I have been getting multiple instances of ComodoSE.exe, mainly on rebooting the computer. I counted 80 instances in my task manager on one occasion. I get the impression that this is fact the updater, and have stopped the problem without loss of encryption or decryption functionality by altering the file extension so that it no longer runs at all. Can anyone suggest a better solution?
Not happening here, and not seen any other reports. However please report this as a possible bug.
You may be able to understand better whats happening if you install Microsoft Process explorer. For example this would show if they are beneath each other, or which other context these are running in.
Try a re-install first. If this does not work maybe consider using msconfig (type on a DOS command line) or microsoft autoruns to disable the program and check for updates manually. If multiple instances are always started you may need to delete or disable multiple start entries.
Please be careful not to disable anything else if you use these programs. Best to take a restore pt first.
How should I report this as a bug? I have tried on a number of occasions seeking support, but never received the courtesy of any sort of reply or acknowledgment.
I think I did try running process explorer or the like and found that the processes were running beneath one another rather than subordinate to any other process, but I will remember this tip and try it again and report back if I return to multiple instances. This may happen when I restore the name of comodoSE.exe periodically to check for updates. Do you have any idea how often on average Comodo update the program?
I tried a reinstall, to no avail.
I also tried looking in msconfig, but to my surprise I could find no reference to the program either as a start up or as a service. I assume that it runs by some other means - perhaps by some .dll being registered in the system, but my knowledge of windows is not sufficient to know what to infer on this point. Can you point to why the program does not show up oin msconfig, or where it should show up?
Do you have in mind there any particular danger in disabling things?
Please report it in CSE bug reports. All is not lost yet re CSE - it may be revived at some point.
Re disabling - try MS autoruns. It it’s still not there it’s being run directly by CSE (maybe the LSP .dll or the transient .exes you see running under Outlook), which is unusual and probably the problem. Or maybe just rename it. No no particular danger if you are sensible. If you disable critical OS processes all hell will break loose. Some people get over enthusiastic.
What I think happens is that CSE attaches itself randomly to other processes when it runs (ie it runs in their context) - CAS was similarly affected. If it attaches to itself, then it turns recursive I guess.
Re support, it has been discontinued for this product. Comodo support for free products and usually responds, but can be slow. If you have paid, then I’d hope it should be quick. For free products Comodo relies to a certain extent on crowd sourcing. Eric was the crowd, now I seem to be the the crowd
If you want to retain the updater, run it (maybe the renamed version) via a scheduled task instead. Hopefully that should sort it.
I prepared my reply, but again, although I had logged in, the board asked me to log in again, and the reply was lost. This seems to be caused by the time out feature. What a nuisance that is. And it would be much more convenient if there was a link to go to one’s own posts, which are only conveniently accessible at present if there are unread replies.
I am happy to report. Should I copy and paste or can I cross reference?
What a tragedy the decision to discontinue SecureEmail is. I can find nothing else apart from pgp that sends incoming encrypted email to the client in the clear, which I regard as essential; and pgp is bloated and expensive.
I think your recursive attachment theory could be so. I think that when I had multiple instances, one was subordinated but the rest were not. I will let you know if it happens again.
Is it or has it ever been possible to pay for SecureEmail? I would be happy to do so - I just want a solution and have invested a lot of time in trying to find one.
Since I rely on renaming to disable ComodoSE.exe, I suppose that to run it as a scheduled task I would have to restore its name and move it to another folder so that the rest of the program could not find it, and then add a scheduled task for it. Is that how you see it? Did you have anything else in mind?
I doubt whether running the process as a scheduled task will be successful, since the process runs all the time, presumably checking for updates as and when it thinks fit, and although I could start the process as a scheduled task the process would then just sit there until I next closed the computer. Since I have known the process replicate itself while the computer was running as well as on start-up, running the process as a scheduled task would neither protect me from multiple instances nor provide any assurance that an update check had actually taken place. For the time being, running the updates check is apparently futile, given that the program is to be discontinued.
I have tried deselecting automatic updates in the user interface, but having done so still get multiple instances upon occasion on start-up.
When I renamed the process, I was still able apparently to run the manual update function in the user interface.
Renaming the file seems to have no adverse effect upon the functioning of the programme.
Even if I terminate the process when it is running it automatically recommences shortly afterwards, and so I take it that it is automatically restarted by the DLL.
I enclose a couple of screen prints of auto run, but I can see no reference to this process, which further supports your suggestion that the process is started by a DLL. I do note however that OEPL.DLL is referred to as a plug-in for Outlook express. I thought the only plug-in was for Outlook. I also note that apart from the plug-in the only start-up is a DLL, and so I presume that that is what handles the encryption and decryption.
I doubt this: “Renaming the file seems to have no adverse effect upon the functioning of the programme”. My guess is that when you run it from the configuration interface you are running different code.
But if you are right one option would be to use CIS to make it a blocked file in Defense plus. ESET may have a similar ability. But if not why not switch to CIS - gives a higher security level than ESET (which my wife has) - and works with CSE withou problems - and is free.
Alternatively deny the current user execution rights on the file, using OS security.