Comodo is under attack

Well Sludge, for someone who has no experience of Comodo you have certainly been reading very widely.

Donna's anti toolbar campaign has been copied in many places of course and I am at a loss to understand why a box which is ticked or not is such a big deal. Surely people are not so stupid that they do not look to see what they are choosing to install. Even if they do that they can easily uninstall a toolbar if they make a mistake. Comodo warns to uninstall other antivirus software before installing theirs, but you wouldn't know that as you have no experience of it.

Donna has for months blogged against Comodo when many reputable companies have also offered a toolbar. Yes it is a source of revenue, but why target Comodo?

DV Certificates are issued generally by the main providers without verifying the status of the websites. Comodo is trying to change that but the others will not agree to the changes.

In spite of that Comodo has been targetted uniquely by Mike Burgess MVP, apparently because they have chosen to spend the profit from their Certificate business on developing a top class security package free to all, which makes them a 'security vendor' who should make a stand by withdrawing from the DV market.

Oh and the video competition on the Comodo forum is just a bit of fun for Comodo's volunteer helpers. As someone who has never used their software it is odd that you happened across it. I never realised that the Comodo forum had such a following amongst non users.

A post today on the Comodo forum made me laugh:
http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews_cis/bad_comodo_bad-t43119.0.html;msg314755#msg314755

Maybe Donna will be copying that everywhere too!

"JamesFrance" wrote:A post today on the Comodo forum made me laugh:
http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews_cis/bad_comodo_bad-t43119.0.html;msg314755#msg314755

Maybe Donna will be copying that everywhere too!

Yeah, that's a laugh riot. Almost as funny as COMODO continually taking money from rogue corporations after they complain the system is broken.

But I guess COMODO is laughing all the way to the bank, aren't they?

"TeMerc" wrote:Yeah, that's a laugh riot. Almost as funny as COMODO continually taking money from rogue corporations after they complain the system is broken.

If you are going to make wild accusations like that, you should provide some evidence. This is exactly the sort of blinkered behaviour that I have been talking about and the way in which false rumours are spread.

I suggest that you and others do some proper research before repeating such allegations.

"JamesFrance" wrote: Well Sludge, for someone who has no experience of Comodo you have certainly been reading very widely.

Well i though i best read into it a bit before posting about it. I have only read the pages that have been linked to in this thread so widely is a bit of an exageration .

"JamesFrance" wrote: Surely people are not so stupid that they do not look to see what they are choosing to install. Even if they do that they can easily uninstall a toolbar if they make a mistake.

Unfortunatly some people are that stupid and generally if they are that stupid they also don't know how to un-install things.

"JamesFrance" wrote:
DV Certificates are issued generally by the main providers without verifying the status of the websites. Comodo is trying to change that but the others will not agree to the changes.

As i said before there are indeed other companies providing DV certs to all sorts of people and Comodo do seem to want to set standards the problem being even with the co-operation of other companies setting an international standard takes time. Firstly to get it right and secondly to fill out all the paperwork. The main point people have raised is that Comodo repeatedly issue these certs to known rogue software distributors. I'm sure other companies have done the same but there doesn't appear to be such an obundance of cases.

"Sludge3000" wrote: The main point people have raised is that Comodo repeatedly issue these certs to known rogue software distributors. I'm sure other companies have done the same but there doesn't appear to be such an obundance of cases.

This is basically what I feel has been blogged about unfairly. The suggestion seems to be that Comodo has knowingly issued certs to malware sites. I am sure that is not the case and as soon as they have identified one the certificate has been revoked. It seems that MVP Mike did not have a reply and action following an email sent to Comodo. Any large organisation has many employees, any of which can make a mistake, which seems to have happened in this case. Just to assume he had been ignored without following it up and then blog about it was hardly a proper thing to do.

If someone researched all the known malware domains, such as the 8382 listed at MalwareURL.com and checked all their links for certs, there could be some proper statistics about who is issuing what type of certificate. I have yet to see someone coming up with that sort of information, so to suggest that Comodo is the company at fault seems to be hearsay.

Let's have some facts rather than accusations with nothing to back them up.

"JamesFrance" wrote:This is basically what I feel has been blogged about unfairly. The suggestion seems to be that Comodo has knowingly issued certs to malware sites. I am sure that is not the case and as soon as they have identified one the certificate has been revoked.

