It’s not new!
Yes, the sandbox driver is nothing new.
Oh ■■■■. I had my hopes up 
lol
No sandbox or virtualization yet… 
yet…
Melih
mmmmm I like this last post!
Actually, it’s working just fine here (win7 x64), and rather a lot better than the current final is, so why would I want to complain? 
Within 3 days of win7 beta installation on my PC i find i fully working Firewall+AV+D+ solution… what’s not to like?
It is currently morning on January 20th, and I am still at virus signature database version 301. I uninstalled CIS 3.5.5 and did a clean install of CIS Beta 3.5.6 on 4 computers late last Thursday when it was released, but the virus signature database has never updated since. Is it supposed to still be on version 301?
The 301 Database is a test Database for the new beta. You are current for this release. I don’t know if they plan on releasing further DBs until the next beta or release candidate.
CIS wants to connect from UDP port 53 for Threatcast.Is this normal?
If i allow out UDP port , Threatcast supposed is working !
XP SP3
see post #120, I’ve the same problem ??? :-\
Regards
Kronos I changed your post a bit, I hope you don’t mind
edit by eXPerience : just to show the image direct so developers don't have to lose to much time
I’ll change mine to, so I can second it 
Xan
Hi MeFer, welcome to the forums.
Yes. CIS is probably using a hostname for the ThreatCast access (sensible). But, since it’s using a hostname then Windows must resolve the name to an IP number. And that is what you’re probably seeing… a DNS request (UDP Port 53) to resolve the ThreatCast hostname. So, not exactly CIS (on purpose). it’s just the way things work.
First off, thanks for the love ly product. I’ve it on two computers right now, my personal and my mom’s laptop (freshly purchased and ghosted) and I did this for two reasons. My mom always had me disable the D+ because of all the pop ups so with the announcment of a huge Whitelist and ThreatCast I wanted to test it out on her and myself. She has had 3 windows pup up from D+ now all pertaining to Logmein where D+ didn’t have any sugestions; but this is expected and she knows what that program is. I give this improvement a 9/10 of ease of use (it would get a 10/10 but ThreatCast is still too new to see how the long term benifit will play with her). As for me, the D+ has shown up around 10 times with ThreatCast reporting small results for 6 of the 10. Love the work thus far and I love the “scilent” D+ in the background.
Secondly scan speed as being reported as being faster. I call blagh! Before beta it took 1.75 hours to scan 260K files on my system. Beta time it still takes 1.75 hours for a scan to complete but now it scans about 500K files! Yes I know the average time per file is faster, but why was the stable version only scanning 260K files and the beta more? I haven’t changed any of the defualt settings. My mom’s beta scans takes about 30 min for about 250K files. I’ll have to post some more details later.
In the end, I still love your effort. Keep it up please so I can get more people hooked on the Comodo experience.
Which file extensions does CAVs scans?
I have a question about an advanced setting in Defense+. This question would actually apply to the last public release version of CIS also. Running Windows Vista Ultimate, I have been setting Defense+ / Advanced / Predefined Security Policies / Windows System Application / Protection Settings / Interprocess Memory Accesses to ‘Yes’. ‘No’ is the default. After changing this setting to ‘Yes’, several executables have to be added to Exceptions to allow applications such as Windows Explorer, Control Panel, Windows Update, regedit, System Restore, and the Windows Install Clean Up utility to open and run.
Since Comodo System Cleaner 1.0.616 Beta has been released with the ability to create a System Restore point before cleaning disk files, I cannot find what specific executables to add to allow CSC Disk Cleaner to create this System Restore point. Adding rstrui.exe and SystemPropertiesProtection.exe to Exceptions allows a restore point to be created from within System Properties, but adding these two files to Exceptions does not allow CSC to create the system restore point. A message pops up stating “Cannot create restore point! The System Restore service might not be running! Do you still wish to continue with cleaning process?” So there must be at least one additional executable that needs to be added to Exceptions for CSC to be allowed to create the restore point. Does anyone have any idea what additional executable(s) need to be added? The File Group ‘Executables’ can be added to Exceptions, which will allow CSC to create a restore point, but I don’t want to add ALL executable to ‘Exclusions’, only the specific ones that are needed to allow CSC to create a restore point before cleaning the files it finds.
Edit:
I found the answer. It is the Comodo Disk Cleaner executable: CDC.exe in C:\Program Files\Comodo\System Cleaner. When rstrui.exe, SystemPropertiesProtection.exe and CDC.exe are all added to Exceptions then the restore point can be created from within Comodo Disk Cleaner before the file deletion is performed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hi guy’s I am new to the Comodo forums love Comodo products anyway I just completed a series of test on the new CIS beta at my forum that I would like to share the results with you.
this is copied from the article I wrote:
Testing new beta detection
This is going to be an ongoing test of the new CIS beta I will be testing various samples and will give results as I test!
Each sample was placed into it’s own zipped folder so there was a regular folder with x number of zipped folders inside then that folder was scanned from right click menu scan with Comodo later when I have more time I will create a list with the names of what these infections actually were as I am building a samples list as I go and will be using this database for further testing other applications in the future.
Rootkit Detection: 4 of 5 samples found
Backdoor Detection: 24 of 24 samples found
Exploit Detection: 29 of 30 samples found
Flooder Detection: 29 of 30 samples found
IM Worm Detection: 32 of 33 samples found
IRC Worm Detection: 16 of 30 samples found
Nuker Detection: 29 of 30 samples found
P2P Worm Detection: 29 of 33 samples found
Packer Detection: 15 of 17 samples found
Trojan Clicker Detection: 28 of 31 samples found
Trojan Clicker Qhost Detection: 5 of 5 samples found
Macro Detection: 2 of 2 samples found
Spoofer Detection: 6 of 6 samples found
Spam Tool Detection: 18 of 20 samples found
Trojan Downloader Detection: 54 of 60 samples found
Trojan Dropper Detection: 35 of 45 samples found
Trojan IM Detection: 28 of 30 samples found
Virus Detection: 71 of 80 samples found
Worm Detection: 43 of 45 samples found
The sum of my test:
There was a total of 557 samples scanned totaling 37.3 MB in size and Comodo signature database 301 detected 497 and missed 60 so thats a 89.23% detection rate based on this set of test samples.
As a control test I uninstalled the beta version and installed the the latest 3.5 final with signature database 940 and scanned the entire test sample folder and found 546 of 557 samples only missing 11 samples that’s a tad over 98% detection pretty good score here so I feel the newest beta should meet or exceed this mark when final.
New Thread made here: https://forums.comodo.com/beta_corner_cis/comodo_internet_security_3861948459_beta_qasfeedback-t33537.0.html (For beta 2).
Cheers,
Josh
Hi There Computersplus
do you have the link for your article pls?
thanks
Melih
i hope its ok to share the link with everyone
Thank you for taking the time to test and look forward to your valuable contributions to make CIS even better.
thanks
Melih