I gave it a 4, but I’m impressed. The only reason why it’s not a 5 for me is the complexity. Especially novice users will have problems in using it.
Suggestions:
Feature to make a rule from a log entry, like ZoneAlarm is having. With just two clicks you can add a block shown in the log into the trusted zone. Very convenient.
I voted 4.
Why 4?
The Firewall really is a wall of fire. It protects everything well, it’s simple to use, it’s free, updates are often and the team is very helpful.
Why not 5?
It’s still quite heavy on my system’s resources and has glitches. I encountered too many problems while using it for 1 day (Obviously, all those glitches have explanations on how to fix them, but I rather wait for some better release that comes with already-set settings).
All in all, I’ll stay around here and try new releases from time to time, till I find one that I can use without too many setting up.
Keep up the good work! (V)
Hi,
The next version will have a massive memory reduction, some new settings, and more security. The current beta currently has some of these, and a new beta this Thursday adds even more with even further memory reduction. This will be a stable release (hopefully) in about two weeks. 
Feel free to stay as long as you want and watch how this software is going to progress. Already there have been some major changes and there is plenty more to come.
Mike
In all honesty and seriousness, it has been a long while since I was so hyped about a computer software.
Can’t wait for future releases! (:CLP)
I would have to say Comodo is the best of all the firewalls I have tried. It has passed all the leaktests I have thrown at it, and that is 7 test sites. I would like to see it packaged a little smaller, though. Less megabytes, and also a different tray Icon that would animate in some way. Nevertheless, if nothing were changed today, Comodo would be the very best and safest firewall protection your computer could have, provided you configure it properly. I’m speaking of the latest release, not Beta.
Your wishes are going to come true. A new animated tray icon and tray icon-related stuff was already suggested and accepted, we’re going to have that in no time. 
The release that we’ll have in ~two weeks is going to be lighter and more bug-free.
(B)
Right now at a “3” but with a lot of “up-side potential”
It is NOT clear, what “inbound” in an application rule does !!
I have a net. monitor rule that blocks all inbound IP, the default in ver 2.2.0.11.
Why then, is there a difference, if I turn off inbound for Internet Explorer, for example (wont work at all) After some testing and reading, I put off “monitor dns queries”, and with that, IE can work without “outbound”. BUT, is 10 times slower !!! Why ???
So, what is REALLY meant with “inbound” in the application rules. It CANT be UN-requested stuff (or the rule in net. monitor is not working). So, what is it all about ?
BTW: Would be nice, if one could turn on/off the rules by click. Removing and then rewriting ??? Hmm
BTW: Would be nice, if it would be clear, wich OLE warnings was already “accepted” and in wich rule this is safed.
BTW: When Internet Explorer is startet the first time from an other app, there will be a “hijack” warning. BUT only if an rule for IE is already existing, if not, the popup doesn’t say anything about the “hijacker”. Why ?
Sorry if this has already appeared among the existing 13 pages on this subject, but could consideration be given at all to some sort of Content Filtering, as unless I’m mistaken, the only free firewall at present that offers this is Netvada’s Safety.Net which I was using until migrating to Comodo recently.
This can prove a double edges sword I appreciate, as you’re inevitably going to get 404’s on some pages due to this sort of filtering which confuses the hell out of some people, but I think by and large it makes a firewall a little bit more complete, not least as it passes all those pesky Referrer pages.
Ta.
Is it possible to have rules on a per service basis ? Would be grat for such things as svchost.exe…
It is not all clear in wich order the application rules apply.
So, for my testing all “block” overrides “allow”, so if two rules apply, the block one is used.
If this is true, it would be better to change it vice versa imho.
This is because now, you have to at least two rules for allowing a specific item (eg. an IP), or you get popups for the not blocked ones. AND, the block rule must EXCEPT the item, or it overrides it, and skips the data.
