Predefined Application List

I recently listened to an interview with the CEO of Comodo Firewall on the Computer America Show. In the interview he talked about how Comodo has a list of hundred’s of thousand’s of executables in it’s database. That this database would make it so that there would be virtually no popups asking if an application can use the internet.

This sounded great for some of my clients who would just allow everything anyway so I went and installed it on a customers system. After the install and reboot it immediately started asking about every program that wanted internet access. Some it would ask half a dozen times for the same app. This seems to go completely against the way that the CEO described this product.

Can someone tell me what happened to this massive database that would keep from having the firewall ask for every program? Or if I missed something in the setup please let me know. I am just confused because the isn’t what I was expecting.

Thanks in advance


The predefined application list in Comodo Firewall 2.4 is an older list. The latest list which will be present in the Comodo Firewall 3 final release will have many more programs making it easier for the end user.

How far out is version 3?

Even with a predefined ‘whitelist’, applications such as browsers will still be updated from time to time which will result in an alert appearing even though the application itself is included on a whitelist.

I’m talking more about a list of approved executables, not really apps. The CEO in the interview made it sound like there was a whitelist of executables that Comodo verifies to be safe. Because of this list of he said you would receive all of these alerts. This is what I am not seeing in the firewall.

Yes the list of executables is the same as the list of apps. This will be better incorporated in version 3.

How far out is version 3?

Melih has posted before that they have something planned for this scenario; they just haven’t revealed what it is (and I don’t remember from which thread that was):;msg88066#msg88066

Never mind. That was for CAVS, but CFP should be even better at handling this, no?