App Review Comodo's killer.

[Andy Ful]

Content source

https://youtu.be/OjgZo-CMuqo

Post updated.

I created this video as a supplement to the discussion in another thread:

App Review - Comodo Firewall Bypassing a Bypass

malwaretips.com

The original bypass and Comodo's killer do not work if Core isolation is properly configured on Windows.
Also, both methods will not work when the rating of "Kaspersky Lab" is set to Unrecognized in the File Rating >> Vendor List.

 

[Bot]

Great job on the video! It provides a clear and concise explanation of the Comodo Firewall bypass issue. Thanks for sharing.

 

[lyldz]

I officially felt myself in a lesson with this video.thanks for that

 

[ErzCrz]

Interesting video. Out of curiosity, what is whitelisted in your auto-containment? Also App & Browser Control warning in Security Centre

But an informative video. I think the key with these things is to also deploy system hardening of some sort as SWH, WHHL, H_C and separately CyberLock will block/warn the action but I agree that disabling UAC isn't a great idea.

 

[Andy Ful]

Interesting video. Out of curiosity, what is whitelisted in your auto-containment? Also App & Browser Control warning in Security Centre

The ignored path is "C:\ProgramData\Comodo\Cis\tempscript\C_cmd[.]exe_....".
When I installed CIS and applied all Script Analysis settings, it tried to block a script related to the OneDrive update. I inspected the script in the CIS tempscript folder, executed again, allowed execution, and pressed "Do not isolate again".
The Ignore entry for that script was added automatically in the "Auto-Containment".

The App & Browser Control warning in the Security Centre is due to PUA protection (related to the Edge web browser). On Windows 10 it is not enabled in the default settings.
One can also see the warning about Account protection because I use the local account.

Post edited.

 

[ErzCrz]

The ignored path is "C:\ProgramData\Comodo\Cis\tempscript\C_cmd[.]exe_....".
When I installed CIS and applied all Script Analysis settings, it tried to block a script related to the OneDrive update. I inspected the script in the CIS tempscript folder, executed again, allowed execution, and pressed "Do not isolate again".
The Ignore entry for that script was added automatically in the "Auto-Containment".

The App & Browser Control warning in the Security Centre is due to PUA protection (related to the Edge web browser). On Windows 10 it is not enabled in the default settings.
One can also see the warning about Account protection because I use the local account.

Post edited.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[lokamoka820]

@Andy Ful I like your videos so much, I always learn something new, thank you.

 

[vitao]

well, i guess its time to move on... mellih sure did...

 

[Andy Ful]

well, i guess its time to move on...

What do you mean?

 

[vitao]

What do you mean?

comodo seems to dont care about exploitations going on on cis. when people talk about it there are always some defending and trying to make the subjects fade away in the wild, like cruelsister trying to implicate that the problem that permites the poc to bypass cis and xcitium is related to some kind of flaw in windows uac... so, why botter with it anymore? thats the point. right?

 

[bazang]

comodo seems to dont care about exploitations going on on cis.

No. It is a software with $0 revenue. So there is nobody to fix it.

If users want to come up with the money to pay for the developers, then Comodo will fix it.

The product owner does not want to spend any more of his own personal money to subsidize CIS\CFW.

 

[Andy Ful]

comodo seems to dont care about exploitations going on on cis. when people talk about it there are always some defending and trying to make the subjects fade away in the wild, like cruelsister trying to implicate that the problem that permites the poc to bypass cis and xcitium is related to some kind of flaw in windows uac... so, why botter with it anymore? thats the point. right?

DecimaTech explained the Comodo/UAC flaw, which is well-known to Comodo staff. If you think other AV vendors are eager to patch all known flaws, you will be disappointed.
Furthermore, despite this incompatibility, you can hardly find a stronger solution than @cruelsister settings + safe mode HIPS + some hardening via Script Analysis (of course there can be some with similar strength).

Comodo has some important advantages for non-enterprise users:

1. It is rarely a target of criminals.
2. It uses auto-containment and most solutions do not.

If you will see malware attacking your personal computer, it will not be the sandbox bypass, except when you are a celebrity, dissident, or VIP. If something might pass by your Comodo protection, it would be via DLL hijacking or a similar fileless (non-EXE) technique. Even then, you will have a fair chance to stop the attack flow because many attacks starting from fileless vectors, still use standard methods at the later infection stages. So in the end, the final payload can be contained anyway.

