Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to encrypt you!
Comodo Internet Security 2024 Beta is now available
- Thread starter roger_m
- Start date
Decoded message... There is nothing new.Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to encrypt you!
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,430
You got me.NOW you tell me... (me too)
- Oct 22, 2018
- 591
If you go way back in one of the threads on the Comodo forum, Melih mentioned that, since the FW blocked everything, a new UI might be enough. I figured he was just joking. Maybe he wasn't.
The person answering dozens of CIS users on Comodo Forum regarding CIS 2024 Beta issues was pretending being Comodo/Xcitium staff...
He got banned...
This user is suspended until Sep 1, 2023 2:00 pm.
Reason: Impersonating Comodo/Xcitium Staff
Hilarious
- Sep 5, 2018
- 141
Just another day in the dysfunctional land of Comodo.The person answering dozens of CIS users on Comodo Forum regarding CIS 2024 Beta issues was pretending being Comodo/Xcitium staff...
He got banned...
This user is suspended until Sep 1, 2023 2:00 pm.
Reason: Impersonating Comodo/Xcitium Staff
Hilarious
So when he said Comodo is aware of the bug and is fixing it, apparently Comodo is not aware and not fixing. Thanks for keeping the hope high.
- Oct 22, 2018
- 591
LOL...... I was basing my assumptions of bug fixes on his comments, starting from the day the beta was released. Took them long enough to catch him. They must not check their forum very often.
Last edited:
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,779
...that's why when @Decopi suggested I go read the comodo forum, I didn't!
(no offense intended) meanwhile CF 2024 beta running ok here on VM no obvious bugs... is it safe? 
- Mar 2, 2023
- 1,153
They must be hard up for help over there, only suspending them for ~2 weeks. IMO, it probably should have been a Ban.The person answering dozens of CIS users on Comodo Forum regarding CIS 2024 Beta issues was pretending being Comodo/Xcitium staff...
He got banned...
This user is suspended until Sep 1, 2023 2:00 pm.
Reason: Impersonating Comodo/Xcitium Staff
Hilarious
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,779
quick comment re CF beta: I see the CF firewall blocked some microsoft exe, eg smartscreen.exe I did not get any notification of that firewall block, perhaps due to @cruelsister's settings, or perhaps default not to alert user to that? That is something I would have wanted to know without having to go searching for it. So is that an anomaly, buggy, or bug???
I did not get any notification of that firewall block, perhaps due to @cruelsister's settings, or perhaps default not to alert user to that? That is something I would have wanted to know without having to go searching for it. So is that an anomaly, buggy, or bug???
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,779
quick question: what's the recommended usage of "Run Virtual Applications" -- I vaguely recall not really necessary with @cruelsister settings, most obvious comes to mind would be to use for browsers? there's some sandboxing with chromium browsers... I've always run CF with cruelsister config -- set it and forget it mentality.
there's some sandboxing with chromium browsers... I've always run CF with cruelsister config -- set it and forget it mentality.Are you referring to the "Blocked Applications" section? Sometimes it includes trusted apps. You can search for the blocked app in the File List under Settings. I have smartscreen.exe on the list with trusted status.quick comment re CF beta: I see the CF firewall blocked some microsoft exe, eg smartscreen.exe
Zappathustra
Level 2
- Jul 1, 2019
- 48
I stick to the default setting of "Run Virtually" and haven’t felt the need to limit the containment as suggested by @cruelsister. The default had a small problem that was fixed. For instance, ransomware could leave a ransom note on the desktop. The "Run Virtually" function is fully virtual, and the optional levels impose the chosen restrictions on the contained apps.quick question: what's the recommended usage of "Run Virtual Applications" -- I vaguely recall not really necessary with @cruelsister settings, most obvious comes to mind would be to use for browsers?
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,779
yes, correct. It is/was curious to me that smartscreen.exe would be in CF list of Blocked apps, and yes I had already changed it to trusted along with a few others I double checked.
- May 26, 2014
- 1,339
quick question: what's the recommended usage of "Run Virtual Applications" -- I vaguely recall not really necessary with @cruelsister settings, most obvious comes to mind would be to use for browsers?
I noticed that when I used Comodo with CF settings some years ago, never understood why.
- Aug 19, 2019
- 1,221
Setting as Restricted blocks network connection and more secure which is why CG sets run virutally as Restricted.
Smartscreen etc are HTTPS blocks and something that has been an issue with use on Win11. You can create outbound TCP to port 443 rules for these applications. I have mentioned it as something they need to fix as the HTTPS preset in CF is only UDP so you can just amend that preset to UDP or TCP.
Not currently running CF but I did some tweaking with it recently.
Smartscreen etc are HTTPS blocks and something that has been an issue with use on Win11. You can create outbound TCP to port 443 rules for these applications. I have mentioned it as something they need to fix as the HTTPS preset in CF is only UDP so you can just amend that preset to UDP or TCP.
Not currently running CF but I did some tweaking with it recently.
- Run Virtually - The application will be run in a virtual environment completely isolated from your operating system and files on the rest of your computer.
- Run Restricted - The application is allowed to access very few operating system resources. The application is not allowed to execute more than 10 processes at a time and is run with very limited access rights. Some applications, like computer games, may not work properly under this setting.
- Block - The application is not allowed to run at all.
...that's why when @Decopi suggested I go read the comodo forum, I didn't!
Please, allow me to disagree here.
Common sense says that official info should be searched from official sources.
So, talking about product "X" on website "Y" without reading website "X"... could be wrong or at least incomplete.
And regarding the "fake Comodo employee", it is not a proof against the mentioned principle above, because Comodo employees continue to participate at Comodo forum, and only there we have official and technical answers. Even your Melihness is speaking there! So, liking or hating product "X", between website "Y" and "X", if the official info and the holy highest priest (CEO) are responding on website "X", then the logical thing to do is to think always first on reading website "X".
Last but not least, even if someone rejects website "X" because they have a "fake employee", I still wonder what's worse:
1. A "fake employee" at the official forum, where I still have official employees, official info, and CEO responses?
OR
2. An exchange of subjective opinions between fanboys/girls, or between unofficial amateurs at a third-party website?
It's just a rhetorical question.
The answer is personal, each one is free to choose the way to search for info and the way to feed premises and conclusions.
Last edited:
Why would one ever need or have to use 'Run Restricted' for apps running in a Containment???
The apps run in containment what's the point?
Can they escape from Containment somehow when use 'Run Virtually''?
