COMODO Internet Security 3.10.102363.531 Bug Reports

[Guest]

[HeffeD]

The machine gets a 169.x.x.x local IP. Which is computer-speak for "you're screwed".

Hmmm... Have never seen this.

I have no idea. I'm just going on the evidence.

By crashed, what exactly do you mean? Since CIS doesn't talk to your router, I don't see how it could crash it.

On two different machines at the same time? One of which has sod-all installed on it, and was recently wiped clean and reinstalled? Replacing the router doesn't help, so it's not a router problem.

Removing Comodo DOES HELP. The problem GOES AWAY when Comodo goes away. What more proof do you need?

Well, enough proof to determine common ground... You are definitely experiencing anomalous behavior. There has to be something in common between the two systems that could be causing the problem, because quite frankly, what you are reporting is beyond the scope of the software.

[kail]

I have encountered a situation involving a Local IP address (192.168.0.1) that was caused by CIS and, in my case, was a serious Catch 22. My DNS is resolved by the router & windows (Vista) is set to point at the router (192.168.0.1). I have rules based on hostnames (including a blocking rule). If I boot the system with the router disconnected from the Internet, CIS resolves all hostnames as 192.168.0.1 (which is actually added to the Profile in the registry). Not a major problem, apart from the blocking rule which in my case also blocked any access to the router/gateway (Catch 22). This effectively rendered the CIS profile I was using useless until I restored Internet access & rebooted (changing Profile would have also worked).

Assuming this is what Stugol meant with the Local IP computer-speak.

Crashing a router? I'm not really sure how this would be possible. But, if there is evidence let's see it please.

[SS26]

any news if a fix is scheduled for the bug, which was reported earlier? many people confirmed their Comodo Firewall is affected (mine as well with latest version of CIS)
1
2
3  
4
5

[SS26]

any news if a fix is scheduled for the "blocker" bug, which was reported by me for CFP v3.0.24 on 2008-05-31 , then for CIS 3.5.52764.414 RC1 on 2008-10-14, although with a different steps to trigger, but the bug is still same.
all Comodo Firewall-Internet_Security versions between 3.0.24 and 3.5.52764.414 RC1 are probably affected, all CIS versions after 3.5.52764.414 and prior v3.10 are probably affected. current CIS 3.10 is affected.

original report:

Builds & Platform: XP Pro SP2 x32, CF 3.0.24.368.
Overview: System becomes unusable after partition's image restore.

Steps to Reproduce:
1) download Automated Installation Kit (AIK) for Windows Vista SP1, install
package, create bootable Live CD with ImageX Tool included;
2) assuming D+ is properly learnt to allow every action of known executables
(explorer.exe etc. etc.) set following settings: check "block unknown actions
if app is closed", uncheck "automatically start with windows";
3) boot from current live CD, create system drive (usually c:\) image (check +
verify options only);
4) assuming hdd is divided in at least 2 partitions, put sys drive image to any
partition except sys drive partition;
5) perform following actions with the help of diskpart.exe included by default
in Live CD: delete partition 1 (sys drive), create new partition at the
beginning of hdd (so it will be first partition on current hdd), assign same
drive letter as it was for the former 1st partition (usually c:\), quick format
it with ntfs, mark as active;
6) apply imagex WIM image (check + verify options) to newly created and
formatted partition, reboot;    

Actual results:
Upon successfully logging in, system is completely unusable, i. e. all
activities are denied.

Additional Information:
Only way to recover from disaster is to use independent system (e. g. live cd)
to rename cmdguard.sys (cmdagent.exe, guard32.dll).
Then you boot to local system, launch cfp.exe, choose repair (diagnostics),
reboot and system is up and running with exactly same settings.

report for CIS RC-1


bug is  triggered under described circumstances only if D+ option "block unknown requests if application is closed" was turned on, so it is obviously the culprit.

[Sorbitz]

Umm.  I didn't read the first post and, if I understand correctly, my bug report should be moved here from: http://forums.comodo.com/firewall_bugs/buggy_cmdagentexe_slows_things_down_for_no_reason-t44418.0.html

Thanks

[L.A.R. Grizzly]

Is there a bug report thread for CIS 3.11.108364.552? I couldn't find one.

