My original thread concerned Firefox and duplicate entries appearing in Network Policies for Firefox. I thought this may have been a Firefox application behaviour issue that was impacting CFP. As you will see from that thread I have now seen duplicate policy entries for other applications - in this instance YAHOO messenger in Defence +.
I suspect this is a rerun of problems that users previously reported, and COMODO say they fixed in 3.0.18.309.
All I can say is that they seem to be re-appearing in 3.0.20.320. Is there a reversion issue here for COMODO and their testing regieme to address (and fix!!!)?
I was reading your posts, but I have no idea about what can cause this; I have used all versions of Comodo FW (including Alpha and Beta, and 3.0.18) on different pc’s, but never had any problems with FFox.
FFox can run also from an USB stick, so I won’t suspect you have 2 browsers.
Can you please check the following key with regedit, and post the value?
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem\NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation
PS. This is a very common tweak, recommended by numerous “geeks” out there for no reason, so it’s possible that you have, manually or using some Tweak Utility, altered this.
Note that this issue also arose in Defence+ with Yahoo Messenger. It is just not limited to Firefox as I originally thought. As I have said before these problems have been encountered by others and reported by others on these forums. (Search the boards)
In answer to your question about the registry, the setting is REG_DWORD 0. Let me assure that as an IT professional of long standing I never, never,never,never go anywhere near the registry either directly or with a utility. As an ex UNIX man I know that Microsoft stuff is far far far too flaky to meddle with.
My machine is basically set up with OUTLOOK, OFFICE, YAHOO,Firefox, SKYPE, COMODO and Bit Defender. Nothing out of the ordinary. It is set up as a very simple office machine with broadband internet access - I do not use it for anything fancy or for any exotic applications.
Thanks for checking, Alan, so we can rule that out.
Searching is not an issue, but your first post was a little confusing. Couldn’t tell if you’re just complaining, or you’re searching for a fix.
Yep, the issue has been reported fixed in 3.0.14 an then in 3.0.18, therefore I’m running out of ideas. Is Diagnostics reporting you anything?
Ideally I’m looking for a fix for this. In answers to your questions:
Diagnostics reports no problems.
Bit Dfender is the standalone AV version (ie there is not another firewall running which I think is what you are asking about).
I have already turned the alert levels up so I can montor whaat is going on as I don’t trust this version of CFP at the moment.
I’m a bit shaken in my believes regarding Comodo since replicating the config settings by AlanS to tell that Firefox should be considered a Web Browser in the Comodo rules and not a Custom/Trusted app. No duplication of any rules, but badly some secure transmissions like opening https webmail and uploading data via port 443 became impossible. Not even setting FF back to be a trusted app or exiting Comodo changed that and in the end had to effectively uninstall Comodo and boot the device before secure comms was possible again.
Now the weirdest part. I did this on 2 machines. The Vista continued properly (it’s on 320 when in Admin mode, but in 309 in user mode?!?), but the XP was the one acting up.
The grayed rules by the looks that kick in with choosing Web Browser presets are:
Allow Access to Loopback Zone (okay)
Allow Outgoing HTTP requests (okay, but is it covering https too?)
Allow Outgoing FTP Requests (okay)
Allow OutgoingFTP-PASV Requests (okay)
Allow Outgoing DNS Requests (okay)
Block and Log all Unmatching Requests (oink, nothing pops up to tell that something is blocked or logged and those settings were left at default).
These are from the Vista install… where’s https/port 443/encrypted traffic going? As said it works on Vista, but not on XP. All hosts are run in “Train with Safe Mode”, not ‘Paranoid’ and Custom’.
Oddly, though quite sluggish, certain secure transactioning, I will not specify here exactly what, remained possible thru all these troubles, so what part of https/443/encrypted is being blocked on an XP install? The Comodo staff know how to mail me. Notably, only the trouble system uses CAV and BoClean, the others only use the Firewall of Comodo’s offerings and other AV and AntiSpam.