Should Comodo users stop using Comodo?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Registry may have better protection against tampering than local database or other file based solution.
Both files and registry entries can be protected from tampering when you’re hooking all api calls (which for sandboxing and VirusScope is a must) and even more so when you operate in kernel mode. The best practice nowadays is to store settings in files. The registry used to used a lot more before when HDDs were a thing, a central database in memory (which still originates from files) was the most effective approach.
 
Which bugs got fixed from below list???

You repeated the information from one of my posts:

Nothing new has happened after I posted this information. The Comodo staff had half of the year to fix some of those bugs before pushing the stable version of CIS 2025 (Umut posted the list in August 2024). Some bugs might also be fixed afterwards (like sandbox escape reported by @Loyisa). There is no information on how many of those bugs were fixed. We only know that currently, those bugs have not been re-reported by users for the current version of CIS 2025.


If CIS was maintained at the high level, we should have detailed information about fixed and unfixed bugs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool
Here is some information about Comodo's bug maintenance:

Bug reports:
 
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool
Here is some information about Comodo's bug maintenance:

Bug reports:
That information has no value at all since it has been on the Comodo forum for decades.
Only goal of this information is to give the Comodo users a happy feeling in case they run in to a bug so that they can report it in hopes it will get fixed.

As said many many times by other (also respected) MT members Comodo does not have any intention to fix all new and old bugs reported by many novice and expert users over the past and repeated bug reports over and over again, it is software "As Is" users use it at their own risk.
 
You repeated the information from one of my posts:

Nothing new has happened after I posted this information. The Comodo staff had half of the year to fix some of those bugs before pushing the stable version of CIS 2025 (Umut posted the list in August 2024). Some bugs might also be fixed afterwards (like sandbox escape reported by @Loyisa). There is no information on how many of those bugs were fixed. We only know that currently, those bugs have not been re-reported by users for the current version of CIS 2025.


If CIS was maintained at the high level, we should have detailed information about fixed and unfixed bugs.
Absent bugs on the second list is no guarantee that those absent bugs have been fixed or do not exist. The second list was composed by collecting the most recent reported bugs on the Comodo forum. The also known bug "Firewall Rules based on Host Name" is not on that list and has not been reported as fixed.

Bugs are not re-reported by Comdoo users because they all are getting sick of submitting bug reports over and over again knowing that almost nothing will change. As said by MT members, being on the Comodo forum is a waste of time.
 
Absent bugs on the second list is no guarantee that those absent bugs have been fixed or do not exist. The second list was composed by collecting the most recent reported bugs on the Comodo forum. The also known bug "Firewall Rules based on Host Name" is not on that list and has not been reported as fixed.

Bugs are not re-reported by Comodo users because they all are getting sick of submitting bug reports over and over again knowing that almost nothing will change. As said by MT members, being on the Comodo forum is a waste of time.
Everyone has to make a risk determination for themselves, but in my estimation there is just far too much "baggage" that comes along with Comodo.

Although, if using CS sheheit configuration much of that "bug baggage" is mitigated. However, the risk of whether or not the user can reliably determine if what has been sandboxed is unsafe to run outside the virtual container is one that is never addressed. Assuming that the user always just leaves whatever is auto-contained to continue to run auto-contained, instead of make a rule excluding it from auto-containment, then they should be OK.

For phishing, other protections - those are not ideal in Comodo.

I don't recommend it to new users, but like all things in anyone's life, they need to make their own decisions. I just don't care what they do.

Should people stop using Comodo?

"It's your Comodo, use it when you want to."

"Or not."
 
@Pico,

Your posts are based on opinions, which were based on other opinions. You assume that Comodo is still bad, so those past opinions must be true for the current Comodo 2025. This contradicts the rules of the thread.
Please show the evidence that most of the old bugs are still unfixed, without assuming that Comodo is bad. Nothing related to the new CIS version (including reports of users) confirms your opinion yet. However, I do not exclude the possibility that your scepticism can be confirmed. Do not repeat what we all already know. Just do some new research (like, for example, @Trident) and show the evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool
If CIS was maintained at the high level, we should have detailed information about fixed and unfixed bugs.

My statement does not mean that the Comodo team and Comodo moderators are not on a high level.
The issue probably follows from limited resources (small team, small community, etc.).
 
Comodo after the formation of Xcitium is the typical business-oriented company. Other companies of this type are Check Point (with ZoneAlarm not even being top 5 priorities, the R&D revenue is divided 50:50 between Endpoint Protection and Next-Gen Firewall), Trend Micro (where the AI Advanced Threat Scan Engine was at version 22 until 2 months ago, when version 24 is already more than a year old), Sophos (where the product gets very few updates) and so on.

