CPF 3: Good BUT interface needs polish

maybe some experience is useful like some have indicated. i’m really not new to firewalls at all.

the way i get familiar with them is usually the logs. and this is where i immediately ran in to a problem after upgrading to cpf 3. the reason or the rule related to blocking of an application has been removed from the logs as far as i can tell.

i think this was a very bad idea. i liked how all the events were linked to a rules so that i could tell why things were happening obviously

terms like safe mode / training mode / train with safe mode i don’t find very intuitive. i mean when i look at that then i think “what the hell is the difference” . “clean pc mode” tells me just as little i’m afraid.

i think that the interface could use a little less text titles to click on for example

  • define new trusted application
  • define new untrusted application

could have easily been “define new application”. small things like this add to the confusion. i really value the logs. i recognize all the the nice filtering options that have been added though. i also like the new pop op questions for applications.

i don’t think this is that much a case of it being too complicated. it’s a bit too easy to say that. the interface could use a tiny bit of polishing. some of the names of the titles could have less words for example

  • “View Active Connections” could be simply “Traffic” or “Connections” etc…

  • “Define a new trusted application” & “Define a new blocked application” could become just be one item “New Application” . thats much easier to find instead of having to read whole sentences.

  • “View Firewall Events” could have been “Events” or “Logs”

i know these are small things but in the end it all again adds to the confusion. i over looked these names the first few times i was flipping through the tabs.

i started with the previous version (2.4) which was nice. this is alot more smooth looking than version 2.4. i see alot of good new options but i think the interface need a little less like i tried to indicate (not less functionality but less catagorization).

i appreciate that its free of course. keep it commin guys :smiley:

nah :slight_smile:

i like the interface alot.

unfortunately i disagree. i find myself clicking/trying alot of items in the main to get to the rigth place. because less clearer names

I think venom_zx is right. Also the List that shows all rules for all applications is difficult to access and creating new rules directly from the list was easier in v2 too. Now you have to click more than in v2.
Btw I’m currently using v2 because of this.

A polish? :o
No, what the interface needs is a total reworking, from scratch.

It is ridiculous the number of windows that need to be opened to to simply view or edit an applications rules in either d+ or the firewall component.

In regards to D+, the way the rules themselves are presented is absolutely atrocious, there is no sorting by alphabetical order (wtf comodo ???), so you have to hunt all over to find anything.

From looking at an applications’ rule, it is impossible to find what the parent process is, if you’re unsure, you’ve got a whole heap of looking to do.

Once you are in the part where you can actually see the various permissions (ie allow execute), you can no longer see the name of the process that the permissions apply to, to view the processes name, you have to close at least 2 windows. Moving the top window is useless, as there is yet another window still blocking the small window that gives the processes name that you cannot move.

Why on earth does everything you click have to open a new window?

I really cannot think of a more convoluted way of achieving this that what Comodo have come up with, it boggles the mind.

I do not believe that the current interface can be made workable, it desperately needs to be re-written from scratch, this time with some reference to usability.

I will most likely be uninstalling cpf3, mainly because the interface is so terrible.

edit- Haha, I love the “obscenity” filter ;D
“Why is that? [!]”