So, for more complex situations, there would be no solution with app rules, as you can only except ONE item (of cos a range or some things are poss.), but :
if it would be the OTHER WAY ROUND, all would be simple: One block all, and then some allow rules, done !
greetz
as it reveals, the app rules do act in order from top to bottom too (as net. monitor rules).
But, there is no way to reorder.
This would be IMPORTANT !!!1
i say it a 4.5 out of 5 do to it do not seen a hardware router as a trusted Zone on first install with window XP home
I voted 4.
Some suggestions:
App rules reordering
IP sets (like with ports, eg. 200.0.0.4,203.10.40.1…) in app rules and zones
Separate settings for in and out + separate rules for loopback in one dialog (ie one rule entry) like this:
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1769/rulepq3.th.png
Use source - destination instead of source - remote
GUI for IPC
Per service rules (for svchost.exe and services.exe)
[Edited]
I thought a bit more about my proposed loopback rule and I think, there should be also an option to specify a port for it, ie. to disable loopback communication on some specific ports, for example if there is a local proxy on the computer.
hi,
currently, iam free AVG + Trend micro Office Scan user. Both AV work fine even i install both of them in one pc. I also install free AVG and Macfee in my sister’s notebook. They all working without any problems.
my suggestion is : can u make a button to clear the log file in comodo firewall? I am using 2.2 and i know it can be done with right click and clear. But i think better to place a button there.
Second suggestion, Can u make the comodo AVS to work togther with these AV or antispyware? These AVs can work without any problem with each other… so, i think Comodo should do it also. It will scare many user when they heard CAVS not compatible with X software…
third, can u add something like sysinternals process explorer, autoruns and antirootkit in comodo AVS or CPF?
just my little opinion, however, thanks comodo for order lifetime free product!
torre
OK, this one falls into the “not that big of a deal” category, but it’s still something I would like to see incorporated into Comodo Personal Firewall.
What I’d like to see is a bit ■■■■, I admit…but it’s a preferrence that I’m fairly certain that others would like to see as well, but won’t voice their displeasure or concern over.
When Windows is loading…and icons first appear in the system tray…I’d like to see the Comodo Personal Firewall icon load practically as soon as the Windows desktop appears. While I realize that this is purely aesthetic, and that the firewall itself loads very early…I just think that most users would feel more comfortable and confident seeing their firewall icon loaded first - ESPECIALLY those connected via cable/DSL! I think most people would be surprised at the number of users who don’t think that a program is loaded UNTIL THE ICON APPEARS!!! I know, because I used to be one of them…and I’ve seen (and still see) several users post in various forums (Wilders, CastleCops, etc.) that think that a program hasn’t or isn’t loaded until the icon appears in the sys tray!
Some programs (like WinPatrol, BOClean, etc.) have their icon load incredibly fast. I don’t know what they do to get this result, but if Comodo could do this and have the CPF icon load practically instantaneously with Windows desktop, I think you’d be amazed at the number of people who will rave about it. While it may seem a bit trivial, the results and responses will be favorable and positive, I can almost guarantee that.
EDIT: Sorry, I posted this here first, but was actually told by Melih to post it in the “Wishlist” thread.
GUI for IPC !!!
you must go to registry to see all the rules now !!
greetz
Id improve the heads of people who rated it under 4!
The only people i could see rating it under 4 are the people who got mad because thet couldnt get it to work with some of their programs even if they were the ones who pressed deny (:WIN)
Half of those people probably annoyed because they messed up their avg and cant get the firewall to work with it.
Also i am using latest stable version of both avg and comodo pf so i wonder who still has these problems (:CLP)
hmm… I agree with what everyone says here. CPF definately deserves 5/5, but because of a few items that need a little work, I’ll give it 4/5. CPF is definately here to stay, it beat Zonealarm right out of its league. (:CLP) (L) One slight problem, CPF needs to improve on its DNS queires too. I can’t connect to my home wireless since I have updated to the newest version, mus be something to do with a certain configuration.
Some added default rules i noticed about 3 or sumthin must be the cause of hat but i dont know because u just restored my default rules which removed those new ones.