Please see Subject Line.
Topic: Full Removal of Comodo Firewall Pro 3 with SafeSurf Toolbar (If Regular Uninstall Method Fails) (Read 263995 times)
Topic: Uninstaller Tool for Comodo Products (Read 13149 times)Topic: Internet Won’t Connect After Uninstall (Read 2595 times)
Topic: Lost internet connection after uninstall… (Read 726 times)
&ct. &ct. &ct.
mod edit: merged topic. kail
Topic: Full Removal of Comodo Firewall Pro 3 with SafeSurf Toolbar (If Regular Uninstall Method Fails) (Read 263995 times)
Topic: Uninstaller Tool for Comodo Products (Read 13149 times)Topic: Internet Won’t Connect After Uninstall (Read 2595 times)
Topic: Lost internet connection after uninstall… (Read 726 times)
&ct. &ct. &ct.
Hello;
Could you not double post (Please read the Forum Policy)
Can you elaborate more on your questions?
#1 Don’t install unless you are SURE you will not want to uninstall.
#2 Remember, every similar security product will have a small number of users who experience problems upon removal - the good companies provide solutions and work to resuce problems going forward - the problems here are well documented (here and elsewhere on the Internet) since 2007
#3 Comodo does not provide the removal tools referenced below - the tools can harm your degraded system even further.
#4 You have been warned - condolences if you read this too late to avoid problems -
Topic: Full Removal of Comodo Firewall Pro 3 with SafeSurf Toolbar- December 15, 2007 (If Regular Uninstall Method Fails) (Read 263995 times)
December 15, 2007 → UPDATED VERSION BELOW
Topic: Uninstaller Tool for Comodo Products -April 21, 2011 (Read 13140 times)
“Note: This tool is NOT provided by Comodo Group.”!!!
Topic: Vista 32bit - uninstall v3 firewall - no dhcp- December 11, 2008 (Read 4576 times)
Topic: Take Comodo out of registry December 06, 2008 (Read 2197 times)
Topic: Problems with uninstalling CIS- February 05, 2011 (Read 950 times)
Topic: Help! Can’t run/uninstall Comodo-December 04, 2008 (Read 3032 times)
Topic: CIS uninstall/install & connection problems (Read 6848 times)
Topic: Problems with uninstallation - V3- December 01, 2007 (Read 500 times)
Topic: Internet won’t connect, winsock fix won’t run-December 04, 2008, (Read 3641 times)
Topic: No Internet Connection after uninstallation- December 02, 2008 (Read 1542 times)
Topic: Comodo 3.0 install failed and can not uninstall properly in XP SP3-November 02, 2008 (Read 5086 times)
Topic: has anyone else had this problem uninstalling comodo internet security-November 08, 2008 (Read 8830 times)
Topic: Network Firewall is not functioning properly, and I can not uninstall Comodo-November 08, 2008 (Read 900 times)
sorry for the double post-
I attempted to use CSC to clean up the mess left after uninstalling CIS.
I was unable to get it to “clean” the system of the catestrophic remenants left. Since that type of cleaning is ostensibly what it is designed to do… shouldn’t it first address other Comodo products??
Is there a method or sequence of steps for CIS clean-up with CSC that is outlined somewhere? If so I missed it.
Thanks in advance for your candor.
We sensed your frustration.
I haven’t used CSC for a while, (not for any particular reason). So having said that.
To help you get better and more efficient help when it comes.
Could you specify,
OS and x32 or x64 bits
CIS version #
Perhaps describe what is “catestrophic remenants” to you.
CSC version.
CPM works pretty well, but to do so requires that it be installed before or with CIS, not after the fact.
Bad
Thanks Bad-
I attempted to use after ther fact so that’s that.
I downloaded and installed CIS on several computers on my network- the Win boxes included Vista.32, XP.32, 7.32, 7.64 - I DL’d this from the site about 2 weeks ago - I don’t know the version. All boxes are patched in real time.
I’ll address my reasons for uninsalling elsewhere.
