Old Bug in Firewall

Greetings all,

I reported the following bug long long ago.

That wasn’t fixed… “yet” … if ever users can expect that

For those who are using v4 please test …

I cannot care less about v4 ; will never use “that”
& I know that v3.14 support ended, nevertheless:

  • Set Firewall Security Level to “Block All Mode”
  • force (faster to test) or wait until PC goes into Suspend Mode
  • reset the said level to “Safe”
  • you are a goner! there will not be connection established anymore


1) reboot after resetting back to “Safe Mode”

or - much less safe solution


  • use “Exit”
  • fire up the browser or whatever program you need to update , … & alike which requires Inet connection

the latter will happen… no surprise here … hehe!

  • manually start Comodo again

Shame!.. Cheers!

*** added *** tested again on XP 32bit & win 7 x64

Works fine here using Hybernation.

(I had to refresh the Network card IP wihout rebooting after setting back to safe mode since firewall was in block all mode when I resumed and the NIC got a 169...* IP)

OS Windows XP32 32bit SP3 and latest patches
CF 4.0.141842.828

I’m never using Hibernation that is always disabled

Stand By/ Sleep mode was in question & problematic.

So, I never tested Hibernation in conjunction with “Block All”,
then I’m not sure, why anybody has to refresh the NIC’s IP and having “169 issue” as well in such circumstance

But if that is considered normal & a “fix” in v4 - let it be, despite I doubt that’s a solution.
The described actually is not very often used sequence of events and knowing workarounds is kinda acceptable despite being just irritating.

I’m fine with v3 … was just curios whether that was addressed in v4


AFAIK hibernation is even more thorough than standby.

It might not possible to enable such feature on some PC whereas the OS prevent this by graying out the related checkbox.

The 169 “issue” was caused by forcing resume with “block all” in place (it did get that 169 ip because the correct one was blocked by the “block all” mode)

It doesn’t look much different form getting a 169 IP after rebooting windows with “block all” option in place and I hope anybody would refresh the IP after switching to safe mode at least in that circumstance.

You didn’t mention this explicitly but I assumed that in your case refreshing the IP after setting safe mode again would have not helped (since you made no mention about that) and that there would have been no internet connection even leaving the firewall to safe mode before standby:

Was such assumption unwarranted?

Standby works fine as well.

OS Windows XP32 32bit SP3 and latest patches
CF 4.0.141842.828

Out of curiosity I might give a try to 3.14 when I have some spare time.

In the same vein perhaps you might consider to temporarily test V4 to confirm whenever your system is still affected by such issue.

Thanks – that’s basically what I was curious about

Spare time is very valuable thing, therefore it can be spent on more important & interesting matters compare to this particular one :slight_smile:
… unless you have not “the spare time” only, but a spare computer as well, plus the curiosity is very strong … really, there is no no need to do that


There is no way I will do that. Using v4 on any of my working computers (x86 & x64) is completely out of question. Strongest NO – I do not accept this version & its implementation

As for testing v4 (not related to the initial main request) I did that. v4 was installed on 3 PCs of “curious” friends of mine (no intention whatsoever to refer and link this term to your curiosity as above).
As a result after around 2 weeks of intensive testing 2 of them reverted to the latest v3.14.xxx and one with Win 7 x64 Ultimate installed Outpost Firewall

I’m entirely supporting all 3 decisions made by them including the fact that all 3 guys are very experienced programmers …
probably I am very unfortunate having mainly programmers in my social circle of friends :slight_smile:

My regards

!ot! Yes I saw you take your time to repeat countless variants of this here an there throughout the forums but I thought that the OP of a bugreport would have been willing to provide as much info as possible but maybe it was not the point :-X

!ot! For what it matters:

!ot! Glad your curiosity was sated albeit at the expense of the bugreports board. :frowning:

!ot! Even if by your recommendation alone their resume will surely benefit from it whatever purpose their skill will serve. :slight_smile:

!ot! My best regards to you and your social circle of friends probably designing unparalleled implementations and releasing flawless products somewhere in this vast world (feel free to give everybody your word for that as well).

Sure, as it was expected:

I read your last reply yesterday, when it was quite short, but I waited until today because as usual it takes hours & hours for you to change the post and add many comments.
(4-5 paragraphs added and the existing refurbished)
In most cases it changes the essence of what you wrote previously, so it doesn’t make sense answering straight away, because one may answer to the paragraph that was already changed.

And the case as many others are about your own messages & …

The main topic can be forgotten. The opponent whether he/she is right or wrong will be humiliated.

As many users pointed – you probably don’t read the initial message and then if you do - you are forgetting about the main topic anyway in the process of writing unrelated remarks.

I reported the old bug and just in case provided workarounds.
I just asked about the same functionality in v4.
All of the above may help somebody and/or developers may have a look at the problem and address it if exists.

I was satisfied by your answer and thanked you – that should be the end of it ( could be)

If I am repeating “here an there throughout the forums» about my disliking of v4, why would you suggest installing the product in order to test just such issue as “Block All” in conjunction with Suspend Mode?
You said it’s working - it was fine with me. If other users/developers will find it different they will confirm/disregard/fix.