As an example, one could take the @Loyisa exploit. From points 1-2 it follows, that you hardly can see such an exploit on your computer, but rather a modified version when the auto-containment bypass via creating service is replaced by a UAC bypass unrelated to sandbox escape. Such a UAC bypass can be mainly contained with no escape. In the case when the file with UAC bypass is not contained and tries to run an EXE payload, the payload can be auto-contained into a full-strength sandbox (payload will start with Administrator privileges before containment = no sandbox escape).

Of course, there is still some possibility that malware can compromise your protection (via purely non-EXE attack or by using some unrestricted LOLBin), but such malware is very rare and other solutions can hardly do better. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with trying.
I am afraid that after moving on, most people will replace strong protection + known but rarely exploited feature, with not-so-strong protection + unknown by the user (but known by attackers) more frequently exploited features.

 

[Decopi]

Hi @Andy Ful , please, once again, and with all due respect, allow me to disagree with your last post.

Comodo is an abandon-ware, it has not had any real update/upgrade for years, it is full of dangerous unfixed bugs, most of its features are garbage, and several times "Containment" already has been proven by-passable. Therefore, in this context, as a matter of principle, no software in this condition should be used. Period!

The problem is the IMMORALITY and IRRESPONSIBILITY, both, of Comodo (which continues to promote its software as "the most complete solution for cyber security"), as well as of its fanatics, who lie, omit and manipulate information, creating a false myth that has lasted for years.

In addition, Comodo is not able to detect viruses/malware, so at best it can only be classified as a “blocker”. However, with the lack of updates + no bug fixes, nowadays not even the blocker function is reliable! Also, it's worth mentioning the fact that 99% of users are NOT suitable to use blockers as security systems. And if it is a matter of “blocking” stuff, then it would be enough to harden Windows. Finally, there is also no logical reason to use a blocker, when there are countless excellent free alternatives on the market, real antivirus/antimalware, modern and well maintained.

In this pathetic context, continuing to promote Comodo, besides being immoral and irresponsible, is like promoting the unplugging of a computer from the internet or electricity, as the most “infallible complete cyber security system”... RIDICULOUS! Every time a problem is reported with Comodo, what is always proposed is a patch/hack where more and more stuff is blocked. And considering that the current blocker function (Containment) already triggers hundreds of false blockings (safe files blocked), the only thing they will achieve by hardening/patching/hacking Comodo more and more is that its security will be analogous to unplugging a computer from the internet/electricity (Comodo will totally kill user usability). Comodo has been dangerous for years, and now they are turning it into a totally unusable software.

As I mentioned, 99.99% of users are not prepared to use any kind of blocker as security software. And by hardening/patching/hacking Comodo (instead of fixing or improving Comodo), the only thing they will achieve is that 99.999999% of users will NOT be able to use Comodo.

And the fact that Comodo is useful for 0.000001% of users does not justify the immorality and irresponsibility of Comodo fanatics, who continue to promote Comodo as an alternative for everyone.

 

[Andy Ful]

Hi @Andy Ful , please, once again, and with all due respect, allow me to disagree with your last post.

No problem. There is no reason to increase the excitement level in this thread.
Anyway, you lost much energy for nothing:

1. My opinion about Comodo is unrelated to what Comodo fanboys, Comodo haters, and you could say. I tested Comodo many times and know how it works.
2. No one in this thread wrote that people should use Comodo. This thread is directed to Comodo users, especially those using @cruelsister settings. It does not matter how many such users are.
3. No one in this thread promoted Comodo (see the thread title) or wrote that the way of promoting Comodo by the vendor was OK.
4. No one in this thread wrote that Comodo is perfect (no bugs, weaknesses, etc.) and there are no excellent alternatives to Comodo.
5. No one in this thread wrote that Comodo staff can be a good example of maintaining, patching, and improving their product. Anyway, from my experience, there are not many good examples.

If I had to describe Comodo: It is not as smart as Ulysses (Odysseus) but can be as dumb and strong as Herakles.
Both heroes can have some fans.

 

[rashmi]

comodo seems to dont care about exploitations going on on cis. when people talk about it there are always some defending and trying to make the subjects fade away in the wild, like cruelsister trying to implicate that the problem that permites the poc to bypass cis and xcitium is related to some kind of flaw in windows uac... so, why botter with it anymore? thats the point. right?

