Comodo Firewall Blocking Remote Admin (Radmin)

Hi,

I recently installed Comodo firewall on a PC that was running Remote Admin,
but despite having set up Comodo to allow Radmin complete access, radmin
fails to answer incoming connection requests. As soon as the firewall is
turned off then Radmin works fine and allows all connections. Does anyone
knw what I might be doing wrong? Im not new to firewalls, but I am new to
Comodo Firewall. Can anyone help me please? I was considering using Zone
Alarm, but some people in here and other places thought that Comodo was a
better firewall that takes less resources to run.

Thanks
Geoff





Geoff

"Geoff" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I recently installed Comodo firewall on a PC that was running Remote
> Admin,
> but despite having set up Comodo to allow Radmin complete access, radmin
> fails to answer incoming connection requests. As soon as the firewall is
> turned off then Radmin works fine and allows all connections. Does anyone
> knw what I might be doing wrong? Im not new to firewalls, but I am new to
> Comodo Firewall. Can anyone help me please? I was considering using Zone
> Alarm, but some people in here and other places thought that Comodo was a
> better firewall that takes less resources to run.
>
> Thanks
> Geoff
I use Radmin alot.
Have you forwarded TCP 4899 to the target machine?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:30:34 +0100, "Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> mused:

>
>"Geoff" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently installed Comodo firewall on a PC that was running Remote
>> Admin,
>> but despite having set up Comodo to allow Radmin complete access, radmin
>> fails to answer incoming connection requests. As soon as the firewall is
>> turned off then Radmin works fine and allows all connections. Does anyone
>> knw what I might be doing wrong? Im not new to firewalls, but I am new to
>> Comodo Firewall. Can anyone help me please? I was considering using Zone
>> Alarm, but some people in here and other places thought that Comodo was a
>> better firewall that takes less resources to run.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Geoff
>I use Radmin alot.
>Have you forwarded TCP 4899 to the target machine?

Did the OP not say it works fine with the firewall off?
--
Regards,
Stuart.

"Lurch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:30:34 +0100, "Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> mused:
>
>>
>>"Geoff" <00000@000.00> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I recently installed Comodo firewall on a PC that was running Remote
>>> Admin,
>>> but despite having set up Comodo to allow Radmin complete access, radmin
>>> fails to answer incoming connection requests. As soon as the firewall
>>> is
>>> turned off then Radmin works fine and allows all connections. Does
>>> anyone
>>> knw what I might be doing wrong? Im not new to firewalls, but I am new
>>> to
>>> Comodo Firewall. Can anyone help me please? I was considering using
>>> Zone
>>> Alarm, but some people in here and other places thought that Comodo was
>>> a
>>> better firewall that takes less resources to run.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Geoff
>>I use Radmin alot.
>>Have you forwarded TCP 4899 to the target machine?
>
> Did the OP not say it works fine with the firewall off?

I better rephrase that then.
Have you allowed incoming TCP 4899 traffic through the firewall?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:10:21
+0100, in uk.comp.home-networking, 'Geoff' wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I recently installed Comodo firewall on a PC that was running Remote Admin,
>but despite having set up Comodo to allow Radmin complete access, radmin
>fails to answer incoming connection requests. As soon as the firewall is
>turned off then Radmin works fine and allows all connections. Does anyone
>knw what I might be doing wrong? Im not new to firewalls, but I am new to
>Comodo Firewall. Can anyone help me please? I was considering using Zone
>Alarm, but some people in here and other places thought that Comodo was a
>better firewall that takes less resources to run.

It's awkward for me to check the defaults without doing a reinstall but
IIRC the "Network monitor" ruleset (which acts over and above the
appliation permission list) defaults to not allowing incoming TCP
sessions.

To find out, go to "Network Monitor" (from the list on the left of the
main admin pane) and go for "Add". The easiest setting is for the new rule
to allow all incoming TCP (syn) packets (certainly do that as your initial
tryout) If later on you want to be more strict then just allow incoming on
destination port 4899[1]. Remember this ruleset acts as a background to
the program rules so even if something is allowed here it won't have any
effect on permissions unless there is also a rule allowing the program
itself to transmit/receive.

[1] I'm assuming here that it truly is TCP only, you can also set it to
allow UDP.

Once you've created the rule, you need to move it to the top of the list,
as they act in sequence. There are buttons to do that above the rule list.
A rule permitting something won't have any effect if it's below a rule
barring that same something. They appear in order of priority.

If that's not clear enough then get back to us. Either way I'd appreciate
knowing if it fixes the problem as Comodo is the 'doze defence I always
recommend so I like to keep track of any problems. I don't see a point in
paying for products which are mostly inferior according to so many of the
tests I've read about.

Where AV is concerned there's room for difference of opinion, accuracy,
speed of updating etc, and although Avast is the free one I choose there
is certainly room for difference of opinion. However firewalls are totally
evaluable in terms of response to varyious packets, and the tracking of
variations in programs, child processes, libraries or parentage, with
Comodo definitely scoring best even among the more expensive (ripoff!)
software. IME I agree it's less demanding of resources.

Dave J.