Where it was written that it was my recommendation regarding reverting to previous version or installing another Firewall?

The comment about my friends-programmers their abilities; experiences & designing “unparalleled implementations” was just sarcastic; ugly; angry; remark based on nothing

There is no question (probably even for you) that some assumptions in your beautifully changed post and especially the latter empty-worded note were absolutely unnecessary.

It’s time to close this case.

If anybody find the similar behaviour as described initially and feel need to add comments OnTopic please PM

Hi Guys,

This thread was locked by me… because I cannot possibly stand any replies by Endymion
(perfect English! - nobody can deny that, but as I can see it … well - let’s not go there…)

Please, do not reply, Endymion !

I just unlocked the case

Yes, I tested it with v4 Firewall.
Sure, and no question that Comodo’s “Sandbox” was disabled & mentioned “tweaks” were done in order to allow the Firewall being the Firewall again

Here in Sydney we are preparing for a real big hurricane coming.
That’s why I decided to retest … Yes i will switch the modem/router Off ;D , but that is not the main point

What I can see – compare to the claimed perfectly working scenario in v4 – it is still an issue.

Can any user here (except Endymion, please!) confirm or dismiss that.

  • Please set Firewall to “Block All”;
  • Set your PC to Sleep Mode;
  • Come back few hours later;
  • Awake your PC;
  • Set the Firewall to Safe Mode (as in my case)… or whatever you had (please state what was the mode)

Whether it is Firewall v3 or v4 - nothing I can do either it is XP Pro 32bit or Win 7 x64 unless Rebooting the PC in order to get my connection back.

Thanks for any inputs … except from Endymion, please!!!

*** note added ***:
“169 issue” is not included - just simple “no connection” after the described scenario

My regards

Now SiberLynx it looks like you cannot refrain to add further OT whereas it was clear you locked the topic yourself and asked “anybody” to PM to add ontopic comments.

Yet it suddenly became less than “anybody” and obviously you had a need to post another seemingly onesided "no-reply allowed " OT clarification.

Now I might not always be able to convey what I meant on the spot like you:
Sorry if I needed more time to edit my post and thanks for providing me enough time for that.

Your English skills are even better than mine as far I understand, alas I was surprised when you blatantly misconstrued what I wrote and felt the urge to stress what you did not advise your circle of friends about…

Indeed recommend mean “advice” as well…

…though the comment about your circle of friends was based on your recommendation (as in “replacement for documentation of relevant job experience & education”) in another unwarranted and preponderantly OT reply you provided.

I did mention before that “even if by your recommendation alone their resume will surely benefit from it whatever purpose their skill will serve”
Though you vehemently disagreed IMHO “an unparalled (very skilled) implementation” provided such skills (“very experienced”) a commendable purpose. :-TU

Anyhow glad you finally tested V4 instead of replying to such request with an OT that included comments about curiosity, your friends and spare time.

Glad you finally remembered to reply to much earlier question whereas you were not sure “why anybody has to refresh the NIC’s IP” but did not confirm if such necessary measure was not able to restore Internent connection in your “case”.

Alas such additional steps is still omitted in the new steps you provided whereas if not confirmed this might lead whatsoever member to misidentify the issue you claimed to be curious about…

You wish for the issue to be fixed right?

Thus hopefully you’ll also mention the brand/model and driver version (and if is it WHQL certified ) of your NIC along with a link of your previous topic.

Hopefully others eventually affected by the issue you described will do the same and also take care to confirm that refreshing the NIC IP still does not allow Internet connection, other software the issue is still reproducible when standby occurs while firewall is in “safe mode” (no block all) and it is reproducible without CIS and without eventual additional 3rd party software.

Hello SiberLynx.

My testing equipment is win xp sp3-32 bit, cis full suite 3.14.130099.578 and adsl2+
modem router.
I tested the firewall with custom policy mode and safe mode setting and was not able to
reproduce your problem.

Long time ago before your problem i set firewall general settings to custom policy mode,
alert frequency setting to very high and deselected this computer is an internet
connection gateway.

When i use stand by on my computer and after a short time bring it out of stand by mode
cis firewall asks me if i will allow or deny svchost.exe connection to internet.
If i deny the connection the dhcp and dns from my modem router is denied and i can’t
connect to the internet and if i allow i have connection to the internet.

Please try the settings that i have described and let me know did they help you.

Hi Tarantela ,

Thanks for reply. Probably I did not stressed the earlier but it was said in my last post
“… few hours later”.
I can tell that if you do what you described as “after a short time bring it out of stand by” … setting back from “Block All” to “Safe” may give a positive result in most cases and you will have a connection back.

… and in your description I didn’t find switching to “block all”… but sure you did ;D

Thanks again. Cheers!

p.s. *** added ***

… bring it out of stand by mode
cis firewall asks me if i will allow or deny svchost.exe connection to internet…

I never experienced that