this is not attack actually :-))) this is just other torrent users trying to connect you, and since utorrent is NOT running - the packets are being blocked and signed as attack attempt. This is NOT a firewall issue :-)) if other firewalls miss these packets - then it’s them who are bad, not Comodo one :-)))
if you want - you can configure System Idle Process to explicitly block these packets without logging. But it shouldn’t be done, since when i run eMule - some connections are run through System Idle Process.
But that’s not true! Other firewalls i tried (F-secure internet security 2008, Sunbelt Kerio, Kaspersky) doesn’t log.
The problem with comodo and the logging attacks is my drive constant spinning becuase of that!
dude, i tell you - this is NOT a firewall issue :-)))) the reason is the bittorent users are trying to connect when you have no Torrent client running. I am sure i too get these “attack attempts” but since i’m behind the router i don’t have the problem. However i don’t know how to disable this “attack logging” except adding a global rule for selective port stealthing. There is a some kind of wizard which results into asking about opening a port every time and block (and NOT logging if properly configured) connection requests if torrent client not running. At least that’s how i understand this feature.
“the reason is the bittorent users are trying to connect when you have no Torrent client running”
But this is the same for other firewalls and with them I don’t get this problem! Why? I only have It with Comodo…
I (L) I hope someone can help me with this.
could you please check your configuration? maybe something wrong’s in there. Check all your logging and blocking rules (and those are NOT there when they should be) and try to build a logical chain like “i’m a TCP packet. I go to IP 123.123.123.123 on port 1234. I meet firewall. What does it do? Check Global Rules. The global rule says allow. OK, i’m going further. Next global rule says block ICMP, but since i am no ICMP packet - i go further. Global rules end…” and so on. Maybe this will help you understand how does it work and where can be the point of interest.
System Idle Process loads the operating system and everything that starts up with it. It is never connected to the internet. Going to Firewall → Advanced → Network Sescurity Policy and clicking on System from the list and editing it. Check Use a Custom Policy and choose Outgoing Only from Predefined Security Policies. Edit Block and Log all unmatching Requests and uncheck the box that says Log as a firewall event if this rule is fired.
I believe that should stop the System Idle Process from being logged.
Why do I get so many Firewall events logged as System Idle Process? All these in just ten minutes.
http://tinyurl.com/24lzw8
Ed (R)
Go to the beta board and download the latest 3.0.14 build-it seems to have solved much of this problem for many users. You can export your settings first, but try the new ones out before you import them.
System Idle Process is a dummy name not a real process. Have you used torrent in the past? Nothing to worry about as far as I know, but you can create a rule that blocks that without logging because with such flood the logs will be ununsable for any other purpose.
So how would I phrase the rule?
Ed
:BNC
Like this for example, in the global rules:
http://www.imgplace.com/directory/dir3609/1197240974.png
Leave all other tabs at “Any”. Notice how the logging box at the top is unchecked. It’s very important that this rule is moved above any other that blocks and logs inbound traffic, because rules above are read first and as soon as one is fired the ones below are ignored.
This is for the specific port 58568 where you’re getting that many attempts. See how it goes after this is enforced, actually I block without logging all unsolicited trafic to whichever port because I get attempts at many.
That rule is for both TCP and UDP protocols, since you get attempts at both, even though most are in UDP. You can make it for UDP only if you prefer; you’ll see that making rules is simple enough after the first time. 
Thanks for the info and help.
Today’s list is just as big but different ports.
I’ve taken the easy way and just switched off all logging. I’ve never used the log anyway.
I guess this problem will have been cured in the next update, so I’ll wait for that before switching it on again.
Ed
:■■■■
Aha same here. :-\
I guess this problem will have been cured in the next update, so I'll wait for that before switching it on again.
Not necessarily, nobody said that CFP is inventing traffic that doesn’t exist, likely it does exist.
I've taken the easy way and just switched off all logging. I've never used the log anyway.
For which rule have you disabled logging? You should disable logging for all incoming traffic (that you haven’t allowed with a previous rule), that is, protocol:IP, all tabs to “any”. But you should still log blocked outgoing traffic, since blocked outgoing attempts would mean either that some legit program was blocked perhaps losing functionality, or that you were infected and malware was calling home.
So if what you’ve disabled logging is for a “block … in …” rule, it’s okay. If it was for a “block … in/out …” rule, better split it into a pair of block-in and block-out, disable logging for the first, and enable it for the second.
Miscellaneous/Settings/Logging/Disable Firewall logging, Apply.
Ed (:LOV) (:NRD)
Okay if you’re not going to use the logs at all, I guess it’s the right thing for you. 
Something very strange is going on here! Since installing 3.0.14 on a fresh winxp partition I’m now getting all the same blocks that I was getting for SIPs. Only now it’s svchost. Exactly the same ports, same IPs. I can literally, jump between installations and see the the exact same entries in the logs.
Interestingly, the 3.0.14 install renamed my imported rules for SIP to Windows Operating System…
I switched logging on; waited a while; then loaded Limewire; waited a
while; exited Limewire.
And just look at the log! Events logged to SIP, then Limewire, then SIP
again.
http://tinyurl.com/329raq
That bit-torrent theory looks a strong possibility.
Ed
(:LOV)
I wasn’t sure if revealing the Source and Destination IPs was a security risk so I didn’t include them in the screenshot.
http://xs322.xs.to/xs322/07503/ScreenShot002.png
