GPT Partitions on SSD's

It has been 24 hours since the removal of CISP from a Windows 7 Pro GPT Partition. It has only been around 5 hours since the original topic was locked by kail i believe. Hey kail, check the image and then choke on the results!

[attachment deleted by admin]

We’re not impressed. The cited event id’s in your locked topic are not of relevance for the performance issue reported.

Please read How to appeal against Moderators decisions.

Locking this topic.

Now why would anyone want to appeal the decision concluded by a group of people who have no clue? Furthermore, did you see any Error warnings in the supplied Event log regarding Event 11, or 1530 because I did not… In fact, here is another log that has a few more boot cycles and what do you know; still no Event 11’s or 1530’s… Oh, I forgot, according to the high counsel of Comodo Moderators, there was never an issue to begin with right.

That tells me two things, one, you people are not as smart as you think. Yeah maybe you can help someone configure tighter settings and such. Other than that, you are clueless…

Two, for the people who watched this exchange in horror, this information is for you. “If you are running Windows 7, and your security package sets up its service to interact with your desktop such as CISP, get rid of it”!

Lastly, I reached out to a few other builders and asked that they try CISP on a GPT Partitioned SSD with Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, and record the results. You remember Event Errors 11, and 1530… What are you going to do now, lock the topic off forever, ban new members, or ■■■■■ with their posts that contain questions you cannot answer like you did to my posts, what?

I personally hope you do all of the above because people on the sidelines are already questioning the integrity of your little world. What is it; do you think you command some kind of super power if someone names you a “MODERATOR”? Do you get more women than the rest of us with that title or what?

No matter… However, do not forget to look at the new log capture. Additionally, I intend to post this system’s log events for the next 30-days. However, make no mistake; I am not doing this to impress anyone. Now it is just to embarrass you further and yes, I think that is exactly what you deserve. Besides, you would need to understand how Windows works before you could be impressed, and you clearly do not.

How is that for a “gratuitous, and somewhat random, use of insults”?


[attachment deleted by admin]

OP’s new topic merged with this already existing, but locked, topic.

Source of OP’s outrage: No Security Solutions for Windows 64-bit on GPT Partitions [LOCKED]

Reason for current treatment: Violation of Forum Policy. Specifically, although not limited to, Unacceptable behaviours and content.

Topic still locked.

For all readers I add the following comment of egemen, the head developer about event ID 11:

I was reading the locked posts of member InSearchOf. I did not see anywhere in those posts where Insearch told anyone to modify App_DLL settings. Can you someone shortcut that post I would appreciate that. If i understand this correctly, he was saying that security software packages that setup their services to interact with the desktop create errors 11, and 1530.

I think the guy was onto something because i trialed another software package and got a bit of a performance bump right away on my SSD and the trial service doesn’t configure itself to interact with the desktop. My system is a UEFI boot on a GPT as well. Also, event error 11, and even error 1530 no loger show in my logs either. I think the guy is right imho. You guys did treat him kind of shabby right from the start and it is clear he took offense to that clearly.



Really? Interesting… considering that you actually are InSearchOf. 88)

Circumventing your ban was a serious mistake.

Moderator review requested, topic locked.

To date, with the OP’s issues, I have only really focused on his violations of the forums policy as a Moderator. However, given what he has posted (insults aside) I felt that I should post something on what the OP has actually posted on technical issues.

The OP has asserted the following…

  1. CIS’s installation of COMODO Internet Security Helper Service as an interactive service is a “big mistake” and that Windows [Microsoft] “stopped allowing services to interact with the desktop long ago after discovering the negative affect that configuration had on PC Security”.

This is an incorrect assertion. Microsoft did not stop interactive services, they discouraged them under both Vista and Windows 7 (source:

The OP’s assertion that security was issue is indeed correct, this was due the elevated privileges such services have and that malware had began to target such services. However, this was a perceived risk for normal applications, not for security software that is hardened and protected against such risks, such as CIS.

  1. CIS “violates the Windows AppInit_DLL mechanics by producing the same Wininit error 11”.

This assertion is posted in support of the OP’s first assertion. However, it is incorrect to bundle the service COMODO Internet Security Helper Service (CMDAGENT.EXE) and the AppInit load of GUARDnn.DLL (GUARD32.DLL & GUARD64.DLL) together since they are not directly related in the context the OP raises them.

AppInit DLLs are loaded by USER32.DLL (I’m uncertain of USER64.DLL, but I believe it’s the same) using DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH. This way CIS’s GUARDnn.DLL is loaded into every process as a protective measure for the process.

Since the AppInit method of loading DLL’s also have potential security concerns a warning event (Event 11) is raised a system boot. The Event 11 text reads…

Custom dynamic link libraries are being loaded for every application. The system administrator should review the list of libraries to ensure they are related to trusted applications.
.. and Microsoft also discourage their use. But, there is no violation of "[i]Windows AppInit_DLL mechanics[/i]", this is a false assertion on the OP's part. And since CIS is protected and hardened, there is no known security concerns with such an approach either.
  1. Someone needs to do something about this issue because even though error 11 is a warning, it does affect performance.

I have no doubt that loading a DLL into every process will inevitably impact performance to some degree or another. However, it is important to note the the OP does not attempt to quantify or measure that perceived negative performance impact, but merely uses it to support other, previously stated, assertions which are in doubt.

Unlike the OP, I would prefer not to cast doubt on the OP’s personal experience or knowledge (to put it politely), since it is merely a distraction of the issue (take note OP). So, I will not. But neither do I feel inclined to directly engage with someone who does. :-\

I did not look at the OP’s issues relating to GPT on SSD and CIS, since I have no personal experience of SSD’s and have no way of testing it either.