IP Connection Browser to control inbound/outbound connections and manage later


  1. Uh, your wish was entirely bogus written anyway. This is a summary and not an essay. Please keep that in mind as a programmer will never pay attention to a wish written in that style.

  2. Praising your wish and experience is only pure arrogance.

  3. Knowing one/more languages does/will not make you experienced.

  4. Coming up with a different solution based on your solution will consider your solution. Thus, the (better) solution will be considered by the devs.

  5. By posting in this section/forum, you agreed to the Forum Policy.

MrWonder, I’m sorry, but I cannot delete this post. I will therefore have to move it to Rejected.

Thank you.

Just for reference, I did find the following in my browser cache if it is of any help.

May I politely request to create a wish list as follows:

What version of CIS, or Comodo Firewall, are you currently using:

  1. What actually happened or you saw:

Outbound connections caused by an outbound browser call would fire useless information feed in the Firewall Alert, like an ip address that does not inform any relatedness to the outbound call made by an user. There is a potential danger that if an outbound call is made, a malware could attempt to connect first, instead of the website ip, and the user may allow the call. The feature of a Firewall Alert contains no information beyond an ip address to let an user to allow or block. The Firewall Alert is not sensitive to combined outbound connections from the same website. After saving Processed Calls by a user, it is difficult to maintain or have an overview of what was blocked or allowed, and for which website. No associated information is saved.

  1. What you wanted to happen or see:

The Comodo Firewall must capture all outgoing browser calls for series of outbound connections caused by the same website. The Alert should associate all these calls under the main domain name of that website. The Alert of each outbound connection must resolve the ip address and acquire domain name, and of all outbound connections, made from a browser call before a page is loaded. All subsequent outbound connections must appear under the same website, which the user has invoked the call. The Alert should provide the domain name to the user (with an IP Address in brackets) to determine which connection should be allowed. He can allow a connection to the main site and deny or block all other connection to remote websites, for e.g. advertiser’s sites. The user should be able to allow connection to the main site for xx minutes, or xxx hours. Thereafter a block is imposed. The user could easily open allowed/blocked connections and go through the website browser. He can then change allow/block from domain name saved. A general function should be provided: “Allow main site/Block associated connections”. This option will only allow a connection to the main website and block all associated connections by default.

  1. Why you think it is desirable:

A Malware may connect to connect a website before a browser could connect the user’s desired website. A user may allow the ip address erroneously. An Ip Address in the Alert does not tell much. Domain names are made for human readable format. This helps a user to precisely choose the allow or block a connection. Saved ip addresses with allow or block command gets burried under firefox somewhere in the configuration. If I use this proactively, I will have several thousand ip addresses listed under the firefox.exe! Instead, an “IP Connection Browser” could be loaded seperately, which could remain loaded in memory and plugged on the task bar. Then the Ip Brower could be developed to contaim more features, like find whois from saved domain names.

  1. Any other information:

There is a similar request here:


With this request the user also felt a similar need. However, the clearification of the problem is not sufficient, the analysis is not clear and has wrong terminology.

Reverse DNS is not the same as resolving DNS for FQDN, although one should resolve an IP to obtain reverse DNS. He means FQDN.

The user does not give any thought that is complex enough to make the suggestion useable for a general public of millions.

There are many such utilities available to analyze network connections. But they do not coordinate with Comodo.

Thus an “IP Connection Browser” is not a possibility to say “may be”, but an inevitable feature that Comodo Firewall MUST have.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:17:18 PM by MrWonder »

MrWonder, how would you like to proceed?

Hi Chrion,

This forum is not a plattform that I was looking for and it does not have the user community to appreciate.

In the future, I would prefer to save my time, when I see what the other uses wrote and what qmarius mentions.

My proposal was a garbage proposal, and thats the negative voting by two users. Why waste time on such a badly formulated technological proposal.

Lets us just let it go. I thought something that I could have saved my time. Sorry…

I’m sorry that you feel that way. If you change your mind please let me know and I can move this topic back to the main Wish submission forum. You can then take the quoted version of your original topic and edit it so that it is more to the point. This will help other users to understand it, and vote accordingly.

However, if you do not wish to continue it is also okay to leave it here.

Thank you.

Hi captainstick,

As the other two users found my proposal as rubbish, Comodo Firewall do not deserve my feature request.

But I sincerly thank you for your assistence.

Your proposal is good- I didn’t say it was rubbish. My answer is definitely a ‘Yes’ but I’m pretty sure you don’t care.
It was just your unfair replies to Chiron that intrigued me mostly.

Hi qmarius,

Yes, I see that you do find my activity to be all wrong. Thats precisely has turned me off with this forum.

I understand a language of respect better than insults, which is what you did, or infringements by Chrion.

Ofcourse, thats the reason why I do not care. Those wishes would rarely be realized anyway. Had Comodo Support taken my work handled in a different way, although they expressed it, and forwarded it to devs, then I would have saved all my time, energy and not engage with such discussions.

Let things be as it is, when people show respect just like how it is. Ofcourse I do care for my innovation and hate on attacks, which is what has happened.

So I now do not care anymore, and thats not because the idea is bogus, but because the respect shown to my idea was terrible. Thats why I should not care anymore and thus, my idea belongs to the garbage.

For all those interested in this idea, there exists a fantastic firewall with exactly the same feature, as described in my feature request above:

The best part is that it captures the IP Addresses on the fly for all multiple connections and offers Allow/Deny with a Whois link. It has a connection browser per exe as well. And it can import BlueTrack list also…

MrWonder, would you like to continue with this Wish Request then?

it would be interesting to see screenshots of how it works.


The best would be to install the demo version, fully functional, and test it!

After doing that, I found that I make 10 times less clicks and obtain 10 times more productivity and features.

Comodo is one of the best in the market, especially looking at the recent developement of technological advancement on filtering raw packets it does.

CIS is still very naive to compel all its advanced users, as well as novices, to make hundreds of clicks.

I found that I would need a psychological thearaphy, if I would continue making clicks with CIS Firewall.

In Net-Peeker, you can see all raw trafic passing through, like packet sniffer. That could be targetted to an exe or overall.

You have an exe browser showing IP connections, from which you could make a WHOIS research or block it.

All this was in my suggestions and, thus, would be a beautifil enhancement to CIS.

Hi Chrion,

What for?

To be able to use Comodo Firewall, I would have to make three BUG request and ten additional request to make it better.

One of the most important wish request would be to eliminate ONE BILLION CLICKS TO BE MADE BY THE COMODO USERS COMMUNITY!

Comodo has so many clicks that makes me crazy. Just to open a two options from the Alert window for a choice “Block connection” and “Block connection and terminate”, I have to make a click.

If I have 100 connections request popup alerts, I must make two hundred clicks. Within a Comodo users community of 100 Million and each making 100 - 500 clicks, then there would be more than a billlion clicks to be made by users community.

Now, to make this request, I would have to go through an extra-ordinary censorship proceedings similar to a university or schools.

When I have Net-Peeker installed and Comodo Firewall deactivated, because I can manage my connections 100 times more efficiently, why would I need to think that I must play a role of a fool to challenge the coding habits ot certain trainees in company of Comodo?

Further, both the users above think that my wish was not helpful and should be voted negative.

So why would I want to waste my time for a negative voting and spend so much energy to invite convice novices here to ■■■■ my time.

One even said that I am arrogant!