Surely they asserted the advantages of a “terminate” option instead of redefiningwhat “deny” should mean.
Was your wish so much complex thing that do not match his one?
If it was not, it is a pity as only an handful members posted in that topic to support such new feature and you obviously did not take such chace whenever you should have been aware of such topic by now.
Sorry Endymion but everyone’s circumstances are surely different. I did not notice that thread and I rarely come to these forums unless I have an issue and then I have very limited time to browse because I am have a business to run.
So thank you for pointing that thread out, I will quickly go there now.
Whenever much more of your time was spent generalizing over these tests, glad to point you to that wishlist topic as much as it was needed whereas it matched your explicit wish whenever it was unexplicably neglected till now.
Considering everybody comes to these forums in their spare time I see no need to state a reason for that whereas you seemingly posted in this topic like anybody else that found it by chance (AFAIK only Opening Posters would be able to come for the specific purpose to create a new thread regardless if the topic pertains an issue, an help request etc.)
I do not know how you managed to remove only that part without paying attention to it whereas it was an obvious match to an explicit comment/wish of yours.
That aside I wish your best for you business and circumstances as there is no doubt they deserve your time and attention.
I see that Melih and others pop into these forums. Why can’t they seize hold of these issues more visibly or seriously / quickly I wonder. I noticed that the “advanced servicehost handling” issue has been around for years and still nothing. It it is a huge issue if exploited.
When I used to visit Avast forums the developers were right in there, picking up hints and doing a ■■■■ fine job.
I like comodo but I worry about some aspects very seriously. I think they may run things on a shoestring and so become very stretched as they offer a wide range of features and products. They need to focus more on quality.
A new version of this test is out. CIS fails another couple of screenshot tests. Endymion after doing what you say here sound is blocked but those Webcam settings has no effect on Seven x64, my ugly face is captured. ;D
the screenshots test (only test 4 a/b and 5 a/b) do not passed
the webcam test: on the first start, the webcam is working but only a picture is captured (like a photo). when I start a second time this test, no picture will be captured
the sound record test: the test ist running, but NO sound is recorded
I use Comodo Internet security v4 with the Sandbox enabled and the options “Automatically detect installers/updaters and run them outside the Sandbox” is uncheked. I have Windows 7 and Proactive Security Configuration.
I am running Windows 7 x64. I’m using V4 set to proactive security with the Sandbox disabled.
I am vulnerable to all of the screenshot attempts!
I also fail the ‘System Protection’ test!
Can anyone else confirm this? As I said I’m running this without the Sandbox and I’m failing these tests.
Edit: It turns out I had rules already saved for the application. When I renamed it and ran the test I only fail two of the Screenshot tests. (4a/b and 5a/b)
I have the same results as galea.ovidiu. With the Sandbox disabled CIS fails these tests: capturing screenshot method 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b; sound recording; webcam. CIS is set to use Proactive Security configuration.
I can confirm that it fails if I have Defense+ setting on clean PC or below. On Safe mode an alert kicks in whether to allow explorer.exe to execute antitest.exe and thereafter if you choose to block, it blocks OK.
But remember to rename the .exe to something like antitest2.exe because CIS will remember what it did to last .exe so important to rename before next test.
The problem that I see is that rather than default settings the high security settings are needed to stop this stuff and most people will use default. This is a serious design and implementation matter for the CIS Team. I really think that they need to increase the size of the whitelist, perhaps working with another company or whatever, and then have the sandbox really deny complete access unless the user chooses otherwise.
But even then, it is not a sandbox like sandboxie which allow exe to run without these kinds of problems, so perhaps it needs a fundamental review of sandobxing in CIS or Melih getting his cheque book out and buying sandboxie before someone else does :-\
