I just got SP3 up and running on my old drive. File DL of SP3 wouldn’t take even in the safe mode (M$ Tech suggestion), but the SP3 ISO worked like a charm, for some reason. … Anyway, I’ve never seen these before so are these 2 supposed to trying to connect out thru DNS 53. 1) GDIEXT Client DLL 2) M$ Enhanced Cryptographic Provider and is this supposed to be accessing the loopback –Remote Access AutoDial Helper? This last one makes me nervous because of the name, as I don’t want any ""remote access helpers and 2) I’m not on Dial-up. If I deny any of the 2 (1st 2 are grouped together) then FX won’t connect out. btw, using FX as a browser, XP SP3. Also JFMI, Is there anyway to “paragraph” in these Comodo forums… Will “align left do it” or [P]…just something that’s been bothering me about this forum…Thx
Outbound DNS to one of your ISP nameservers is usually safe, so long as it’s its just your ISP nameserver, and not some other server out on the Internet.
As to why these services would want Internet access? I have no idea, as I haven’t gotten my hands on a XP SP3 box yet. I don’t know what these services are. Remote Access stuff gets used for a lot of things, dialup among them. The terminology gets confusing sometimes.
As for paragraphing, I’ve found that typing one very long line, followed by , will produce a paragraph. Classic word processing stuff.
Thx for the reply. As far as this not post not relating to CPF, that I don’t understand. It’s a ? directly relating to allow/deny access thru the firewall. Also thx for the as the other forums that I visit use either a
or a “highlight the text and then the indent icon” in their top toolbar for a new paragraph. Just from what I’ve experienced with SP3, if you’ve got your FW & FW rules set to your liking with SP2, then I would continue to use it, until M$ makes you have SP3 to obtain any new windows security updates.
If you’ve got the CFP rules working under XP SP2, then it should be the same under SP3. To my knowledge there’s nothing new in SP3 that should cause CFP any difficulty.
Regarding those services, if things you’re expecting to work somehow don’t work when CFP blocks them, then I think it’s a good indication that those are real legit services. If you click the “allow access and remember” when the CFP alert comes up, you should be alright and the CFP rules get updated properly.
thx. I posted this on an XP board earlier this afternoon, but haven’t got a reply. Do these look legit? Is this Comodo Memory Firewall cmfdll32.dll? If so, does the CMF require loopback?
all of these have requested loopback access, FX as browser.
[b]1)Advanced Windows 32 Base API2) clbcatq.dll l 3)cmfdll32.dll 4) User Experience Controls Library 5)Common Dialogs DLL 6) comres.Dll 7) GDI Client DLL 8.) Home Netowrking Configuration Manager 9)Windows XP IMM32 API Client DLL 10) Windows NT Base API Client DLL 11) Microsoft Text Frame Work Service IME 12) Windows NT CRT DL 13) M$ Windows Sockets 2.0 Service 14) NT Layer DLL 15) M$ OLE for Windows 16) oleaut32.dll 17)Remote Procedure Call Runtime 18) Security Support Provider interface 19) Windows Setup API 20) Windows Shell Common Dll 21)Shell Light-Weight Utility Library 22)Windows XP User API Client DLL 23) Microsolft UxTheme Library 24) Version Checking and File Installation Library 25) M$ UxTheme Library 26)MCI API DLL 27) Windows Spooler Driver 28)Windows Socket 2.0 32-Bit DLL 29) Windows Socket 2.0 Helper for Windows 30) Windows Sockets Helper DLL 31)Windows Socket 32-Bit DLL 32)DNS Client API DLL 33) IP Helper API 34)MSCTF Server DLL 35)Active IMM Server DLL 36) LDAP Rnr Provider DLL 37) Service Pack 2 Messages</blockquote>[/b]
Sorry for the delay. It’s been a little crazy on the dayjob.
The names for things that have requested the loopback access seem reasonable at first glance. But then the loopback interface is used by processes on your machine to talk to other processes on your machine. Antivirus scanners are typical users of the loopback, but I don’t see any mention of such in your list.
Regarding CMF memory firewall… I don’t know. I don’t have any experience with the product, yet.