There were significant remenents left on every box-
The “catestrophic remenants” were on XP32 & Vista32 - causing failure in one or more of the following: TCP/IP Config, DHCP, DNS settings-
I found a script and after some tweaks to that, and manual deletion of device drivers - I have the Windoze boxes working again.
included files were the following (or similar - I didn’t record);
C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\ several here mostly included cmd in name
a few “ghost” drivers in managers
The script includes:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ComodoGroup\CFP
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ComodoGroup"*" (&ct.)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ComodoGroup\CDI\1
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\cmdAgent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\cmdGuard
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\cmdHlp
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\Inspect
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Services\cmdAgent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Services\cmdGuard
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Services\cmdHlp
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Services\Inspect
KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Services\cmdAgent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Services\cmdGuard
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Services\cmdHlp
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Services\Inspect
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\cmdAgent
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\cmdGuard
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\cmdHlp
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Service\Inspect
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Software\Comodo\Firewall Pro
HKEY_USERS\S-1-5-21-1202660629-746137067-2145843811-1003\Software\ComodoGroup\CFP
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDAGENT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDGUARD
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDHLP
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Enum\Root\LEGACY_INSPECT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDAGENT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDGUARD
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDHLP
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Enum\Root\LEGACY_INSPECT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDAGENT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDGUARD
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDHLP
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet003\Enum\Root\LEGACY_INSPECT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDAGENT
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDGUARD
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_CMDHLP
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_INSPECT
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Local AppWizard-Generated Applications\CFP_Setup_
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Local AppWizard-Generated Applications\CFP_Setup_
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Local AppWizard-Generated Applications\CFPLog
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Local AppWizard-Generated Applications\CPFFileSubmission
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ComodoGroup""
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Software\Comodo""
Still no joy, so I used the tool and it found more stuff - again I didn’t record -
the exe of the tool is encrypted/PW protected & I see no need to ■■■■■ it -
but maybe Comodo should approach the author(s)?
Sorry I can’t be more specific
T
A Primary reason I uninstalled CIS is the HUGE list of Trusted Vendors and this is why–>
Some of the white listed companies reside in countries considered hostile to the country in which I and Comodo reside the U.S…
The 2010 Stuxnet worm which took down Iran’s Nuclear Program(s) and harmed many computers worldwide, is real-life proof of how damaging spoofed code signing can be. Contrary to the reports in popular press the actual infection is actually quite simple and common - varients have been seen since 2000 mostly from The East.
according to Analyzing a Stuxnet Infection with the Sysinternals Tools, Part 1
Mark Russinovich It was introduced as a device driver with certs spoofed from Realtek and JMicron.
Comodo is a Certification Authority - Their primary niche in this market is low-budget companies & those who could not use the Major Authorities (like Verisign) which are more well-known AND SAFER FOR CONSUMERS.
The largest reason I uninstalled is the fact that Comodo can’t be trusted-
This as evidenced by their Recently issued fradulent certificates for big name sites like Google, Yahoo, Skype, Hotmail, Firefox addons+ And then waiting for more than a week to disclose. So if you use Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo etc. you may want to take some precautions such as new passwords etc.Waiting eight days to disclose evidence of a specific targeted attack.
Oh yea, this was a state sponsered program originating in IRAN-
Now how much do you trust Comodo’s trusted vendors?
There is certainly a conflict of interest in seeking revenue to provide certification to companies and then making it difficult for individuals to use the product without accepting the trusted vender list supplied by a certification company.
FOR INSTANCE; code signing “Starting at $166.95/year” !!! Their store is called " instantSSL " .com - no kidding.
If a user allows an executable (.exe) and it has an internal reference to a company, then that company becomes a trusted vender.
1- No company should be given global trust.
2- Because one file is trusted it does not mean every file from a particular entity should be.
