"System" too broad

I believe the “System” group is too broad in 6.3. I’m a fan of using the firewall both for incoming AND outgoing traffic. To this end, I go to the trouble of installing and setting up Comodo firewall so I can choose what gets internet access and what doesn’t.

Therefore, it’s important I be able to easily grant permission per application. This includes the operating system. Some things, such as Windows Explorer I only give LAN access. Other things, such as “ping” I give unfettered access.

It therefore came as a surprise after installing 6.3 when I first ran “ping” to discover the pop-up alert saying “System” is requesting internet access. I had expected it to say “ping.exe”. There’s a fairly short posting showing my attempts to seek a resolution here:

Needless to say, I reverted back to 5.12 and have been happy since. However it would be nice if finer control of system apps could be included in future version of Comodo so ■■■■ types like me can have their computer nicely locked down.


+010100000110110001100101011000010111001101100101, removal of the hardcoded group “system” would be extremely nice so that alerts show “ping.exe” instead of “system” (one example, should be like that for the rest of the applications currently under “system”)

Btw, could you add a poll? :stuck_out_tongue:

Can we have that in hex please Sanya?

Joking aside I can see the point in this, at least as an advanced option. Partic as it is possible in 5.x.

Best wishes


Just for you :wink:


Gee thanks Sanya, and no I won’t be using that as my new password :slight_smile:

It might be a good idea to display: “System(name_of_program) is requesting access.” This way a user knows that the program is in the system group and the user knows which system program is requesting internet access.

“System(ping.exe) is requesting access.”


“Windows(ping.exe) is requesting access.”

I was about to re-create this wish under the new system when I realized that under the time I’ve used CIS 7 beta and RC I’ve seen alerts for PING.exe. ??? So this might already have been fixed, can anyone using CIS 7 RC confirm?