Comodo Firewall Revisited
At this month’s newsletter over at Scot Finnie’s site, he addressed concerns about the Comodo firewall that were expressed by some of his readers. Scot was also kind enough to provide a link to an article I did in December of last year after trying Comodo. In that article I was disappointed with the performance of Comodo and subsequently uninstalled the software. But this current issue by Scot stated that the newer version of Comodo version 2.4 was vastly improved.
Scot also mentioned that Comodo was in the process of also releasing version 3.0. He states:
Comodo 3.0 Is Close
I got an email from a Comodo marketing VP letting me know that Comodo 3 is about six weeks away from release. I don’t have much detail on the product, but some of the product features are listed on this Comodo Forums post.
The most notable changes are Windows Vista support (both 32 bit and 64 bit) and a host-intrusion-prevention system (HIPS) module — both of which should be welcome additions.
Reminder: This evaluation focuses on software firewalls for Windows XP SP2. More and more software firewalls are being updated to support Vista, but at the time that I started this work, not enough of them supported Vista to make that a useful endeavor.
So with this in mind, I have downloaded and installed Comodo firewall 2.4 on my own personal system. I will be trying it for at least a month before reporting on my experiences. Or, it could be sooner if I run into problems. Hopefully this will not be the case.
Comments welcome.
Scot’s July newsletter here.
Tags: comodo, firewall, test, scot finnie, newsletter

Ron, you should read the Comodo forums. There is help there to remove the firewall.
It worked well while I had it on my machine, but became annoying when it ‘refused to learn’ quite a few settings after a while. I’m guessing many have this same problem as it is well documented on the site. However, it must also work well for many as it still gets some user applause in diverse places.
What is not clear is what is taking so long to implement a removal routine, since so much of the bad press it is receiving is because of that.
When it works, and before it decides to ask if a previously visited website that you ok’ed can be allowed, it is very good. It could be great if those 2 things were addressed…I’ve been waiting while 7 sub-revisions over nearly 2 years have been released.