5.8 are worn out

I do not know can 5.9 defense

any verification that those files are actually malicious?? any VT links??

I see the file has a valid Digital Signature. I haven’t used CIS for a long time, but from memory, it would allow any file with a valid Digital Signature to run by default?

I wonder if he would share the test file so that we can conform what exactly is the problem ?

See also made a, then I believe that man more than I do understand that people ask him better.

No. It allows whitelisted unsigned applications and trusted vendors.
Having digitally signed application doesn’t mean it is automatically trusted.
Comodo team has to evaluate the vendor first.


mod edit: Harmful site removed. Please do not post live malware URLs on the public forums. Let people know you have it and ask them to request it by PM (Personal Message). kail

Link not working

mod edit: harmful site removed in citation. kail

ALL: Please remember not to post live malware URLs on the public forums. Let people know you have it and ask them to request it by PM (Personal Message). Thank you.

I am sure she is trying to be helpful as i saw she requested the same at Wilders,
I did request that they come here to discuss this matter further.

It isn’t considered to be a malicious act necessarily,but for the protection of less experienced users direct malware links aren’t allowed.

I’m sure icebela was acting with good intent.

Indeed, I didn’t consider it any other way. After all… I didn’t send any nasty PM’s or ban anyone. :slight_smile:

Natch :slight_smile:

No, I didn’t ban him/her either. ;D :wink:

I’m sorry, I didn’t know not to this one Web site.
But in the end confirmed that the URL has expired

I think only the .dll is malicious, because of the dll load vulnerability it get’s executed during ‘install’ of the legal flashplayer and drive-by-infects the system.
Aigle is a credible reporter, he knows what he’s doing. He reported before that CIS doesn’t handle .dll load vulnerabilities at best.

Yes, that must be it. From memory, since version 5, CIS does not protect against (malicious) DLL loading. Faronics Anti-Executable version 3 also did not protect against this (a change from version 2), but I understand they have re-implemented it back in version 4.

The question is whether Comodo will do the same with a future version. In my opinion, not protecting against DLL loading leaves a huge hole in the protection CIS provides.

hopefully it will come back in v6

These last three versions of comodo, gave me nostalgic and 3.xxx and 2.xxx versions of the CIS,
, the CIS here in Brazil was called bad because it warned of software activities “dll”, especially the version 2.xxx of the firewall that was undoubtedly the best firewall (at least for me).
Software simple as ActivPort Scanner and Network portscan, CIS 5.8 in custom ports 135, 139, 445 remain open and without any warning of the firewall, another disadvantage observed in CIS 5.8 is that if I allow a stranger to D + ask DNS software, the PC is unprotected from attacks from the web, because it seems that the firewall does not monitor anything at all.

sorry my english! ;D