Off topic comments split from 5.0.159634.1091 RC Bug Reports

In order to keep the bug reporting focused on bug reports and replies directly related to it off topic questions and remarks are gathered in this topic.

As far as I know, that option was removed and they are trusted by default. Still, CIS is saying “firefox.exe has been not recognized”.

No that’s a different option. This one is under sandbox settings. Obviously the installer needs to be code-signed by a trusted vendor, too.

If firefox.exe is getting sandboxed, and you are using default settings (inc the above), there’s something wrong.

You really must make a formal bug report in the format requested or I’m sorry but I will have to delete your posts (second warning). If you have and I have missed it, please say.

Best wishes


I’m using default profile and only change I have made in D+ was enabling “Create rules for safe applications”. I didn’t even touch the rest settings.


there’s no bug, you have to add the digital signature of sandboxie into comodo then it works.
i had the same problem first, comodo blocked sandboxie.
once you fully allow sandboxie, it works fine.

[attachment deleted by admin]

I’ve reported already several days ago that CIS did not disable Windows Firewall and Windows Defender.

I doubt they will change this, this has been requested from version 3 release and never showed up.

Great approach, really…

CIS is not the only firewall that can run side by side with Windows one.
Firewalls works a little bit different than antivirus (that will conflict).
I’m not an expert on it, but I’ve heard they could do a parallel job, i.e., each firewall on its own way.

Straight from the horse’s mouth.

Tried this did not work for me sandboxie driver still failed, only unticking Device Driver Installations works.


Now THIS is the bug I was talking about! The same is happening to me after updating Firefox and MPC HC.

Couldn’t it be a possibility of treating unknown files as “asking” the user to sandbox or not? i.e., could be an option for not autosandboxing?

They have the option, as soon as the sandbox traps it they are notified and an option to not sandbox again is presented.

Please, elaborate… Who are “they” here? Cloud uploading?
I never saw an option to not sandbox… on contrary, I’m running save installers and updaters, on the first run the file is unknown, sandboxed… I need to click “do not sandbox next time”, close the application, rerun it…

they, the user

Ok, but it was already sandboxed then… It’s not a solution.

you can try this in order to run sandboxie

1- disable D+
2- disable the sandbox as well
2- install sandboxie

3- do a restart
it’s now working ,

4- set D+ to learning mode

5- do another restart

6- set it back to safe mode :slight_smile:

you can now verify the success of the procedure by doing anther reboot "< enough with the restarts already ;D

Firefox is a safe application. It invokes the updated firefox installer after the internal updater has finished downloading the update. My question is: Is there something wrong in treating a file being invoked by another file thats trusted, as safe so that the invoked file is not sandboxed?

The whitelist almost seems as if it is going down hill. Weird things are happening. It keeps designating my firefox configure files are untrusted. Also a new version of CCleaner is out, and after installing it I noticed most of its files are untrusted.

Both Firefox and CCleaner should be able to run without issue at this point in CISs developement. I don’t think whatever methods Comodo is using for determining safe files works all that well.