3- It is quite possible that a “safe file” could be altered to reference an uncertified untrusted entity - if the file is coming from a download page, a quick redirect to a drive-by infective page could be the next step in a compromised system - no thanks-
A Primary reason I uninstalled CIS is the HUGE list of Trusted Vendors and this is why–>
Some of the white listed companies reside in countries considered hostile to the country in which I and Comodo reside the U.S…
The 2010 Stuxnet worm which took down Iran’s Nuclear Program(s) and harmed many computers worldwide, is real-life proof of how damaging spoofed code signing can be. Contrary to the reports in popular press the actual infection is actually quite simple and common - varients have been seen since 2000 mostly from The East. It was introduced as a device driver
Comodo is a Certification Authority - Their primary niche in this market is low-budget companies - many could not use the Major Authorities (like Verisign) which are more well-known AND SAFER FOR CONSUMERS.
The largest reason is the fact that Comodo can’t be trusted-
This as evidenced by the Recently issued fradulent certificates for big name sites like Google, Yahoo, Skype, Hotmail, Firefox addons+ And then waiting for more than a week to disclose. So if you use Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo etc. you may want to take some precautions such as new passwords etc.Waiting eight days to disclose evidence of a specific targeted attack.
Oh yea, this was a state sponsered program originating in IRAN- Now how much do you trust Comodo? If they delete this it will go back up. If they block this IP I’ll just use another.
There is certainly a conflict of interest in seeking revenue to provide certification to companies and then making it difficult for individuals to use the product without accepting the trusted vender list supplied by a certification company.
FOR INSTANCE; code signing “Starting at $166.95/year” !!! Their store is called " instantSSL " .com - no kidding.
If a user allows an executable (.exe) an it has an internal reference to a company, then that company becomes a trusted vender.
1- No company should be given global trust.
2- Because one file is trusted it does not mean every file from a particular entity should be.
3- It is quite possible that a “safe file” could be altered to reference an uncertified untrusted entity - if the file is coming from a download page, a quick redirect to a drive-by infective page could be the next step in a compromised system - no thanks-
Sorry to see that you have problem uninstalling.
I have been using Comodo on and off for several years. I like to try different security suites (Avast!, Avira, Kaspersky, Comodo etc.)
Using the built in uninstaller from start up menu has completely removed CIS without any problem.
What percent of the entities who are issued certificates by Comodo end up on the white list?
Is there a hypothetical conflict of interest where a “CA selling “inexpensive” certificates” also promotes consumer security products which include a white list that benefits certificate customers?
Yea Melih’s, you are ALSO the only CA that sells certificates en mass to enemies of the state - Iran to be specific - AND then waits far too long to report the so-called “blunder”-
Comodo Code Signing Certificates for $166/year and inclusion into the CIS trusted vendor list is free - right?
Late March Comodo reported issuing certificates to
•addons.mozilla.org
•login.skype.com
•login.live.com
•mail.google.com
•www.google.com
•login.yahoo.com (3 certificates)
•“Global Trustee”
This was reportedly by “hook AND crook”…
What people don’t understand is this indicates a super-incompetent CA… OR
A company very tight with the government/HSA in the cyber war/action against Iran…
which is worse?
Google it people -
Revo Uninstaller also does the job…
totallyp’d, there’s no need to Google… it’s right here. In addition, you seem to be trolling… in that you’re posting the same issue in multiple topics. May I ask why?
Guys, thanks for your replies. But, I don’t believe this user is asking for help or anything like that. I’m not sure what the problem is/was, but he’s posted a fair amount stuff around the forums and I’m about to move it all here.
edit: There you go, all done. In the absence of… well anything really (something to do with un-installing CIS maybe?)… we’re assuming that this is feedback. I don’t think the OP likes Comodo.
Hi kail
You have gathered my posts up and placed in an appropriate location-according to you anyway (was this decided unilaterally?). I’m not really surprised, but had hoped for something a bit more …
Perhaps it’s not in Comodo’s best interests to simply bury the issues I put forward. Rather these might bear having discussion and refutation? I’m NOT the enemy, I’m an American, asking questions and being critical. We are in a war that includes cyberspace. I’m sure Comodo can stand up to the likes of me. SSHEESH
Please if I might, can I make a comment on each the posts gathered here and request that you present your side of the reasoning which finds all of these posts hidden away in the same place.
