1. What version of CIS, or Comodo Firewall, are you currently using:
6.3.302093.2976
2. What actually happened or you saw:
Firewall Application Rules LIST does not sort, nor does the HIPS Rules LIST
3. What you wanted to happen or see:
Should be able to click on any column section and sort by that value (Application or Treat As), ascending/descending
4. Why you think it is desirable:
it is overly cumbersome to have to scroll through the lists, or search, to locate the program, and it is impossible to see all of any Treat As category
5. Any other information:
I see no logical or programmatical reason that this cannot or should not be done (especially since it is already implemented for the File ratings section)
I’m not sure if this was in V6, but V7 Beta has a search feature which allows you to search through your lists. Was this in V6 as well? If so, does this match your wish, or would you like more?
If you do desire more, please explain more specifically how you would like the sort option to work.
Okay, now I understand. In that case I think it’s a good wish.
Thank you for submitting this Wish Request. I have now added a poll and moved this to the WAITING AREA.
Please be sure to vote for your own wish, and for any other wishes you also support. It is also worthwhile to vote against wishes you think would be a waste of resources, as implementing those may slow down the wishes you would really like to see added.
Also, I wanted to let you know that I am not Comodo staff. I am a volunteer moderator and thus sadly have no direct control over whether anything is added or not.
I do not believe this is that easy, simply because the list is in a hierarchy of priority, one object above the other has a higher priority than the one under it, for example anything over the “All Applications” rule in the HIPS list has a higher priority than that but anything under it has a lower priority.
This could possibly be done by having three “states” of the column, Descending, Ascending and Priority, if that makes any sense? So that when you sort by Ascending it won’t ■■■■■ with the Priority, but how to make that obvious to the user?
There is absolutely NO hierarchy to the LISTS at all - that would make ZERO sense whatsoever. I am talking the lists that SHOW the Applications (for Firewall) and the list that SHOWS the files, for HIPS. Guarantee that there can be NO hierarchy to those.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the word hierarchy then, either way the rules are read from the top down and has a priority as such, a catch all rule above another catch all rule has a higher priority. If you don’t believe me, try putting the “All Applications” rule (which is normally at the bottom of HIPS rules) at the top, see how well your applications rules work now.
Users can re-order the priority of rules by simply selecting the application name or file group name in question, clicking the handle at the bottom center and selecting 'Move Up' or 'Move Down' from the options. To alter the priority of applications that belong to a file group, you must use the 'File Groups' interface.
So there are priorities however I’m no longer sure how exactly it works…
I see your reference to “Priority” now, but I can see absolutely no reason for it - WHY would one “Allowed Application” be “more important” than another?
I’d like a response from someone at Comodo, not just a Mod, than you.
I have attached a screenshot for clarity - you should be able to click on APPLICATION or TREAT AS and sort ascending or descending, as desired.
=====
Yes, I’d like to see a video of the “prioritization” in action - but I STILL want an explanation of it from someone at Comodo, because there is NO sense in it whatsoever.
While I can see it in the video, the implementation of it makes NO sense. The list of applications can get so large as to be unmanageable for any functionality like that.
I do not think that there is any benefit to continuing that prioritization system. If you are actively managing the items in the list, that in itself is totally sufficient - this prioritization aspect only complicates the issue unnecessarily.
I do not see how there COULD be 2 contradicting rules - the “overriding” aspect to which you refer, as I see it, can ONLY occur when you are using a GROUP. Simply make the GROUPS applicable in another section - like the Global Rules, have a section called GROUP RULES.
That way GLOBAL overrides GROUP, and GROUP overrides APPLICATION. Simple & logical.
Earlier CIS 6 versions had sortable tables but sorting was bugged (I opened the bug reports about that) and instead of being fixed they removed the sorting capabilities and they added the search field.
I would like to thank everyone who has voted on this particular enhancement. As there have been 20 or more votes, and more than 75% of those votes were positive, I have added this to the tracker for consideration by the devs. However, do note that even though this wish will be considered by the devs, it does not necessarily mean that it will be implemented. I will update this topic when I have any additional information.
Well normal firewall rules can use wildcards, not just groups. And you may wish a specific rule to over-ride a general rule - indeed that is more common - as well as the direction you suggest.
Or one group rule to over-ride another - for example if you were concerned about script files, you might want to allow all executable files in a directory, apart from script files
Nevertheless it would be possible to have say a link in the dialog which presents a report sorted in a different order. (It would probably have to be separate in this way - or use some other visual cue, to avoid user confusion - the user needs to be constantly reminded what the priority rule order is!). This could be significant programming effort, and in a way would give misleading information.
So I think the question could be ‘is search good enough’ or if not why do you perceive a strong need for sort? Maybe you could give some scenarios
If it is good enough I think maybe this request should be retired, do you agree DS?
Considering that 91%! of the respondents consider this to be an important factor, I do NOT think this should be retired. There should EASILY be a way to indicate if a rule “over-rides” another, other than the simple ORDER that they are in.
This is DESIGN 101 - and yes, my degree happens to be in Design. I can think of half a dozen ways, right of the bat, that this could be easily resolved.
However, with all due respect, I don’t get paid by Comodo to SOLVE their issues.
Search is NOT sufficient, as oftentimes one doesn’t know what the name of the executable or path is. I may want to see them sorted by what is BLOCKED/ALLOWED/CUSTOM, etc (which I often do!)
Search has NOTHING to do with that at all.
If you want to make a separate interface to just LIST & SORT, that’s fine - and I certainly wouldn’t consider something like that a “significant programming effort” - nor should it lead to any mis-information, simply LABEL the window suitably.
Please note that all the verified wishes have a large number of positive votes - but not all can be implemented for cost reasons. Also people may change their mind after discussion, and the point about the significance of order is an important one.
There should EASILY be a way to indicate if a rule "over-rides" another, other than the simple ORDER that they are in.
Linear vertical sequence is a natural way to display an ordered set, which is what this is. However I am sure there is a better way to display an ordered set *with scope variations* if you'd like to suggest one.
Search is NOT sufficient, as oftentimes one doesn't know what the name of the executable or path is.
Thanks for the requested scenario, that makes sense.
I may want to see them sorted by what is BLOCKED/ALLOWED/CUSTOM, etc (which I *often* do!)
This can be done with a search filter of course, though it is not at present.
If you want to make a separate interface to just LIST & SORT, that's fine - and I certainly wouldn't consider something like that a "significant programming effort" - nor *should* it lead to any mis-information, simply LABEL the window suitably.
Not a separate interface, just some way of making clear you are not dealing with the primary view, because the primary view is so important in this case. You probably need more than a label which people may miss - maybe a a window invoked from a link. The question is whether it is significant in terms of the benefits delivered.