CPF 220.127.116.11 seems to start slowly, as I mentioned yesterday and others have reported also. I have looked as carefully as possible at what happens on my machine, a Dell P4 1.7 GHz, running xpsp2 Home fully patched. From the press of the power switch on the tower to the appearance of the CPF icon in the system tray requires just 2 minutes. The icon’s tooltip says “Comodo Firewall is being initialized…”. Nothing appears to happen for an additional 2 minute period, at which point a Comodo Firewall Alert appears saying “Can’t initialize session manager…”, because Fast User Switching is not available. After another 20 seconds, the alert disappears and the CPF icon tooltip says “…all systems up…” and everything proceeds normally thereafter.
It looks to me as if CPF fails to determine the status of Fast User Switching properly. It appears that it sends some signal for data that it needs and then waits for a time-out return. That would account for much of the two minutes, I suppose. What it should do first, of course, is to determine whether FUS is even enabled. If it is not, it should get on with its own tasks just as it does after the alert mentioned above. FUS is clearly not required for proper operation of CPF!
Will the promised update on Tuesday (5 September) perhaps fix this issue?
i find that when the comodo firewall loads by itself, it takes a very long time to initialize. when it loads with the launch pad, it initializes fairly quickly. why is this? i am using the most recent version that was released last week.
launchpad 18.104.22.168, CPF version 22.214.171.124 windows xp home edition sp2. it never seems to happen when comodo dashboard is running at the same time as the firewall in the system tray. and also, when the balloon says “initializing” for the firewall, in the windows xp sp2 security manager, it shows the firewall as up and running!
i haven’t heard anything from tech support about this issue, so i am still hoping i might be able to get help from this forum. so far the firewall has initialized each and every time i have tested it with the launch pad running. is this some sort of intermittent bug that will be fixed at the next update?
what confuses me is that even when the firewall hasn’t initialized, it shows up as operational in the windows xp sp2 security center!
any help on this issue is much appreciated. thanks in advance.
Have you logged this as a support ticket in their new support centre (http://support.comodo.com), or did you send and email directly to email@example.com? If the latter, I’d recommend registering at support.comodo.com and logging a support ticket (not much help, I realise, but this will be the best method of obtaining official suport from this point onwards ;))
what confuses me is that even when the firewall hasn't initialized, it shows up as operational in the windows xp sp2 security center!
The core components of CPF are initialized almost immediately. This is why Windows Security Centre recognises it as being functional, although full initialization has not yet finalised.
Would just like to clear one thing, Comodo Firewall and Comodo LaunchPad don’t have any connection at all.
Infact in latest 126.96.36.199 CF setup we have removed installation of Comodo LaunchPad.
So slow initilization issue can be anything but not due to Launch Pad wasn’t up.
still no word from comodo tech support. i really hope they answer my query, since i think CPF is by far the best personal software firewall i have ever used. hopefully i might also get some help from this forum.
if there is anyone here who can let me know the status of my support ticket, i would greatly appreciate it.
now seems to be initializing without launch pad running. still haven’t heard back from tech support. i can only assume this is an internittent glitch that will be fixed in upcoming versions. CPF is still a fantastic piece of software, and given some of the HORRENDOUS things zone alarm free has done to my system in the past, i can tolerate just about any bugs in comodo, with the hope that they will be fixed at each upcoming new version.
keep up the GREAT work guys! if your antivirus/antispyware is eventually as good as the firewall, i may even switch from avast…maybe…