i have xp home edition and i just upgraded to comodo v3.
i keep getting these messages (as the attached) and i don’t exactly understand what they mean or what i should do with them.
can someone explain them to me please?
thanks grampa, it sure did help to understand this a bit more.
i only still have one proble: how can i know which network this message refers to? i can guess that it is my own computer but how can i be sure of this? and if it does refer to my personal pc how come i could still keep surfing the net although i didn’t grant this network zone any permission yet?
I probably should start from Thanks and Congratulations with this new version.
It is just Great! (:CLP) (R) I should do that in some separate thread.
… but I may start from this question… sorry about that
I do have LAN. Win 2000 Pro is another box connected. Sometimes connecting Mac & Pc Laptops to the spare ports.
I never had any problems with Comodo v2 (on both comps) and LAN working perfectly.
During uninstalling Comodo v2 and installing v3 the second computer was switched off and still remains switched Off.
The above info given just “in case”… most likely it is not relevant.
Here is a scenario I can replicate as many times as I do the following:
Usually I use NirSoft’s IPNetInfo to lookup and “resolve IP address”. It never fails.
It will remain silent when I give something weird like 77.3345.0.H
It is silent when the above 169.254.114.78 entered
Who is: [url=http://www.whois.ws/whois-ip/ip-address] http://www.whois.ws/whois-ip/ip-address[/url] Gives:
OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
So…. What is so “Private” about that?
And mainly, why Comodo v3 detects it If and only If
….see the described scenario above ?
Any ideas are highly appreciated?
Thanks in advance
These are private addresses for LANs that are not directly addressable from the internet. It is assigned to one of your computers. See http://www.duxcw.com/faq/network/privip.htm, for example. Don’t know enough to say why you get the scenario you describe. Edit: Ah, yes, I should have recognized the IP as the one I get when I try to connect to a node that won’t serve me with DHCP.
When you block all then your pc is not able to get an IP address so what it does is assign itself one which is always gonna be 169.254.x.x. This will be on the interface that is trying to get an IP address. This is what is called a private address and it can’t be routed out to the internet. Anyway when you do a whois for that ip it will not find a server with that range of ip addresses as there is no such thing as far as the internet goes. This is normal as Windows does this if you can’t get an IP address.
This address is used for MS ActiveSync and the like for a local USB hookup to sync devices to your pc. It also has some other uses but you get the point.
I have to read a bit more about it…
I just glanced at the link given by sded and found that I can disable that… at the same time… a silly Q:
if those are addresses assigned (- quote - " reserved…three blocks of the IP address space for private internets local networks…" and “These IP’s should not be used on the Internet”) does it mean that:
I need to accept that private network?
or I can use it to communicate between my LAN computers connected to the router even if Internet (the outside world) is blocked?
Thanks again for responding
…and yes …another thing
why the previouse v2 never reminded me about it ???
The 10.x.x.x, 172.x.x, and 192.168.x.x address ranges are the only ones considered as routable on a NAT network(your home network with a router in place). This is a very, very general explanation that is all that is needed for a home network to be setup most of the time.
You would want to get rid of that 169.254.x.x IP address and get one assigned from the DHCP server which your router should have builtin. I would reboot and let CFP3 see the new interface and automatically prompt to make the rules for you. Of course you need to stop it from blocking all in before rebooting.
If I was going to block all in I would disable the network interface using the systray icon or from Network Connections instead of blocking all in with the firewall as I have had trouble trying to get Windows and the firewall to release the IP address once it gets assigned 169.254.x.x. I have seen numerous other firewalls have that trouble also and not just CFP3.
jasper, … it is much more than 2 cents :SMLR
I will do quick reply jut to the above part … it is almost 4:AM here…need a rest
Now i remember: with v2 if I did block all … I need to restart computer after Stand By… I think I did write about that somewhere here. With v3 Internet will come alive in about 5 -7 min - you have to be patient. The difference though (if that matters) is - now I am on static IP after switching to adsl2+. When I found that behavior in v2 long ago I had the dynamic one ???
gotta go to have some sleep
It was nice to chat with you Guys.
Hope we’ll meet here . Cheers (:WAV)
This is what happens when a persons thread gets hijacked, his question is never answered.
I wish the Mods would be more aggressive concerning thread hijacks, in fact I see too many times where Mods are answering the hijacker instead of the OP (original poster BTW)…very wrong!
I know this is an old thread but it points out the aftermath of a Thread Hijack perfectly. OP asks question, someone comes in and asks the OP for more info, someone else comes in and hijacks the OP’s thread by asking his question in the thread because it’s “similar”. Others, including Mods, start to answer the hijacker instead of the OP…OP feels ignored and leaves forums forever, without getting his question answered. Then as happened here, someone who could have benefited from the OP’s question being answered, is also left wondering what’s happened.
Thread hijacking is very poor forum etiquette and should be aggressively terminated by the forum Mods or it starts to become an accepted thing to do and many new forum users get booted to the side because of it, and they leave. Also the questions themselves get confused and and many times the thread title doesn’t even match the final thread outcome, and then folks searching for answers on an issue end up reading threads that have no similarity except the thread title and original question…that was never answered because it was hijacked.
Hmmm…I just saw the [Merged Threads] above…maybe this isn’t as it seems.
But the post is still valid here at CFP forums as I see post hijacks almost everytime I come to the forums. This “may not” be one of them after all, but it sure is a perfect example of what one ends up like.