Trend Micro had a mute mode bug that required probably 3 hours of work (pre-ChatGPT) and this bug remained well over 2 years.

Such companies usually adopt modular structure (like in the case of Trend Micro there are over 30-40 modules), one developer will be pulled to work probably for a week, they will assemble a package with all the new modules available for business, an external UI developer will be hired every now and then to create a new UI (with minor changes to the CSS and JS performed inhouse over the years).

When using products from these companies for home users, the user (often unknowingly) accepts to use a product that is not the developer’s first priority and care.

Similar case with Comodo, only here there is no modular structure, Comodo retains the old codebase which at this point probably has nothing to do with the Xcitium one.

Users who want innovation, bug fixes and so on, they need to turn to one of the home-users-oriented developers such as McAfee, Gen, Kaspersky and so on.
 
Some bugs can last several years. Microsoft Defender had a bug with the broken "Protection history". I am not even sure if this bug was finally patched.
 
@Pico,

Your posts are based on opinions, which were based on other opinions. You assume that Comodo is still bad, so those past opinions must be true for the current Comodo 2025. This contradicts the rules of the thread.
Please show the evidence that most of the old bugs are still unfixed, without assuming that Comodo is bad. Nothing related to the new CIS version (including reports of users) confirms your opinion yet. However, I do not exclude the possibility that your scepticism can be confirmed. Do not repeat what we all already know. Just do some new research (like, for example, @Trident) and show the evidence.
My analysis of security forums, user communities, and bug report discussions reveals several recurring themes. It's important to distinguish between confirmed, exploitable vulnerabilities and quality assurance (QA) bugs or compatibility issues, but several reported issues have clear security implications.

These issues often do not receive a CVE identifier because they may not fit the classic definition of a remotely exploitable vulnerability, but they are tracked and discussed at length within the product's user and security research communities.

Vulnerabilities
A number of critical vulnerabilities have been identified in version 12.3.4.8162, with public disclosure in mid-2025. The vendor reportedly did not respond to initial disclosures.

CVE-2025-7098:

Severity: Critical (CVSSv3.1 Base Score: 8.8 High)

Description: A path traversal vulnerability in the "File Name Handler" component. Manipulation of the name/folder argument could allow a remote attacker to access restricted directories.

Affected Module: Unknown function handling file names.

CVE-2025-7097:

Severity: Critical

Description: An OS command injection vulnerability in the "Manifest File Handler" component. Manipulation of the binary/params argument within the cis_update_x64.xml file can lead to arbitrary command execution. The attack can be initiated remotely.

Affected Module: Update mechanism parsing the cis_update_x64.xml file.

CVE-2025-7096:

Severity: Critical (CVSSv3.1 Base Score: 8.1 High)

Description: An improper validation of integrity check value vulnerability in the "Manifest File Handler." This allows for manipulation of the cis_update_x64.xml file, potentially leading to the execution of malicious updates.

Affected Module: Update mechanism parsing the cis_update_x64.xml file.

CVE-2025-7095:

Severity: Critical (Classified as critical, but with a low CVSSv3.1 score of 3.7)

Description: An improper certificate validation vulnerability in the "Update Handler" component. This could allow a remote attacker to present a malicious update as legitimate.

Affected Module: The software's update handler.



Conclusion
Risk Summary: High

Overall Assessment: Comodo Internet Security 2025, developed by Xcitium, is built on a strong "Default Deny" and "Auto-Containment" security philosophy, which is effective against zero-day threats. However, the specified version 12.3.4.8162 is critically undermined by a series of high-severity vulnerabilities in its update mechanism and file handling components. These flaws could allow a remote attacker to bypass the software's protections and execute arbitrary code, negating its core security principles. The lack of a public response from the vendor to the disclosure of these vulnerabilities is also a significant concern.

Recommendations

Do Not Deploy


This specific version (12.3.4.8162) should not be deployed due to the presence of multiple critical, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities.

Immediate Patching Required

If this version is in use, it must be updated to a patched version that addresses CVE-2025-7095, CVE-2025-7096, CVE-2025-7097, and CVE-2025-7098 as soon as one is made available.

Supply Chain Scrutiny

A deeper analysis of the software's third-party dependencies is recommended to identify any potential inherited risks.

Network Monitoring

Monitor network traffic for communications with update servers and be vigilant for any signs of compromise related to the identified vulnerabilities.
 
