Network Zones should be easier to handle.
Like in CDP 2.4 would be nice. (Trusted Network Zone).
Stevo
I agree. Now it’s the contrary of 2.4. There’s a panel to set a blocked zone very quickly, but Trusted Zones must be set manually by putting an IP range in a new network global rule. There should be a panel for trusted zones too (I already posted about this earlier).
Oh ok sry didn’t searched for that.
Stevo
don’t be sorry, I didn’t mean that you should have. I know and I’ve seen in most other forums, you get quickly “attacked” by a horde of posters if you dare to talk about something that’s been already related, and answered. Well it’s not the case here, hope it will never be.
Ran into small issue with CFP3A1 where it stopped prompting for Explorer’s permission to run other applications (everything else seemed to be working OK). This was eventually followed by a complete loss of all rules (user & predefined). Used a System Restore to recover.
Yes!! But what and why does explorer want so often do anything? CPF 2.4 doesn´t show the explorer.exe so often!!??
Andreas
it does. Just the alert is written with different words in 2.4, and there’s only one alert for both explorer and the started app.(in 2.4). Explorer is the main windows executable that allows anything else to be started, so… (although I’ve read and heard some people were able to use a different shell).
ps. I may have made a mistake in my answer here. Didn’t know exactly whether you were talking about two firewall alerts on the same app (one for the parent starting the app followed by one for the app itself, not even sure if this can happen) or one firewall alert and then one or several Def+ alerts for the app, which in all cases gives much more alerts with this new CFP version. More security got a price!
That’s why i posted sorry.
In the German forums it’s normal that you get attacked for not using the search.
But nice to hear that’s not the problem here 
and btw. (R)
Stevo
That’s because CFP 2.4 doesn’t have HIPS, where as CFP31A does. CFP 2.4 does prompt for explorer.exe, but only in the context of explorer.exe being the parent of a Net enabled application (which is trying to access the Net). As Gharkh indicated, explorer.exe it the parent process of almost everything that is run by the user, unless a Application Launcher or an explorer shell replacement is being used (then it will be something else that CFP3 keeps prompting for).
You not gonna like me after this post ;D - but I have Comodo setup on my Home network and I didn’t have to do a thing…
Comodo in its wisdom decided that not only would I be allowed to see my home network, but that I could copy files throughout the network as well, all without having to setup any rules or anything…
I think I mentioned about a day after Comodo Alpha was released, that Comodo is the ONLY firewall that has let my home network work without doing a thing, all other firewalls I have tried in the past it was a real marathon trying to get them setup…
Please Comodo don’t change anything as far as networking goes in the Beta and final versions (:CLP)
Are you sure it’s working? As an Alpha i wouldn’t be surprised, some conflict or whatever.
G’day,
Even if it doesn’t work straight out of the box, all you need to do is to set up a zone (under FIREWALL - COMMON TASKS) and then set up a global network policy (under FIREWALL - ADVANCED). Pretty much the same way as in V2.4, just the terminology and locations are different.
Hope this helps,
Ewen 
Hello, I just wanted to pop in and give my experience with this so far. Hi Ewen, the quoted part is broken on mine. It lets me create a network name but won’t let me modify it, but I managed to get my network working without it. Okay I just rebuilt my machine from the ground up keeping only the AMD x64 3200 cpu. It hates XP ???, tolerates Vista and loves XP x64 and Vista x64. Okay I’m an OEM system builder and I guess I’ll play this game since I’m supposed to be pushing Vista, I suppose I should have at least one machine running it. I didn’t want it to be my main production machine, but it is what it is. Alrighty, got Vista x64 up and running with very little troubles and Comodo is running brilliantly so far. Now my hope for this thing was to OEM it after it reaches a final state but as it stands now, that won’t be a viable option unless it gets far more user friendly by the final. Here’s the biggest problem and a proposed sollution: Installing da$@n near anything causes about 15 firewall prompts and it can be solved by permanant allow, however, you don’t just allow explorer.exe free reign to your system. Okay here’s my proposed solution. Make a right click menu on the tray icon to go into installer mode. That will allow you to install a new program without all the nags and go back into normal mode after the install. I’ve only seen this feature on the big meanie Black Ice firewall before but it was plagued by the same exact thing and that was their solution. Please think of average Joe user and not advanced users when developing this. At the moment, I am OEM’ing the PC tools free firewall, but they have no x64 solution. Okay, this is probably long enough for now, so I’ll be back with more problems and possible solutions (most likely) later. Great work so far and if you own Vista x64, all I can say is just do it, what are your alternatives aside from Windows firewall?
Possible? I think the latest Microsoft patch - or the reboot? - caused CPF to forget rules. I’ve attached a screenshot (i got this problem both on an 32bit XP SP2 PC and on a 64bit Vista).
Last updates on Vista:
(KB929123) - windows mail/msoe
(KB931213) - vista only
(KB933566) - ie (vulnerabilities by setting the kill bit for COM objects )
(KB905866) - winmail def updates
(KB936825) - vista (more suppot for SD cards)
two days earlier:
KB929735 - vista (calendar fix)
[attachment deleted by admin]
G’day,
The alpha version doesn’t include the whitelist database or the web based lookup. These will be in the gold release and should virtually eliminate the pop-ups. There will always be some pop-ups, that’s inevitable, but at least Comodo have had the foresight to include unknown files to be submitted for your local safe DB and for the global web lookup for everyone else. This should eliminate the need for “installer mode” which would seem to simultaneously get rid of the pop-ups and the security.
Cheers,
Ewen
There is a bug.
The IPdisplay in Log Viewer window is wrong.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Ran into an interesting problem with CFPA1… I added a new SATA HDD to my system. This caused the HDDevice number to change in Windows and that, since CFP uses HarddiskVolumen, caused chaos. CFP said it was being run from a different place than it was installed (which it wasn’t) & all the rules were wrong (trying to use the wrong HDD). In the end, I exported CFPs registry & corrected all the disk device numbers manually.
So, be warned… if you’re adding/removing a HDD, watch out for CFP.
I apologize if this question has been posted here or elsewhere but I could not find it when I did a search. After installation of CPF 3 Alpha I find an entry in the system event log that occurs everytime I boot my system. The information states:
Type: Error
Date: 6/14/2007
Time: 7:13:11 AM
Event: 7023
Source: Service Control Manager
Category: None
User: N/A
Computer: xxxxx
Description:
The IPSEC Services service terminated with the following error:
The attempted operation is not supported for the type of object referenced.
I have not sensed any problem as a result but I pass it along FYI.
That is really a very interesting CFP bug.
I hope Comodo will fix this bug.
Andreas
Not sure if the Device\HarddiskVolume thing is a bug or not. But, I do suspect that it was not envisaged that changing HarddiskVolume number would have this impact. So, perhaps it is because of that alone. The SATA HDD I added was the first SATA HDD that I’ve added to this system, I think it took the number 1 spot, pushing everything else out by 1. Obviously, a user adding/removing HDDs might not encounter this problem at all… but, now I’ve realised that CFP is using this HDD Volume number… I’m not certain if it is right thing or not (especially considering what happened to me). After all, a user could create, merge or delete HDD partitions and this could, in effect, damage the users CFP installation to the point where it no longer worked.