Why the redundant 100 MB Bases-Repair.Cav

C:\Program Files\COMODO\COMODO Internet Security\scanners
This now holds not only the 100 MB Bases.cav but also the new item Base-Repair.cav.
Why ?

I assume it is redundant because I have just deleted it with no reaction,
and run Diagnostics which says it cannot find a problem

Using C.I.S. 5.8 under Windows 7 Ultimate + SP!


The copy of bases.cav in the repair directory has always been there. It used to be a small default file, but now, when CIS updates the database, the old bases.cav is moved to the repair directory (check the file dates). If the bases.cav in the scanner folder becomes corrupt, repairing would use the old copy in the repair directory. This way you wouldn’t have to download the whole database again.

Sorry, you mis-understood me.

I am familiar with the separate …\Repair folder.
I was very pleased when I allowed the built-in updater to take me from v5.3 through a false start (I think a stub of 5.5) to v5.8 and I found the two instances of bases.cav were now 100 MB each instead of 200 MB as they were under 5.3

Since then I found a third 100 file size MB named Bases-Repair.cav residing at
C:\Program Files\COMODO\COMODO Internet Security\scanners\Bases-Repair.cav

I asked about this hoping that after a planned removal Comodo with the User forum tool,
and then a clean install of Comodo,
I would find a response to guide me on whether or not to allow a new Bases-Repair.cav remain,
but am pleased to see that a clean install does not result in any bases-repair.cav.

I guess it was an unfortunate accident as a result of an update jump/stumbling from 5.3 to 5.8.

From your response I assume that base-repair.cav is not normally encountered.
I guess I was unlucky - Windows is always out to get me 88)


I was thinking you were referring to the bases.cav file. I didn’t realize that you had a file called bases-repair.cav. That file is not normally present. It must have been created when you were having trouble.

Windows isn’t out to get just you, it gets us all! Kudos to Billy Gates - not! :-TD