D+ clarifications and syntax questions

OK, I’ve had the new version up and running for a while, got the firewall running and can pretty much deal with it; this D+ is an entirely different animal. I have a fair idea of what it is trying to accomplish, a less than fair idea of how it works, and nearly baffled as to how to do things in that I feel should be done, so if someone could walk me through the following example.

Let’s say I have a anti-virus program, it gets installed somewhere in C:\Program Files and creates a few sub-directories as well; the install also creates a directory tree some where in Doc&Setting\All Users\AppData. Thus, one ends up with a single application, which is a collection of executable files spread out over two directory trees, as well as a collection of auxillary files spread out over the same two directory trees. The application needs to be able to run any of its executables whenever it deems necessary, and need to have full control (execute/create/modify/delete) over all the files in those two directory trees (this includes the possibility of creating entirely new executable files, which need to become part of the application). But no other program/application should be able to modify anything in those two directory trees.

It seems I need to create to file groups, one for the files/folders to be protected, and one for the executables of the application, and then grant access rights to the executable group for the protected group. It also seems apparent that the definition of these two file groups is going to be identical, differing only in their name.

1 What is the Comodo syntax for specifying all files in all child directories. (“…\DirName.…*”) ?
2 What is the Comodo syntax for specifying all files of a particular type in all child directories (“…\DirName.…*.exe”) ?
3 Will Comodo pick up new files in the executable group?
4 Is it legit (within Comodo) to have two different file groups pointing to exactly the same file definitions, used for entirely different purposes? That is can Comodo handle a situation like “Me has full access to Me”?

1 and 2 work as you expected. It is a bit tricky to get some of the dialogs to allow you to enter those wildcards though. Some path boxes can be edited normally by clicking on them. Others have to be right-clicked and Edit selected from the dialog box. Still others only work when you first create the rule and define the path (a cursor appears in the path box then and only then) - no right-click Edit option and no click and edit for the path.
3 and 4 I don’t quite know. It should work for both, but I have not had occasion to test it.



Yes, you can create multiple file groups pointing to the same files and then add the corresponing rules to Computer Security Policy. The order of rules application is top-to-bottom. If the rule specifies a definite action (Allow or Block) for a given operation request, it is applied. If the action for a given operation request is “Ask”, Comodo skips to the next appropriate rule on the Computer Security Policy list.

Thanks for the information. I’ll see what havoc I can create.