You're either gonna fall in love with Melih or fall in love with the fact that you can't beat him. "D" knows what I'm talking about!

 

[SpiderWeb]

As MT's default Apple guy, I want to brag that Core isolation and Kaspersky File Vault > Vendor List are the default configurations of macOS. If your app is not signed and notarized, it cannot run unless with explicit admin override. Nothing can run in kernel mode unless it's explicitly signed by Apple and the signature remains up to date. Apple also keeps a record of the checksum so any minor tampering revokes the app from running until you reinstall/restore to default.

Windows is Swiss cheese and unfortunately no single solution can ever plug every single hole

 

[Andy Ful]

Let's not start an offtopic discussion about which OS is better than Windows.

 

[SpiderWeb]

Let's not start an offtopic discussion about which OS is better than Windows.

I apologize. I didn't mean to. I just think it is interesting how the conversation is framed. On macOS we tend to blame Apple for creating new vulnerabilities in the OS. But, on Windows we blame AV vendors for not doing their job to close every new vulnerability that Microsoft creates with every update.

I think the problem is not Comodo. The problem is Microsoft and this is something Microsoft needs to patch by putting their foot down and strictly defining what can and cannot run in kernel space. Comodo has zero power over this so I don't think it's fair that people here are blaming Comodo developers.

 

[Decopi]

There is no reason to increase the excitement level in this thread.

Expressing an opinion or a disagreement has nothing to do with “increasing excitements”.

Anyway, you lost much energy for nothing:

1. My opinion about Comodo is unrelated to what Comodo fanboys, Comodo haters, and you could say. I tested Comodo many times and know how it works.
2. No one in this thread wrote that people should use Comodo. This thread is directed to Comodo users, especially those using @cruelsister settings. It does not matter how many such users are.
3. No one in this thread promoted Comodo (see the thread title) or wrote that the way of promoting Comodo by the vendor was OK.
4. No one in this thread wrote that Comodo is perfect (no bugs, weaknesses, etc.) and there are no excellent alternatives to Comodo.
5. No one in this thread wrote that Comodo staff can be a good example of maintaining, patching, and improving their product. Anyway, from my experience, there are not many good examples.

I was clear at my post. I don't have general disagreements with you. At my post I was specific by expressing my disagreement JUST with your post #12. Unfortunately, at your post #14 you focused at my person or emotions, you also focused at your thread as a whole, but you didn't focus at my specific arguments.
By the way, I take the opportunity to thank you for the big majority of your threads and posts, they're full of knowledge and teachings, and I learn from you and totally agree with most of your comments.

If I had to describe Comodo: It is not as smart as Ulysses but can be as dumb and strong as Herakles.
Both heroes can have some fans.

Here's the only specific point where you and I disagree.

Your argument ("Comodo: It is not as smart as Ulysses but can be as dumb and strong as Herakles") may be applied to everything in life (software, politics, cars, investments, family, friends, whatever). However, MT is a cyber security forum, and while it is true that everyone is free to write what they want, it is also true that we should have morality and responsibility to understand that there are people who read us, who do not have the ability to differentiate between underlines, and may end up induced to use a software that they should NOT.

Comodo is an abandon-ware, full of old and dangerous unfixed bugs, no real updates/upgrades etc... so in principle, no software under these conditions should be used. So, even if Comodo is useful for a minority, or even if Comodo is strong as Herakles etc, the principle should prevail, and an abandon-ware software, with bugs, no real updates/upgrades etc... should not be used.

I want you to know that I understand and respect your opinion. I hope you understand and respect mine, even if you don't agree. It's not about arguing, it's about respecting each other and being able to express our opinions, without convincing each other.

Once again, thank you Andy for your time and great teachings!

 

[Andy Ful]

I want you to know that I understand and respect your opinion. I hope you understand and respect mine, even if you don't agree. It's not about arguing, it's about respecting each other and being able to express our opinions, without convincing each other.

I respect your opinion. Furthermore, I could agree with a fair part of your opinion if it would not be so extreme.
I cannot see the reason to recommend changing Comodo to another solution if one likes it and uses it without issues with hardened settings.
My point of view is generally consistent. I wrote the same about other AVs like Microsoft Defender (Magniber thread and Disable Defender thread), Eset, etc.
I tested many solutions and could bypass most of them. I am not a genius, so many criminals can do the same or more. Focusing on a perfect solution is not good because any solution has some weak points. A good idea is a usable solution with rarely targeted weak points.