@Pico,

Your posts are based on opinions, which were based on other opinions. You assume that Comodo is still bad, so those past opinions must be true for the current Comodo 2025. This contradicts the rules of the thread.
Please show the evidence that most of the old bugs are still unfixed, without assuming that Comodo is bad. Nothing related to the new CIS version (including reports of users) confirms your opinion yet. However, I do not exclude the possibility that your scepticism can be confirmed. Do not repeat what we all already know. Just do some new research (like, for example, @Trident) and show the evidence.
Why should I do new research on new version on, for instance, the famous HIPS bug when I do know that the bug report will end up deeply hidden almost kept away from public eyes on the Comodo forum and probably getting Comodo Staff feedback like "We are not able to reproduce your bug report" and repeated "Please try again with latest version" or even hearing "Do not submit bug reports on known issues that not will be fixed"...
Been there, done that...... that's enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming and never said that Comodo is bad. Comodo is just too freaking lazy to fix bugs...
 
@bazang , this has been my most prominent Comodo critic.

Comodo could be very efficient if the Xcitium cloud verdict was integrated.

Comodo could check reputation, emulate, anything suspicious—contain. Comodo could partner with third party providers (heck even Webroot web blocking would be better than what Comodo offers) as well as they could collect malicious URLs (through emulated user downloads). Such package obviously wouldn’t be free, instead of malware “pledges” and insurances, Comodo in the paid version could offer business grade emulation and efficient web blocking. The free version could be just the Defence+.

They also don’t need 2 different codebases (one for Comodo, one for Xcitium). This is actually more expensive to maintain when you can just offer absolutely the same business product and if you so much wish, you can add one JSON file where you define which features will be disabled. The dll modules will be there, users won’t have access to the features.

Instead, Comodo adds to the containment mediocre modules (antivirus with mainly hash-based detection, VirusScope with recognisers from 5 years ago, HIPS with registry-writing bug and 30 alerts every time you move the mouse and many others).

That’s why it’s a bit difficult to take them seriously.
 
@Divergent,

Your expectations about fixing would be hard to fulfill, even for high-level management.:)
Those vulnerabilities are new (less than 3 months old). It is not uncommon for AV vendors not to fix vulnerabilities reported to them for several months. The crucial factor is the popularity of AV and the chances of exploitation.

If Comodo is only "not bad", then the response will not be fast. The patch will probably happen with the new version in the next year.
The small business companies that use AV do not stop using it, except when vulnerabilities are exploited in the wild.
There were several Comodo vulnerabilities in the past, and there is no evidence that any of them were exploited in the wild.
If Comodo is going to be bypassed, this will most probably happen due to its security design via abusing Trusted EXEs, but not via exploits.

However, as you probably noticed, my recommendation for using Comodo (especially in businesses) is Comodo Firewall as a companion to popular AV.
 
Last edited:
@Divergent,

Your expectations about fixing would be hard to fulfill, even for high-level management.:)
Those vulnerabilities are new (less than 3 months old). It is not uncommon for AV vendors not to fix vulnerabilities reported to them for several months. The crucial factor is the popularity of AV and the chances of exploitation.

If Comodo is only "not bad", then the response will not be fast. The patch will probably happen with the new version in the next year.
The small business companies that use AV do not stop using it, except when vulnerabilities are exploited in the wild.
There were several Comodo vulnerabilities in the past, and there is no evidence that any of them were exploited in the wild.
If Comodo is going to be bypassed, this will most probably happen due to its security design via abusing Trusted EXEs, but not via exploits.

However, as you probably noticed, my recommendation for using Comodo (especially in businesses) is Comodo Firewall as a companion to popular AV.
The cybersecurity industry has a proven track record of overcoming more formidable challenges, success in this instance appears to be a matter of commitment rather than technical capability.
 
tried to use comodo firewall which i really liked in the past, but now it's bundled with their internet security suit... and it bricked my windows twich(thank god i made a restore point before)... ended up installing portmaster tho it lakes hips and stuff like that
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Jack and EASTER
In a (very) small business, the free security similar to @cruelsister recommendation can be used (Comodo Firewall + Microsoft Defender free).
Such security can discourage many attackers. Microsoft Defender advanced options can be additionally activated by PowerShell or free tools.
 
Last edited:
tried to use comodo firewall which i really liked in the past, but now it's bundled with their internet security suit... and it bricked my windows twich(thank god i made a restore point before)... ended up installing portmaster tho it lakes hips and stuff like that
Wow. I normally follow @cruelsister's install instructions ON THE D/L where a user can OPT OUT of the AV component for just the FW and Containment Program. However i just tried that on the 84Kb D/L and it didn't offer that option.

I wonder if there is one just for the FW?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.