reply #113 on: November 02, 2007, 04:42:10 PM »
Sigh....:(

I only WISH I could test 3.0.10.238...I still can't get it to install and give me a proper GUI to work with. I had to go back to 3.0.8.214 since 3.0.9.221 also installs a useless GUI. I have no access to any of the config buttons on the right side as the GUI is seemingly stretched to around a 4000 pixel interface on a 1680 pixel screen. (see screenshot in THIS Post

I've noticed only a couple of others who had this same problem, with no real replies or fixes. It's not because of 120DPI as some have thought, I thoroughly tested that and it makes no difference. Plus older Beta's install fine, it's just the latest 2 that show this behavior for a very select few of us (so far).
I've tried numerous configuration changes, new downloads of CFP exe, a (small) decompile of the exe resources to see if I could adjust the default GUI install size but it must be deeper than I'm willing to go. I only fully decompile malware apps since I don't consider them legally protected from reverse engineering ;)

I do hope egemen or any developers are looking at this one. Even tho it's a very few of us with that issue, there must be something in the installation routines that causes this, since all other beta's worked fine on the same setup.

Thx again to any who take the time to ponder this one.

Dave

Offline v941726

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 369
Re: CFP 3.0.10.238 BETA - Questions about how it works
« Reply #114 on: November 02, 2007, 05:16:01 PM »
i read some of these and it's funny. i had the fortunate/unfortunate opportunity to flush and fill my pc and install cfp latest beta and i can't believe how good it works. i know i already said this but wow. you guys have a great product so far. really can't wait for at least a rc.
Windows 7 x64
core duo 2,16 GHz
4 GB Ram
Vipre AV
Thinkpad T60
CVE
No other security software

Josh123

  • Guest
Windows Vista Ultimate Help
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2007, 06:56:08 PM »
Hello,

I am running your comodo firewall pro 3 beta 4 and i am wondering do i need to disable UAC (User Account Control too)?

I already disabled vista firewall... i only just installed vista yesterday. So do I need UAC?

tks

josh

Offline Justin L.

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3110
Windows Vista Ultimate Help
« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2007, 09:47:52 PM »
Hello,

I personally have not disabled UAC in my Vista Ultimate install, however I do get popups every now and then asking about Comodo, but I simply allow it. Anyways if you like the UAC feature I would leave it on for now, if it bugs you then feel free to disable it, other then asking about Comodo Firewall once in a while I think it should be fine.

Justin
Windows 8 64-bit; Intel Core i3 2350 [at] 2.30 GHz w/ 6GB RAM
CIS 6.1.276867.2813 - Complete

Offline jim28277

  • Comodo Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: CFP 3.0.10.238 BETA - Questions about how it works
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2007, 11:31:55 PM »
Sigh....:(

I only WISH I could test 3.0.10.238...I still can't get it to install and give me a proper GUI to work with. I had to go back to 3.0.8.214 since 3.0.9.221 also installs a useless GUI. I have no access to any of the config buttons on the right side as the GUI is seemingly stretched to around a 4000 pixel interface on a 1680 pixel screen. (see screenshot in THIS Post

I've noticed only a couple of others who had this same problem, with no real replies or fixes. It's not because of 120DPI as some have thought, I thoroughly tested that and it makes no difference. Plus older Beta's install fine, it's just the latest 2 that show this behavior for a very select few of us (so far).
I've tried numerous configuration changes, new downloads of CFP exe, a (small) decompile of the exe resources to see if I could adjust the default GUI install size but it must be deeper than I'm willing to go. I only fully decompile malware apps since I don't consider them legally protected from reverse engineering ;)

I do hope egemen or any developers are looking at this one. Even tho it's a very few of us with that issue, there must be something in the installation routines that causes this, since all other beta's worked fine on the same setup.

Thx again to any who take the time to ponder this one.

Dave

Dave, you probably have your display DPI set to "large size" (120dpi) or a custom DPI setting larger than 96 DPI. Apparently, this version of the beta does not support large size dpi settings. I hope this gets fixed in a future version. To correct this go to your Control Panel-display-settings-advanced and reset your your dpi to normal size (96 dpi). Your icons and text will appear a little smaller on your screen but this will correct the problem your having with CFP's screen truncation. Worked for me, good luck.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 11:48:33 PM by jim28277 »

Offline pykko

  • Computer Security Testing Group
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
    • Intr-o lume plina de virusi, ai un prieten
Re: hosts protection
« Reply #118 on: November 03, 2007, 12:01:26 PM »
In the default settings, Comodo V3 protects all files under C:\Windows\system32  folder/sub folders.
thank you for the answer.
Should I check the "Disk" under Monitoring areas for Defence + for this to happen ?

Offline AnotherOne

  • Computer Security Testing Group
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
C:\Documents and Settings\Admin\Local Settings\Temp
« Reply #119 on: November 03, 2007, 03:25:04 PM »
Using the new firewall beta (WIN XP MCE SP2 & updates):
I have been getting reports of "new" .ddl's showing up in the C:\Documents and Settings\Admin\Local Settings\Temp folder.  Apparently some software writes .dll's to that folder and deletes them after use.  I thought that there was a Rootkit stealthing the .ddl's, but after a couple of days of searching for rootkits, I don't believe that there is one present.  It is a bit unnerving to see .ddl's with random names showing up there on the Firewall report and not being able to trace them.  It would be more reassuring if these .dll's parents (or the software creating them) were identified in the report.
What do you mean, my shoes are on the wrong feet???  These are the only feet I've got!

 

Seo4Smf 2.0 © SmfMod.Com Smf Destek