Comodo Internet Security 2024 v12.3.2.8124 BETA

@cisfan and @Varan-de-C0m0d0

I wanted confirmation from others first in case there was something not right with testing before asking Comodo for a response. I had a little bit of doubt somewhere even though my testing seemed solid hence why I asked for confirmation.

After a night of sleep I see the flaw in my testing. CIS still only supports TAP adapter (in Proton VPN I use OpenVPN protocol TCP with TAP).

CIS will give alerts regardless of protocol or adapter. However, when using TUN adapter or WireGuard protocol you will only get alerts for the browser accessing local loopback.

Once you are past the local loopback alerts you will not get any alerts when the browser accesses IP addresses on the internet when using TUN adapter or WireGuard protocol. You only get alerts when the browser accesses IP addresses on the internet with the TAP adapter.

I overlooked that there were no alerts when the browser tries to access IP addresses on the internet with TUN adapter or WireGuard protocol; the local loop alerts had me blind sighted.

Only when using the TAP adapter you will get alerts when the browser accesses IP addresses on the internet.


I’m having the same issue.
The current beta ( reports that the program is up-to-date so it does not update to the new beta.

Running apps and all kinds of malicious applications with WireGuard will also not show any alert related to the connection to a given server, nor will it be recorded in the logs.

Here’s another leak…
Running apps and all kinds of malicious applications which use WinPCap or npcap will also not show any alert related to the connection to a given server, nor will it be recorded in the logs.

@tachion @CISfan
Hence why you should only use VPN with TAP adapter when using CIS for the time being. Although containment will also bring mitigation to the table when it comes to dealing with malware.

How to add your own themes to the CIS?

Finally… maybe it’s better…

Will try soon…testing several files…

In the building trade, it’s nice to talk about finishing touches when you’re still in the rough structural work , but it does put a bit of stress on you, doesn’t it? :thinking:

CMDagent is not signed

Malicious Malware? :thinking:

during installation it is not signed, afterwards yes

The whole package is signed, so I don’t know where this data comes from that it has not signed ?

I installed it on a PC while keeping the Glasswire firewall active.

When cmdagent asked for the connection the first time, Glasswire told me it was not signed…

I did this, just to see what happened…

I checked cmdagent.exe and it is signed.

You got conflicting information but failed to inquire. Also you failed to mention up front there was another third party firewall active at the moment of installation which could influence your findings.

We expect a beta tester to be actively inquiring conflicting findings and provide sufficient information about your configuration at the time of your findings.


You stated that Comodo is fully committed to fix everything listed in the List of current bugs and that fixing the bugs has your current focus as indictated in your above posts.
What is true about this statement and focus? Is it only false promise?
When will there be the promised bug fixes?
I don’t understand, please clarify.

Expression française : il faut tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de parler (think before you speak)

C’est la même chose sur le forum. Carve every word before you let it fall.

Comment un expert comme vous a-t-il pu oublier de désactiver le FW de GW lors de l’installation de CFW ?

Hello Domo78 !

You’re wrong, I deliberately installed it on the PC where Glasswire was.

I wanted to see what was going on. Are tests forbidden? Have you published a test nomenclature yourself?

Presumably you also manage technical feedback from the beta version to the developers?

If we don’t welcome my essay comments at all anymore, how many do you think there are?

Is it encouraging or not?

Have you decided to stop all feedback? Or have you been appointed to sort them out and devalue some?

It’s rather paradoxical to have to turn your tongue 7 times in a country that is also the country of freedom of expression. Are you trying to divert attention from the beta’s current problems?

I’m sure you’d prefer an empty page here. No one would speak, and that would be fine with you. Why don’t you contribute to the beta process by testing something a little different that adds a different, non-linear, non-Lambda experience?

Thanks in advance.

Expert battles are all very well, but why can’t CISfan, who’s a real fan (as I am), get an answer to his questions?

I could also install a local proxy to see how CIS handles this. Will it notice that everything is decrypted on the fly?

Any objections?

No feedback, no comments, less progress

Your post did not point to a problem with the beta. Files don’t go from unsigned to signed. To add to that I fail to see the relevance of that particular test. What was the objective of testing?

You neither gave an explanation of what you witnessed. All I see is clickbait when you say cmdagent.exe file is not signed. You did not describe how you tested, what your findings are and what explains them.

We expect a beta tester to actively inquire instead we have to pull information from you.


I installed beta 3 on a new machine and no issues, nothing to complain about

thanks so much for your work, waiting the rc release