1- does CSC clean up after the MESS CIS leaves after uninstall?? [MERGED TOPIC]
The double post was a genuine mistake for which I’ve apologized. My admittedly pointed question stands. Tacit though it is, I do think the point is understandable. Plainly here now; long standing issues with the uninstallation of CIS continue (problem files remain on a significant number of user systems after removal attempts). These problems are not addressed by a tool that exists to address such issues- CSC, yet there are effective, unsupported solutions presented by users. Though these are crude and potentially dangerous, these solutions have save users from contenplated actions as drastic as OS reinstallation (more on that to follow). I’m told that apparently the Comodo tool is effective only if installed before the problems presents… Seems like there could be more…
2- The Ultimate Help Guide for CIS
Clearly, a significant number of users continue to experienced “extremely similar” and serious problems upon removal of CIS. There are even those reports of contenplated OS reinstalation (from a BU we would hope). People are consenting to to having this product on their systems because of the benefits presented. In the interest of fairness perhaps this should be a more informed conset? Possible risks and benefits being key to that.
Though done in a in a Tongue-in-cheek way that is critical of Comodo, I did provide some potential risks for those who do go to take a peek before installation. For those experiencing problems, my post provides the forum topics with the most popular solutions. I think that was in the correct section - perhaps I could have been less facetious, but Comodo deals with computer security. Two important objectives of which are to keep systems running properly and information safe.
I think Comodo should be prepared for some level of criticism there.
3- Re: Option to disable Trusted software vendors!
Here I replied in agreement and augmetation with an issue voiced by many more than that particular person. I’ve opined that this issue is even more insideous than most opponents to the white list realize. I present my ideas, yes, critical of Comodo, but most certanly germain to my proposition. (more on that to follow)
4- Re: Why did you uninstall CIS? Please help us improve by telling us why.
Here the question was asked of me & I again presented my ideas, critical of Comodo, but most certanly again germain to the topic. If I had (unnessicarily) reworked this response, would that have made it “more legit” in your estimation?
5- Re: The only company who beat Verisign in their own game!
I, and I’m thinking not singularly, question the metrics used to declare THE winner.
Melih was apparently unwilling moreover perhaps, unable to conciely refute or address the alternate premise which I brought up. That perhaps there is an alternate explanation for what was seen as a major (some are saying “game-changing”) security incident by an otherwise seemingly competent CA… We are at war afterall.
you comment
OK- Perhaps a bit troll-like in my presentation- but there is some thought here and the expectation of discourse- not flames.
It’s certainly NOT “right there” for me - that thread contains links to relevant articles yes, but I think is pretty disjointed and gets really weird - You, Melih and bob3160 seem sensible enough but that GakunGak really sounds like an enemy (perhaps his ban has something to do with that?)…
It is EXTREMELY confusing to me that you would reference that particular link…
bob3160 avast! Contractor, Comodo Family Member, starts out as follows;
A couple of posts down the reader finds that it was you who moved the material with your apology
This bears some resemblence to our present position…no?
Finally,
6- Re: The Future of Computer Security
I really think this is a legit question for Melih ! There is at least the appearance of COI and has this is being addressed would be a FAR better response than hiding or deleting the question - I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person this has occurred to.
What do the numbers look like - what percentage of the CA branch of operations customers are added to a white list that is difficult to avoid if one is to use the firewall product?
I look forward to your and hopefully Melih’s reasoned responses.
Regards;
Tony
No.
I think that was obvious, after all you had posted the following (twice)…
Despite your assertions to the contrary your posts are not hidden, they are in clear view of everybody to read and comment on if they so choose.
The SSL issue you have raised does have an existing topic (URL previously provided) and has been openly discussed at some considerable length. You can post there, although you should probably be aware that the topic is (as is the issue itself) several months old now and that your current understanding of the issue (based on your posts) doesn’t seem to fit the contents of the topic. So, confusing or otherwise, you should probably make some effort to read and understand the topic/issue before posting.
If you feel that you have been mistreated in some way by myself then you may contact another Moderator by PM and ask for a Moderator Review of my actions.