[Stugol]

I've never heard of Comodo changing your IP address. I don't even see how that could be possible if you told it at installation to recognize your existing network

No, you misunderstand. It doesn't change my IP address, it merely blocks my computer from receiving a DHCP assigned IP address from the router. Make sense?

169 is the IP a computer gives itself when it isn't allocated one by a router. If the router tries to allocate it an IP, but that allocation is blocked by Comodo, then the computer will give up and assume a 169 IP.

In short, Comodo screws up the computer's ability to talk to the DHCP server on the router.

Crashing a router? I'm not really sure how this would be possible. But, if there is evidence let's see it please.

The router seems to be less reliable than usual (i.e. can't reach its config webpage from any machine; or can't ping websites; or stuff like that) when Comodo is running on an XP machine on the network. That's all.

I must admit, I'm not 100% certain that Comodo is crashing the router, so ignore that bit for now if you like. But the other bit - with the 169 address - THAT is definitely a screwup caused by Comodo! There is no other explanation.

Hmmm... Have never seen this.

I've never seen a spider monkey. Doesn't make 'em any less real. What's your point?

There has to be something in common between the two systems that could be causing the problem, because quite frankly, what you are reporting is beyond the scope of the software.

No. They are completely different systems, running completely different software. The only things they have in common are [a] Avast Antivirus; Windows XP 32-bit; and [c] Comodo firewall. The router is not the culprit, because I've tried changing it for a different one.

And it's not Avast causing the problem either. I've been using Avast for YEARS, and it's never caused any trouble. Plus, the 64-bit version of Comodo coexists with Avast on my Vista64 machine with no problems. Plus, in case you missed it, the problem GOES AWAY when I remove Comodo.

Look, it's not difficult. If two machines have a problem when Comodo is installed; and then NEITHER of them have the problem when Comodo is removed; and then NEITHER of them have the problem when a DIFFERENT firewall is installed.... then it's Comodo! How can you sit there and argue against evidence like that???

[Stugol]

There should have been a "[ b ]" there, but the forum translated that into "bold". Helpful.

[HeffeD]

Look, it's not difficult. If two machines have a problem when Comodo is installed; and then NEITHER of them have the problem when Comodo is removed; and then NEITHER of them have the problem when a DIFFERENT firewall is installed.... then it's Comodo! How can you sit there and argue against evidence like that???

Actually, it is difficult. This is why everyone isn't a computer programmer...

There is absolutely no possible way to write software that is going to be 100% compatible with every possible system configuration. 

I'm not saying you aren't having any problems. I'm saying that what you are experiencing isn't typical operation. That is why I said lets try and figure out some common ground between systems. It's sounding like a configuration issue at this point. (Blocking DHCP, pings, etc...) What configuration are you running? What is your global security policy?

[Stugol]

What configuration are you running? What is your global security policy?

The global policy doesn't work anyway. I can, for example, set it to permit ALL local traffic. It STILL asks me for things.

But for the record, I had answered every question about local traffic with "yes".

[kail]

The global policy doesn't work anyway. I can, for example, set it to permit ALL local traffic. It STILL asks me for things.

But for the record, I had answered every question about local traffic with "yes".

This might be at the core of your issues with CIS. Permitting everything in the Global Rules will not necessarily permit everything without any further prompting. Firstly, depending on the traffic direction, there is the Application Rules to contend with. In addition, there are various options in CIS's Firewall & Defense+ components that could easily cause either of them to issue Alerts despite any Global Rules that may be present.

[faust]

Is there a bug report thread for CIS 3.11.108364.552? I couldn't find one.

Hell, I'd be happy with a change log.

You folks should update your release notes (http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/release_notes.html) before you push out a new version.

[EricJH]

Hell, I'd be happy with a change log.

You folks should update your release notes (http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/release_notes.html) before you push out a new version.

New releases always first get presented at the forums. The release notes at the site follow in a couple of days usually.

[Little Mac]

As CIS 3.11 has been released, this thread will be closed.

[Tags:]