Comodo froze my computer

I decided to try Comodo after having read many positive comments over the last several months.

I have XP Pro SP2, and two security products that run in real time, Kaspersky 2006 and ProcessGuard 3.15. I have never had Norton products or any firewall other than Windows (which is disabled) on this computer.

I disabled PG to do the Comodo installation. I was asked to reboot which I did and immediately saw 5 popups from Comodo. I was stunned. I had not been given any opportunity to configure the firewall or to learn about and here it was running?!! That is inexcusable.

But besides that issue where it should not have run on reboot until I configured it and learned about it and then rebooted again, I found the computer frozen when I tried to click on “yes allow” for the 5 popups. I brought up task manager and before I could end task on comodo, Task Manager also froze and the CPU usage was at 65% and stayed at that level. I finally had to resort to using the button on the tower to shut down the computer. I can’t recall when the last time was that an application forced me to do that it has been so long. I rebooted to safe mode and uninstalled Comodo.

I did not think this freezing was connected to ProcessGuard because it was still disabled on reboot. I would have put it in learning mode but had no opportunity as the computer froze as soon as those 5 Comodo popups were there. I just read a post at Wilders in the PG forum from someone who says there is a conflict between PG and Comodo with freezing of the computer occuring. Is this true? Are the two incompatible? There was no response from DiamondCS to the thread. Maybe they will respond now that I have added my experience.

I would not have kept Comodo even if there had been no freezing problem because I think it absolutely awful that I was given no opportunity to configure the firewall, nor to learn about it, before it started running and producing all those popups that I was supposed to deal with even though I had not had any opportunity to familarize myself with the firewall first. Very poor design IMO. Comodo may be excellent but I have a bad taste in my mouth and not because of some apparant conflict with PG or KAV or some other application I use but mainly because I was given no opportunity to configure and learn about the firewall before it started running. I think the reboot should not have started Comodo.

Sorry, but I think "inexcusable " might be a bit harsh.

Every other firewall I know of 1) requires a reboot after installation and 2) activates the system level drivers on the next reboot. Firewalls are active to some extent immediately after the first reboot. Zone Alarm does allow you to do minor configuration after the first reboot, but only at the expense of blocking all traffic during this phase. Comodo, on the other hand, allows traffic, but the system level drivers are active for defense against whatever was installed on your PC prior to CPF being installed.

Maybe, as a compromise, the installation of Comodo Firewall could be modified so it asked all config questions during the installation process, rather than after the first reboot. If you think this would help both you and Comodo, please add this request to the CPF wishlist posting.

I noticed this is your first posting to the forums. Assuming that you haven’t logged a support ticket at support.comodo.com, did you want the forum members to try and help you (this may involve a bit of backwards and forwards with forum posts, though), or was this posted purely as a comment? If it’s purely a comment and you no longer wish to use CPF, thanks for the comments and I’ll float the idea of “config before reboot” and see what everyone else thinks.

If you did want the forum members to try and help sort this out, PM me and I’ll move this topic from Feedback to Help.

Cheers,
Ewen :slight_smile:

ewen :slight_smile:

I agree that “inexcusable” is a bit harsh and I should chosen a better phrasing.

Yes, I think allowing for configuration during the install would be great and perhaps suggesting that one delay reboot until they have read the help file would also be a good idea.

I purposely posted this in feedback and no I haven’t logged a support ticket. After reading that others say there is definite conflict between ProcessGuard and Comodo and having no desire to get rid of PG, I don’t feel that I want to try and resolve the problem as I suspect it may not be resolvable unless the two parties work together to fix it and I will just wait and hope that is the case.

I also have, since posting, read that Kaspersky 2006 likely conflicts with Comodo also so I think I have too many strikes against me to try and get them to all work together at this time. Perhaps, at some future date I will be able to use all three.

I am most familar with ZoneAlarm (began using it on dialup when it was in beta back in 1999 and when very few even knew what a software firewall was) so I was used to be able to configure right away. I haven’t used it in some time though but that is what I remember from the days when I did use it. I am behind a router so a software firewall would be mostly to control what wants out and PG controls that …but there are a few other elements of a software firewall that would be nice to have…but not with starting out with such a severe problem.

I would appreciate it if you float the idea of allowing configuration during the install. Thanks.

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback. During the installation, there is a mode called “Manual Configuration”, which would let you customize CPF setings during the setup.
We are sorry that CPF did not work well for you. After CPF 3.0, you will not need PG or SSM like products as CPF will have a HIPS in it.

Good luck,
Egemen

Yes, I noticed the “manual” choice. Ordinarily, if familiar with a product, I choose “manual” or “custom” install. However, not being at all familiar with Comodo, I thought it best to just choose the standard install and then later change the configuration after I had read the help file and looked at the settings.

I’m sure that many will appreciate having an HIPS included. I would not and that cements my decision to not use this product. I wanted a firewall not a “do all” application. I hate suites…note I have KAV 2006 not KIS which I beta tested for almost a year and then chose to purchase KAV because I don’t like suites. Suites have too many weaknesses and if an intruder can take down the suite then there is no other layer to your defense. Plus, I have no intention of giving up PG unless DiamondCS goes out of business or abandons the project, etc. I know there are a lot of users (not newbies/average users) who do not like suites and who will turn away from your offerings because of this. I want to use a variety of products where each one does a certain thing and I want them to work together. I have no interest in putting all my eggs in one basket. That is foolish but the beginner/average user doesn’t understand that.

I can see that Comodo is not at all interested in working with DiamondCS to get their firewall to work with PG since Comodo doesn’t want to just offer a firewal for those of use who want a firewall and not the kitchen sink. IMO that is a foolish attitude.

Mele20

Let me try to answer two issues you have raised

1)Inclusion of HIPS: Software firewalls are now more of an application control than what they were when they were invented initially. There is a trend towards putting HIPS capability into firewalls, just like they all started putting app control and now its an accepted part of any software firewall. I would not really call it a suite. Just more powerful as instead of hooking lets say 5, you hook 25 APIs. CPF is a firewall and will continue to be one. But it will have powerful features which will include HIPS.

2)Whether we are interested in being compatible with other HIPS apps: The answer is : of course we are! It does not serve us not to! So why is not compatible with PG etc. Well its not for lack of trying for sure! The problem is mainly a technical one. CPF has powerful hooks (compared to other firewalls). That is why pass all leak tests, resist termination etc etc. Other products like PG does similar things on certain areas. This causes compatibility issue. Its very similar to the reason why you should not have 2 firewalls as they will fight for the same resources. It is similar problem to that! But you say, other firewalls are compatible, well we are one of the most secure if not the most secure firewall so we do control more at kernel level than others to give more security.

We are totally focused in giving our users pure application. However please bear in mind we also must listen to the latest technical advances and make sure to take advantage of that for our users.

Melih