I installed CFP v220.127.116.118 a couple of days ago first uninstalling CFP v2. I installed CFP setting the option “Basic Firewall”. The insaller set the tick at “Deactivate the Defense+ permanently” and the Defense+ Security Level to “Clean PC Mode”. Summary reports Defense+ as inactive. BUT: It isn’t really inactive! When updating Firefox Defense+ asked me to give updater.exe permission to manipulate files in the Programm Files directory. Such popups disappeared after I too set the Defense+ Security Level to “Disabled”.
So what’s the thing with “Deactivate permanently”? Is this a bug (should I have posted this subject there) or doesn’t it simply mean what it seems to mean?
Has hijacking-protection become obsolete in the Firewall with integration of the Defense+ module into CFP? E.g. when I open an internet-link out of my Email client, I’m no longer asked (like with CFP v2) to allow the Email client to start Firefox.
XP Pro SP2.
Thanks for answers.
Also thanks to the Comodo developer team for the good work. So far I really like CFP.(:CLP)
The question about the permission for your email client to open Firefox is not a simple firewall function. The ability of CFP to control those connections has been collected in the Defense+ feature, so if you disable it you really have less control over those attempts than you had in v2.4. You can avoid a lot of the pop-ups that happen to start with by selecting Defense+>Advanced>Defense+ Settings> and selecting “Training Mode” for a while to let the program generate rules with far fewer pop-ups. The Clean PC mode also works well, but both assume that your computer is free of malware.
I hope I don’t annoy you with stupid questions. (Against the claim of most middleschool teachers: There ARE stupid questions! - As you probably now best.) But:
I haven't choosed to disable Defense+ during the install, but if you choose to deactivate it permantently, it makes more sense to me that it's not installed, rather than being set to "Clean PC Mode".
Is the meanig of “not to install Defense+” “stay with v2.4”?
So far I can’t see a way to install CFP v3 without Defense+. I checked for all possible german translations of the english verb to install, but in this context it can only mean to run an installer on your computer. I think there is a little mix-up with the verbs to install and to disable/to (de)activate, as it was my impression when I read the CFP v3 Help (-> Installation). If I’m missunderstanding the English language please correct me (I didn’t say this because I won’t to be a know-it-all). Defense+ seems to be a very important part of the new CFP version, so it I think it won’t make any sense not to install it.
(By the way: I’m Swiss. So, how’s the weather over the Atlantic?)
Defense+ is surely a very good malware protection tool, but it seems to be a lot of work to configure it properly. And I’m not that afraid of viruses/malware. I trust my anti virus software and best virus protection still is common sense and to make enough system images and data backups. So my problem is also a bit of the “is it worth the effort?” sort. I had no virus-infected file on my computer for 3 years and I use the internet a lot.
The training mode solution seems to worth a try (thanks for the suggestion).
Defense+ caused Apoint.exe (Alps TouchPad Driver) to constantly use 40% of CPU power. I switched back to v2.4 and everything’s fine. I will delay the update to v3 to a later point in time, when bugs such as this one will be fixed. Thanks although.
Here winter is setting in and christmas chocolate production is running at maximum level. I’m wating for snow (I live in the lowland).
It seems that there are a couple of complaints about touchpad drivers not working properly - I assume that it is because they install keyboard hooks and screen hooks. Did you give Apoint.exe Trusted privileges? Our weather just went from winter - freezing and blowing snow - to spring - rain and 10 degrees.
These days I’m very busy, so I unfortunately haven’t the time to mess around with my computer, but thanks. I will get back to it later. But I will make a bug report as soon as possible. I will first check, if nobody else has already posted one on this issue.