CFP 3.0.1.1 Alpha Bug Reports (XP) [Closed]

[Nikos]

somebody please send me a comodo unistalaltion utility?

i cant install comodo agian cause of the leftovers of v3 alpha.

I want to installv3 alpha aian

[Little_Mac]

@Nikos post:341

somebody please send me a comodo unistalaltion utility?

i cant install comodo agian cause of the leftovers of v3 alpha.

A user has posted a batch file here, to clean out the remains of v3. https://forums.comodo.com/cfp_beta_corner/comodo_uninstallation_cleaner-t9668.0.html I stress, this is not a utility from Comodo; it is from a user. You may examine the code in a text file and ask any questions you have in that thread, prior to use, if you need any explanations.

LM

[foxxx428]

@kail post:340

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.

I’m sure you probably know this but most modern bios’s have a drive order which is usually under the first option. This setting will override the boot order in Comodo’s eyes because it has priority over your real first drive. The bios sets it as a first drive because it’s faster and makes more sense to run the OS off a faster drive. Therefore it’s not really a Comodo bug, but more of a bios bug which will never be fixed because it’s not really a bug in the first place. Reboot into your bios and see if it’s there. It should be in the general section along with the time etc…

[kail]

Hi foxxx428

I do have a BIOS setting to define in what order I want the HDDs booted from (if at all). But, you’re forgetting about soft partitions. You can have many partitions on a single HDD. These partitions are also defined by their device number within the OS and it is this device number that CFP is using. In short, its nothing to do with the boot order of the HDDs.

[foxxx428]

No no, not the boot order, that’s an entirely different thing. I wish I could take a screenshot of what I mean. There is a seperate drive order setting that is meant for, if you installed a SATA drive later and wanted to run your OS off that, when you reinstall Windows, it will see that drive as your first drive instead of a secondary drive. Not all bios’s have it though so maybe it could be a Comodo bug since there’s no other way to controll it. Okay you’re right and I’m wrong so I’ll shut up now.

[kail]

OK, not the boot order. But, what about the soft partitions… does your BIOS allow you to define the order of these?

Say if a user has 2 HDDs with 2 partitions on each… C (HDD1), D (HDD1), E (HDD2) & F (HDD2). Say the OS is on C & all their apps are on E. Later they decide to change things & move their Apps to D. OK, the users know about the drive letter change (E → D). But, if CFP is on E and/or has rules referring to E, then their CFP installation will either be hosed by that change or they’ll invalidate all their rules. This is what I mean.

[Andreas]

@kail post:346

OK, not the boot order. But, what about the soft partitions… does your BIOS allow you to define the order of these?

Say if a user has 2 HDDs with 2 partitions on each… C (HDD1), D (HDD1), E (HDD2) & F (HDD2). Say the OS is on C & all their apps are on E. Later they decide to change things & move their Apps to D. OK, the users know about the drive letter change (E → D). But, if CFP is on E and/or has rules referring to E, then their CFP installation will either be hosed by that change or they’ll invalidate all their rules. This is what I mean.

Maybe your posts are a reason to improve CFP to able to save and restore all entries of rules.

Andreas

[foxxx428]

Holy ■■■■. Okay I have 3 hard drives and I see what you’re getting at here but all firewalls will be hosed if you suddenly move all your program files from one drive to another one. :o I don’t think I’ve ever seen a firewall that would allow for that, not even the built in Windows firewall because, how could it possibly know that it has changed locations? ???

[kail]

I think previously, in the example I gave, the user only had to worry about the drive letter changing (from E to D) & there are plenty of Partition Managers that have utils to search the registry/INI files to fix these. But, now, it seems, the user also has to worry about the HarddiskVolume numbers changing.

I’m not sure about other fiirewalls… I guess it depends on if they use the Device/HarddiskVolume numbers or not.

[Andreas]

@kail post:329

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).

Yes! CFP 2.4 shows explorer.exe only when explorer.exe is trying to access to the internet.

The CPF 3.0 shows explorer.exe so often because CPF 3.0 has a new feature (defense+ = system firewall).

I think it is interest to see what does explorer.exe do so often.

Andreas

[Andreas]

@kail post:349

I think previously, in the example I gave, the user only had to worry about the drive letter changing (from E to D) & there are plenty of Partition Managers that have utils to search the registry/INI files to fix these. But, now, it seems, the user also has to worry about the HarddiskVolume numbers changing.

I’m not sure about other fiirewalls… I guess it depends on if they use the Device/HarddiskVolume numbers or not.

I think when you change the drive letter you get problems and that is normal. Maybe a additionally feature is necessary to save and restore the entries of all rules.

I hope i understand the cause correctly.

Andreas

[Damitha]

one quick question!

why are the default network rules different from the 2.4. It only has 2 rules!

Dam

[kail]

@Andreas post:351

I think when you change the drive letter you get problems and that is normal. Maybe a additionally feature is necessary to save and restore the entries of all rules.

Actually CFP3 does have this, although it is disabled for the Alpha. So, we don’t know what it does yet. But, I was using the drive letters as an example of something that we know about, the HarddiskVolume numbers are something that is less obvious.

[Little_Mac]

@Damitha post:352

one quick question!

why are the default network rules different from the 2.4. It only has 2 rules!

It handles the traffic differently, for one thing, and builds the rules a little different. It’s easy enough to change them, even create rules groups (which can be very handy).

Another bug I found: In Defense +, when Editing the Protection Settings for an Application, the Active Protection is by default set to ‘No.’ Changing it to ‘Yes’ does not stick. As soon as you Apply (and the window closes), it reverts to ‘No.’

Here’s a question on that setting, anyway… Does ‘No’ mean (for instance, on Termination), “No, this application cannot be terminated,” or does it mean “No, there is no protection against termination”? It would seem that it must be the latter (or it’s another bug) because I can Terminate Firefox all day long and it isn’t stopped… Edit: I can Terminate all day long with TaskManager and no alerts. Process Explorer gets an alert. Both have the same rights set - to ‘Ask’ for Termination of a process. So that, then, still begs the question as to which way the whole Yes/No thing goes…

LM

[kail]

@Little Mac post:354

…
Another bug I found: In Defense +, when Editing the Protection Settings for an Application, the Active Protection is by default set to ‘No.’ Changing it to ‘Yes’ does not stick. As soon as you Apply (and the window closes), it reverts to ‘No.’
…

LM

That option only sticks for me if I specify an Exception. Possible bug?

[Little_Mac]

@Sammo

I am unable to install CPF 3. The installer says that there is a previous version installed and that I must uninstall it first. I have already done this and still get this error.

Sammo, see my post earlier today… https://forums.comodo.com/cfp_beta_corner/cfp_3_1000_alpha_please_post_feedbackbug_reports_here_xp_only-t9609.0.html;msg71206#msg71206

LM

[Andreas]

I am unable to install to install CPF 3 also. I have the same problem. I have to set the system recovery point.

Andreas

[kail]

I think this was one the first things I reported.

Confirmed: CFP3A1 uninstaller does not remove enough to satisfy the CFP3A1 installer.

I’ve not tried the CMD file that another user created & posted (as in LM’s link), it might be worth looking at that.

Recently, I’ve switched from using System Restore points to recover CFP to merely exporting CFPs registry tree. Stopping CFP & importing an exported REG file seems to work just fine (no reboots required).

[Andreas]

“Apply” is english.

“Abbrechen” is german.

That must be a bug.

Andreas

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Nikos]

can comodo team post an official uninstalaltion utility please?