Comodo is under attack

First I would like to say that I had hoped to become a graduate here but had to leave because of failing eyesight, so you may not know me now.

I have since been very involved in beta testing Comodo programs and in particular their Internet Security.

I am now very saddened to find that there are several members of the security community who seem to be determined to attack Comodo. There seems to be a paranoia about companies offering toolbars (which can easily be deselected) in their installers.

I even see forum posts saying that the security community will not ever again recommend installation of Comodo products.

I believe this to be complete nonsense, but would be interested to see comments from members here.

The main attacks have come from the websites of Donna and MVPS Mike, some of whose comments have seemed to be based on ignorance.

Whilst the firewall can be run without AV, Ask.com default search provider and Hopsurf toolbar are ticked to be auto installed. Also Comodo Antivirus and Make Hopsurf.com my homepage.


This is noted from the installation of Comodo 3.1

Software vender could reduce the loss of faith in their products IF they did not auto tick boxes to INCLUDE ''enhancing'' features.
It is down to the computer owner not the software provider to opt IN to these ''enhancements''. I do NOT want my settings changed because of any oversight during installation. Nor do I need 2 AVs running at the same time because it is auto opt in.
There maybe a monetary reason for these auto opt in enhancements but it is ofset by the negative feedback. So the bean counters need to sort that out.

I have no problem with Comodo. It is the attitude of software providers in general.
I used to use Zone Alarm until they started to (enhance)prat about with the free software.

I found Comodo a fine Firewall as well.
But I object to already checkmarked additions as others do. For many average users, they do not notice these and then do not realize why the toolbar or extra search are present. As stated, the Anti Virus needs unchecked to prevent two AV's running. This should be clearly pointed out during installing so average user may check AV option only if not running one yet.
I also object to homepage changes automatically as well.

"JamesFrance" wrote:First I would like to say that I had hoped to become a graduate here but had to leave because of failing eyesight, so you may not know me now.

I have since been very involved in beta testing Comodo programs and in particular their Internet Security.

I am now very saddened to find that there are several members of the security community who seem to be determined to attack Comodo. There seems to be a paranoia about companies offering toolbars (which can easily be deselected) in their installers.

I even see forum posts saying that the security community will not ever again recommend installation of Comodo products.

I believe this to be complete nonsense, but would be interested to see comments from members here.

The main attacks have come from the websites of Donna and MVPS Mike, some of whose comments have seemed to be based on ignorance.

Those 'attacks' are all based on fact, not conjecture or rumors. Hardly what I'd call an 'attack'

COMODO seems ignorant of these facts and I for one applaud the likes of Mike @ MVPS Hosts and Donna as well.

They report what they find, not what they hear or made up.

I no longer recommend COMODO for anything until such I time I see they no longer support all the factions mentioned in the referenced authors write ups.

If you mean the certificates articles at MVPS, you may be interested in this video:

http://www.comodovision.com/?p=343

"JamesFrance" wrote:If you mean the certificates articles at MVPS, you may be interested in this video:

http://www.comodovision.com/?p=343

I don't see how that pertains to all the certs that COMODO has issued for all the rogue sites aside from affirm the standard is bad, yet they continue to issue them for bad entities. Proves everyone's point.

Clearly the parties which have been issued them by COMODO have more than been proven less than reputable.

I call FAIL.

"TeMerc" wrote:

"JamesFrance" wrote:If you mean the certificates articles at MVPS, you may be interested in this video:

http://www.comodovision.com/?p=343

I don't see how that pertains to all the certs that COMODO has issued for all the rogue sites aside from affirm the standard is bad, yet they continue to issue them for bad entities. Proves everyone's point.

Clearly the parties which have been issued them by COMODO have more than been proven less than reputable.

I call FAIL.

They just do the same as the other certificate issuers, which is why they are campaigning for a new system.

That is the whole point, the companies who issue certificates do not verify the identity of the applicant at present.

"JamesFrance" wrote:

"TeMerc" wrote:

"JamesFrance" wrote:If you mean the certificates articles at MVPS, you may be interested in this video:

http://www.comodovision.com/?p=343

I don't see how that pertains to all the certs that COMODO has issued for all the rogue sites aside from affirm the standard is bad, yet they continue to issue them for bad entities. Proves everyone's point.

Clearly the parties which have been issued them by COMODO have more than been proven less than reputable.

I call FAIL.

They just do the same as the other certificate issuers, which is why they are campaigning for a new system.

