Re: Buffer Overflow Protection bad design

I hope this explains everything. I remember back when someone from here assured me that BOP works even if Defense+ is set to Disabled. However thats not true.

Also i’d much prefer Buffer Overflow protection settings to be located here:

than under Image execution settings…

I had suggested this desire on the Usability Board when we were discussing the new GUI. I would like to see this implemented myself.

+1 :-TU


Greetings Guys,

The original case was locked… hmmm
That was not easy to gather all needed quotes since the topic was moved :slight_smile:

Can you enlighten us, me, on what situations your in that require D+ to be disabled?
Hi Sandwater, First thanks for replying to me in that closed thread. But since you are asking the second time, You have already at least one reason (from many) – when you testing specific features provided by other security, for example, you must disable all other security running. That’s for a start. This particular case is a bit different but fits well too. Here we go! And thank to initial poster for bringing that to attention. Then, say I want (and I did) to install additional layer of security, e.g. Mamutu IDS. I will never install it when another HIPS is active. I will deactivate it. Install the new one. Activate the old one and since there will be notifications coming I will calmly create rules / mutual rules and exclusions, so they can leave in peace afterwards. There are many other examples. a side note: installation of any given security Software(s), when other security is active is the cause of >95% (more?) of all those lockings/Blue/black... screens. Finally, definitely I am suggesting reading correct reply by The Joker… to larlyles and he is not joking ;) Cheers!
What is the point of disabling the Defense + security layer of CIS?
To me that's question is irrelevant. I don't disable Defense+, but I know many new users that does it, and for many different reasons. I have one question: What is the point of integrate Memory Firewall under CIS (stopping the development of the stand alone version) if Memory Firewall only function with Defense+ enabled? Or you use our HIPS or you don't will use our Buffer Overflow Protection?
Thanks The Joker. One word: [b]Bravo![/b] Another 2 words – “[b]Spot on![/b]” :Beer

Cheers everybody!

P.S. and again … implementing that as add-on (I know that I am annoying) would serve well for standalone and integrated needs …and bugs like that wouldn’t happen

Thanks for your words SiberLynx! :slight_smile:

Kind regards!

Hello. Thanks for the insight.

And to RejZor, thank you for setting us straight on the BO issue you noticed. You are correct in your observation. And it’s good to know.

So, the only solution here is to recommend installing Comodo’s Memory Firewall, which is still available, if your a user of CIS who chooses to disable D+.

I personally was happy as can be to see another process (SafeSurf) go away from my machine. I think the code writers of Comodo should be thanked for their efforts to reduce the security overhead. I think that is one of the company goals.

Reduced overhead is the reason I even found this stuff. BTW, macv is still installed on the household x2 machine, and it purrs fair, not good enough though, with those 12 macv processes. lol.

So, are we done? Rej’s point has been made and clarified and now the backward E guy can come in and close this thread.