Comodo Firewall Wishlist V6

[Guest]

[Frankster]

- clear and pure categorized tabs for "Logs, Current activity, Network rules, Application, etc" (I definately miss the clear structure/functionality of 2.4!!!)

- better structure/clear separation of the firewall and defense+. it's menustructure is too much mixed up and very confusing.

- i want network-things (logs, activity, rules) together in the 2.4 style. it's bad to push people to choose from many options to create rules, predefined rules and to mix this with applications.

simply too much, too confusing, too less straight. keep things clear and simple - v2.4 was a masterpiece of functionality imho; everything was straight and it was there where you expected it.

who expects the logs for a network in a completely different tab than the activity or the rules or the applications??? very very strange.

the creation of rules and their nesting the may be convenient (or fun?) for some kind of people, but for me as a simple minded technician a well arranged table is much easier to understand and to serve.

i hope you don't get me wrong - comodo firewll is a very good firewall, but the usability of v2.4 has almost completely gone in v3... 

i stick with 2.4 and hope for higher usability in a future version

[AOwL]

I would like to be able to right click lets say a block in the log (sorry events...) and choose to add/edit the rule that blocked the app, with the IP, port  and protocol from the log entry filled in the new rule.
I would also like to have the name application rules for the application rules... and it should be in the same tab as logs.
It would also be nice to keep the log open when you go to the application rules to write a new rule so you remember what to set in the rule. To do that now you have to click the more option in log and then close the first log window to be able to go to the application rules.

[RejZoR]

Would it be smart to impliment export/import feature for Trusted Vendors list in Defense+ module?
This way you can export and import the list of know good applications some other time (as the list grows and it's hard to add them again one by one).
Or is there any limitation regarding this feature?

[VanguardLH]

Request for Enhancement (RFE)

While the user can see an event in the log that blocked a connection attempt, I don't see how the user is supposed to determine which rule or option caused that block.  An identifier should be included in the log on a block event that leads the user back to either the rule or an option that caused the block.  For rules, the ID could be a unique number assigned to the rule (which remains the same even if other rules are deleted while new rules would get the old numbers no longer assigned).  If an option caused the block then the ID should be some string that denotes that option. 

When I see a block event in the log, I can't tell what caused it.

[rickyg73]

all i'd want is the minor bugs fixed, and i know that will happen!

[Shelly]

  1.  I would like to see more detailed information after you click on the rule to either allow or block.   As it is right now, the rule is so generic to any IP or any port.   

  2.  Better control over proxies.   I use Nod v3 and it uses a proxy now and the GRC leak test fails with it.   It passes with Nod v2 that does not use a proxy.   

[Frosty Port]

I've noticed that when I setup my password for Komodo V3 it requires me to type in the password for each and every link (category) listed in Komodo V3 configuration.  Can't you set it up that once you have signed in and typed in your password in the configuration categories that you should only have to do this one time per session.  Not each and every time you click on a category.
Thanks for your consideration.

I think doing something like that would defeat the hole idea of having a password protected program I would not like to see comodo make any changes to this great feature.   

[Luxor]

Something as simple as tracert should work without having to start changing settings or permissions or whatever other reason stops it from working as it should. No other firewall needs anything done for this to work so why Comodo 3 ?

The normal everyday user will abandon Comodo if my example scenario that I posted  here.
http://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/v3_not_allowing_a_tracert-t15515.0.html;msg108367#msg108367 arises.

I am fairly computer competent thanks to 25 years of using the things and nothing usually stumps me but this issue is making me think of giving up on CPF 3.

[theshu]

I totally agree to Frankster!
Comodo v2 was really easy, fast and foolproof to configure. I hope this will get better in v3 with a new Update.

[weaker]

I have to agree that the menu structure in 2.4 was much clearer than it is in v3. The real deal is often hidden in the "advanced" section whereas organization tools are in the main category. There are too much places to watch and to check. Lots of settings are spread over different dialogs.

[qwerty]

I would like to see the entire interface re-written.
Presently,
1. Rules are not sorted into alphabetical order.
2. An application rules do not include parent processes of that application.
3. Every link you click opens a new window. Click a link in that new window, another damn window opens.
4. Windows relating to the editing of rules do not indicate which processes these rules apply to.

All of these contribute towards making cpf3 a nightmare to navigate through.

[Soyabeaner]

I wish the CFP animated arrows would more accurately reflect the download and upload speeds/amounts in relative proportion to one's maximum speeds.  Kerio 4's system tray indicator was "on the dot" and it was in real-time.

e.g. Right now with v3.0.13.268, 4 arrows is the max, which one would think the current download or upload speed is being maxed out, but that's not necessarily true.

[Ron_75]

I wish CFP 3.0 tray icon was similar to 2.4's tray icon as in the green and red arrows how they would simulate when download/upload is going on in an intuitive animated way
 

[colion]

I would like to see a default setting button - especially for Defense+.  There are so many options and one tends to try different things and then forget the starting point.  A standard default starting point would be helpful.

[LeoniAquila]

To some extent I agree on previous posts concerning the GUI. Some settings are too deeply hidden, like Application Rules under the Advanced tab. Though I do not agree that the Firewall and Defense+ things are confused in any way, I think they are perfectly separated under their tabs, and you've put the rest under Miscellaneous. Great.

Another wish I really have is the parent check that v 2.4 had. For example, even if I block a specific program (like Adobe Reader, 7-Zip...) from internet access, it is still possible to let it launch Firefox to open links. For example, from 7-Zip's "About..." menu I can let it open its website in Firefox without CFP asking. Please, add the functionality that v 2.4 had, which would alert me that "Application X wants to launch Firefox to access the internet". A program should not have to be blocked by Defense+ to get blocked from the internet (as a parent).

Thank you,
LA

[Tags:]