That is the whole point, the companies who issue certificates do not verify the identity of the applicant at present.

Big deal,if the system is broken, why use it? Because they just want to make the money, that's why. Simple greed.

I have just been reading the recent comments here, which I hadn't seen when starting this topic:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/07/22/1705234.aspx

At last there seems to be some common sense being posted by Paul Wilders.

I see that Donna continues to describe Comodo as a 'security vendor' and expects therefore a different approach to the problem by them. Comodo provides it's Internet Security Suite free of charge to all users, any paid options are not required for security, but are for additional services. They do of course have to find a way to pay for all this, just like any other company, so to expect them to restrict their ability to market their paid for product is frankly naive.

I think this whole anti Comodo campaign has been totally unprofessional and does a disservice to the public. Some of the posts on Calender of updates have been thoroughly malicious.

"JamesFrance" wrote: They just do the same as the other certificate issuers. That is the whole point, the companies who issue certificates do not verify the identity of the applicant at present.

Why issue certificates so readily then, are they lemmings?
What is the effect of these suspect certs on the AV module? Probably nothing but doubts raised, lead to lack of confidence in the product!

I appreciate that cash is king for supporting free software.
If they had their business/sales model right they would I am sure generate the cash required.

"kingdom1066" wrote:
If they had their business/sales model right they would I am sure generate the cash required.

Too many 'security experts' are trying to tell Melih how to run his company. I doubt that many of them have personally started and developed a muti million dollar business from scratch as he has done.

The reason that I am what some would call a 'fanboy' of Comodo (at the age of 71) is that I admire the ambition to provide the very best security available to those unable to afford to pay large annual charges. It may not quite be the best yet, but it is getting very close to that.

Of course there are many who fear Comodo and have a vested interest in trying to make them fail. I don't think they should be helped in their endeavours by people who proudly show MVP beside their names when they post in forums.

I repeat that I believe that this anti Comodo campaign is against the public interest and should be discouraged.

Too many 'security experts' are trying to tell Melih how to run his company. I doubt that many of them have personally started and developed a muti million dollar business from scratch as he has done.

I may not have started but I have run multi million pound companies! Including parts of multi nationals. Sometimes you have to step back and reassess the direction to achieve the same goal. I am not a security expert yet as I am still training.

You seem to be missing the point. The comments by MVPs are from valid observations. The same as my point, that auto opt in enhancements, are the bain of security experts recommendations. It is MY computer not the software companies. Unlike Comodo these experts are not doing the job for money but trying to reduce future problems! Like Comodo they are trying to help the infected.
I still use Comodo and depending on the software when I finish training do not see a problem recomending but will advise to uncheck the enhancements.
There are two sides to every coin/arguement.

It seems that all the comments have now been removed from the blog by MVP Mike Burgess which I linked to above:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/07/22/1705234.aspx

Because of that I will copy my comment there today which appeared before they were all deleted.

It has become more than clear during the course of this discussion that the main contributors to this blog have launched a vicious attack on Comodo with no justification whatsoever. This has no doubt damaged the business of Comodo, as the people concerned use their status of MVP to add weight to their remarks and will thus have been taken seriously by the wider security community.

It is hardly surprising that Melih has reacted furiously in this instance, as he has obviously not in any way been justly treated here.

Fortunately Paul Wilders has now introduced some common sense to this discussion, but the damage has been done, as the accusations have been widely repeated in many forums.

It would be good to see some humble pie being eaten here now and an apology at the very least!

Posted as Truthseeker

The comments I referred to in my last post have been restored today.

I'm just wondering if you have even been reading any of the posts in this thread. The two main reasons that Comodo is under attack from the security comunity is due to the way it does business.

1. It includes extras on it's software which are opt-out not opt-in. These extras could cause issues for users i.e. they suddenly have two anti-virus running at the same time without knowing about it.

2. It appears that they have issued security certificates to many known rougue software sites. Although this is a problem across the web and Comodo are not the only people to be doing this, their position as a security provider means they should be making more stringent checks before handing out these certificates. i.e. ISystem Inc repeatedly being issued certificates even after the previous ones have had to be removed.

I have no experience using Comodo however i'm sure it is as effective as many other brand name security products most of which don't include extras on an opt-out policy.

Extra note: If they have to pay people for good reviews it can't be that great. http://forums.comodo.com/general_discussion_off_topic_anything_and_everything/1000_from_comodo_for_your_video-t43021.0.html