From what i have read i'd agree that Comodo are not doing this knowingly as they have explained these are only trial certificates being issued. However as it states on the first line here > http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/07/22/1705234.aspx the issue is mainly the fact that these certificates are being repeatedly issued to the same company. If a company has had it's certificate revoked multiple times due to distributing malware then they should have to undergo more stringent checks before being issued another certificate. Yes i know that there are no standards etc etc talk in circles. But really it can't be that hard to apply a filter to the application system which says evilmalware corp. are automatically denied certificates.

Okay i admit i have no idea how their system works and it might actually be uber difficult but the fact that while defending themselves against these statements they have tried to undermine and attack the people making these claims doesn't help.

Regarding blogs, unfortunatly this is the internet. There are even websites where you can win money for insulting other forum members in new and creative ways. Plus some people have nothing better to do

Presumably evilmalware corp. do not reveal their identity when applying for the certificate. If they did I am sure they would be spotted and denied. It can't be that easy.

I agree with you that this issue has not been handled very diplomatically by Comodo, but I can imagine the frustration which must arise when someone feels they are being unjustly targetted.

I too would like to see these DV certificates abolished, but the major players seem reluctant to agree to it.

JamesFrance,

Mike Burgess has been an accomplished, respected, and reputable security/malware expert for many years, as well as an MVP.

This site does not provide a place for unwarranted attacks on a person's reputation and/or character. Although this sort of name calling and finger pointing may be permissible at Comodo's site, it is not permissible here, and I suggest you desist immediately.

We are not here to provide a forum for any personal axe you or anyone else may feel they want to grind in support of a commercial software company which one would presume is quite capable of defending its own actions. If you have an axe to grind, take it elsewhere.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/07/31/1711648.aspx

Interesting, esp. following links in his posts to Sunbelt and others.

As I am not permitted to reply, I would request that in the interests of fairness this thread be closed now.

If you have something positive to say about Comodo as a product, you may do so. You will not, however, be permitted to launch into a diatribe against an individual. This site does not support personal vendettas and they will not be tolerated.

I am sorry NonSuch, but I do not believe I have been engaging in a vendetta against any individual. That is exactly why I started this thread, because there are others who seem to be doing exactly that.

I am only looking for open mindedness and fairness and trying to present another side to this whole affair.

I keep coming across discussions like this:
http://www.temerc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6939

"JamesFrance" wrote:I am sorry NonSuch, but I do not believe I have been engaging in a vendetta against any individual. That is exactly why I started this thread, because there are others who seem to be doing exactly that.

I am only looking for open mindedness and fairness and trying to present another side to this whole affair.

I keep coming across discussions like this:
http://www.temerc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6939

No, that is not true. There were no such topics here, so there was no need to start your thread here. You came here and started this topic for two reasons, to create a scene and promote Comodo. You were not looking for open-mindedness and/or fairness, etc., and you do not speak the truth... you twist the truth. Just so you don't embarrass yourself further, you should be aware that I have read your posts in the topic at Comodo. When you twist the truth to suit your own purpose, you only discredit yourself:

"JamesFrance" wrote:I tried to get a sensible discussion going at MRU, as I don't believe everyone there is so blinkered that they cannot look at this objectively.

Unfortunately one of those involved in the anti Comodo campaign kept posting against me and I was told to shut up by the Administrator, as I had been critical of Mike Burgess. I have asked for that thread to be closed if I am not permitted to reply.

Having seen the latest on his blog, he is obviously determined to find something to attack Comodo about and will no doubt continue to do so. His followers then copy his remarks on their own sites and encourage others to do the same as you can see here:
http://www.temerc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6939

You will also see the suggestion not to recommend Comodo software which is likely to overload the Hijack This help forums even more than now. Unfortunately those forums are rather incestuous and a few 'senior' members can have a lot of influence.

I told you that if you had something positive to say about Comodo as a product, you could do so. You did not. You had no interest in saying something good or positive about the product. Indeed, you tried to dredge up more of your same material.

It is evident from your response here, and your posts at the Comodo forums, that you have no real interest in pursuing the truth or in having an honest discussion, your only interest is in trying to damage the reputation of decent people. Therefore, this topic will be closed.

I suggest you return to the Comodo forums where you can wear your "Comodo's Hero" badge and spew your venom as you and the rest of the Comodo fanboyz pat one another on the back and tell each other how great you all are. I'm sure you must be a lot more comfortable in that environment, among your own kind.

The sad thing about it is that Comodo was once regarded by the anti-malware community as a respected product... until they managed to damage their reputation solely by their own actions and in the process destroy the trust that many people once had in the product.