COMODO Internet Security 5.8.199581.2037 BETA Released!

IMO Clean installs are a good idea anytime for an upgrade, but even more so if installing a Beta Version.

Hello there.I have a question, and i wonder what advantages or benefits i will gain by downloading the latest beta for Cis, as apart from a fancier Gui the main thrust of improvements seem to relate to x64 systems and mine is 32 bit.Also i noticed scanning performance improvements, what exactly does this mean…faster scanning perhaps?.I am wondering whether the changes in this beta are worth downloading at this stage, or perhaps wait until another beta delivers more security advantages such as full virtualization.


Thank you very much which languages support it

For the Future wish I these feature for the Updater

Language files for this version are not done yet.

Sounds promising.

What about IPv6? Why is filtering still disabled by default?
Last year Comodo FW was tested by a popular German magazine (c’t) and Comodo got bad grades because IPv6 filtering wasn’t there by default.
Lots of other firewalls are better there (PcTools, Private FW, Outpost…).
Any chance that it will be enabled by default with v. 5.8? Is something missing?

You’ll have no choice, the web installer forces you to uninstall any previous version of CIS.

Just found this out myself before reading this. Some bugs are to be expected in the first public Beta release though. :wink:

Its good that they have given the option to allow/block all the D+ popups automatically. Now one can set CIS on average users system i.e if the user is not knowledgeable enough D+ popups can be set to allow automatically for him.

Now only 1 popup remains i.e Unlimited Rights popup. This too can be set to sandbox automatically i.e run installers/updaters outside the sandbox can be unchecked & then there will be no popup at all. BUT for this I think an option should be implemented, automatically allow applications with valid digital signatures. COZ many a times users install apps offlines so the cloud whitelist cannot be reached & the apps are sandboxed & if the above option i.e run installers/updaters outside sandbox is unchecked then apps with valid digital signatures not whitelisted by Comodo are also sandboxed.

SO to eliminate the only popup i.e Unlimited Rights popup with the above mentioned settings for the average users, I think if the above mentioned new option if implemented i.e automatically allow apps with valid didital signatures, run installers/updaters outside sandbox option can be unchecked for average users when setting up CIS for average users coz the sandbox probs will be reduced atleast for the apps with valid digital signatures & this will be good for average users. Offcourse this setting can be optional like dont give popup alerts setting.


Which is a security nightmare! But if they were already the type that would just click allow anyway without attempting to understand what the alert was telling them, then I guess the end result is the same. :wink:

I know thats why I specially mentioned Average Users. Coz as you know most average users just click allow so atleast with this setting the apps with valid digital signatures will be allowed & the unknown will be sandboxed (run installers/updaters outside sandbox will be unchecked)


Can you also put an option to choose between Internet/Proactive/Firewall configurations in the Summary screen?
It would be nice to see program and AV database versions in the left part of main window.

with comodo leak test, i get a perfect score with sandbox enabled (untrusted), but with sandbox disabled (proactive security, safe mode), i only get 200/340 on win7 x64 :frowning:

Is the 5.8 auto sandbox strong enough to protect the system if D+ alerts is set to “Allow” by default?
What I understand the current sandbox just work side by side together with D+. This means, even if an app is sanboxed, it can still modify(harm) the system if D+ alert is allowed.

i have been testing 5.8 on win 7 64 bit with sandbox disabled so i can test the new HIPS, everything has been working good so far. im just wondering if the defense + pop is necessary when the cloud av finds the file malicious. Whether the user clicks allow or block the file is still blocked

EDIT: i got this alert when using the firewall and defense + only.

[attachment deleted by admin]

I think the mal. file will be allowed to run in sandbox if click “allow” while the file will NOT be allowed to run if click “block”, isn’t it.

Would someone please test and disclose the results of CIS v5.8 beta against Spyshelter Antitest and Zemana Security Tests, both in x86 and x64 environments? I really believe CIS should strengthen its protections against different logging methods(Key, Webcam, Clipboard, Screen and Sound). Thanks.

On x64 the HIPS fails the tests 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b.
All other screenlogging methods, keylogging and clipboard logging are blocked.
Will do a bug report for the screen logger issue.

The other tests (mic and webcam) aren’t real world threats, I suppose, and they hardly will ever be any. That’s why I think there doesn’t have to be “protection” for those.

That’s what I would think. The sandbox did not change so on occasion the user will get the additional D+ alerts. Allowing them would make CIS less secure.

JoWa and L.A.R. Grizzly

Thank you for your both answers


A question: If choose (Do not show antivirus alerts: Block Threats), When was blocked malware by antivirus, And was an FP, How can we it unblock?