Comodo removed from Softpedia

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Acadia, Apr 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leolas

    Leolas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    Modena, Italy
    I never said it's a bad sofware. I just said the installer isn't clear.
     
  2. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,635
    Location:
    European Union
    Or let's use another product :) As Peter2150 said: "My point is one specific product isn't the only answer to a problem"
     
  3. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,782
    My security software does not offer something questionable in it's installers.
    My security software gives me the option to kill questionable things.
    Just the way I like it.
    Comodo should at least rethink some of their decisions when they recieve negative feedback.
    My 2 cents.
     
  4. sded

    sded Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Posts:
    512
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    So will the Ask toolbar functions be embedded in it or will Comodo give up the revenue? And will it be opt-in or opt-out?
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2009
  5. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Something, somehow has to get on your computer and run, even if its a script in a browser, to infect or do damage.
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,164
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    Can you give an analysis of Ask toolbar by a security/ privacy expert who is not Comodo employ?
     
  7. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    163,081
    Location:
    Texas
  8. ypestis

    ypestis Guest

    In this case i doubt we have even that small price to pay.
    Running regedit turned up nothing even similar to ask.com,other than some
    knock of site entries placed as part of SpyWareBlaster's immunization feature.
    Is it possible that SourMilks ask residuals were from another encounter?
    I run full CIS and opted out of the toolbar,and nothing here.
     
  9. eXPerience

    eXPerience Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    98
    True, but now you're just allowing it to run, instead of preventing it.:doubt:

    best regards
     
  10. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    You may be right about the residual registry entry even though I can not prove it wasn't. It could have been part of one of the many FDISR archives I keep. The one in question has been overwritten several times since then.

    I even have a game archive with an empty securom entry from installing Fallout 3 from the setup executable instead of the launcher which actually places securom on your hard drive. The reason I mention this is even though the setup exe doesn't install securom, the registry still has an entry albeit an empty one. lol. Some things are so sneaky.

    SourMilk out
     
  11. ypestis

    ypestis Guest

    Dear Sour Milk:
    Amen.That Window registry is just a giant Twilight Zone.
    My Passion for jacking with it has led to more re-formats than I like to recall.
    regards,Pest
     
  12. Ardmore

    Ardmore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    43
    Huh??

    In Steven Avery's screenshot of the installation dialog they say right at the VERY TOP that SAFESURF IS POWERED BY ASK.COM. And it's SOP to ask if you want such-and-such toolbar installed, and then ask in a separate question whether to make it your default. Google does it. Everyone does it. I don't particularly like it, but it's no reason to write off the company or its products. Even if some of the OTHER issues discussed here re Comodo and Ask are deserving of debate, the Comodo/Ask/Safe dialog pictured is about as NON-obfuscating as they come these days!

    I just installed a trial of Norton Internet Security 2009 (after swearing I'd never let Norton on my pc again), and completely without my knowledge it installed an Ask.com "Safe Search" box into the Firefox search options dropdown. Let's lump them in, too, the evil b*strds!! (Actually I'm much more concerned of reports that their tech support people in India keep trying to upsell you to $100 expert problem-solving for failed installations, etc.). And lump in NOD defacing all my emails with their viral advertising. Hey, at least Comodo gives you warning and (visible) options. Not so with the other two, or many other "reputable" products.

    Anyway, I just can't believe people look at that screenshot and talk about how misleading it is! I hope no one ever tries to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn...

    EDIT: Interestingly, I see that NIS 2009 is available from Softpedia. Wonder if Softpedia offers a custom NIS installer that excludes the automatic Ask Safe Search installation, the way they have a custom Ccleaner setup that excludes the Yahoo Toolbar checkbox? I kind of doubt it. (And with Ccleaner at least there's an opt-out, unlike NIS.) Also, trying out NIS tonight I found it curious that they throw Softpedia into their (paraphrasing) "mildly threatening" sites category. Most sites I came across were rated completely "clean." BTW, NIS 2009 puts as little drag on my pc as NOD + Zone Alarm did. It's lighter on system resources than NOD AV alone was -- and it was light.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
  13. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,238
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    @Ardmore ~
    OT:
    Now that is interesting. :mad:

    http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&thread.id=40814

    Symantec promised to remove that:
    There was vociferous vigorous and concerted opposition to the Ask.com search option being installed with NIS: Symantec responded to consumer concerns and a perceived hijacking of users rights to own their own installs by shipping with this disabled by default (not removed mind just disabled :mad: )

    Are you saying the search box is enabled or have examined the code to see some option present..??

    What version of NIS ??
    What language??
    Where did you get it: the DL ?
    Please give details: if your allegation is correct and substantiated; this needs some attention.
    Even if included in a 'free trial' utd version: that is unacceptable.

    My update to V16.5.0.135 did not include the Ask.com search box option enabled.
    I've wondered whether Symantec can still bill IAC for a 'disabled' install ??
    Hopefully any code related to Ask.com search in Symantec will be purged, somehow I doubt it.

    An e-mail specifically to me personally said:
    "Due to the feedback we have received (around consent capture specifically) from users like yourself, we have pulled the patch for NIS which delivered this feature."
    I assumed this meant removed, but the forum reference above seemed slightly diluted.

    I agree, b4 anyone jumps me, that a no opt-out from the Symantec brain snap is different to what Comodo/Melih has done, but there is still obfuscation and a default opt-in.

    Back on topic:
    While I'm here, this was posted by Easter; nice and succinct:
    Another nice little throw away from wikipedia:
    They love ask at mozilla forums LOL :ouch: :
    http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003258325049489668794:drr0nlojlas&ie=UTF-8&q=ask.com&sa=Go
    A sample (my red & emphasis. Is this what is meant by ..umm.."viral" marketing)
    AFAICS, the EULA allows Ask/IAC to use any information they "might" gather to be used in any way they see fit: is that correct ??

    For mine, one thing missing here, there, anywhere is ANYONE from Ask/IAC willing to engage at ANY site at ANY level that I can see.
    Is that also correct ??

    Just a lot of "unpaid consultants" who while defending Melih and comodo and the partner/install strategy are boosting and legitimising Ask/IAC and any other software that uses similar methods to load Ask/IAC tools , now that's a cool marketing plan. ;)

    Sorry, this has gone on a bit: It seems an interesting paradox to me that security companies that spend a lot of effort removing/blocking, restraining our urges, and teaching us to not click the "yes please: RUN" box have defaulted to the opposite.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
  14. Ardmore

    Ardmore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    43
    Re the NIS search box... Maybe it's just a question of semantics (or Symantecs?).

    The box in the Norton toolbar WAS disabled by default as promised in the link you gave, although it could easily be enabled with one click. But I have the Norton Toolbar hidden, anyway.

    What I was referring to is the default search box that comes with FF, where you can choose a search engine. One of the choices in the dropdown is "Ask Safe Search." Now that I think of it, I can't say for sure that it was put there by Norton, because I stick with Google and rarely look at what the other choices are. I guess that question could be quickly solved by anyone who has FF 3.10 without a Norton (or Comodo?) product. Regardless, it's of course trivially easy to remove..

    Anyway, I can confirm that I do get Norton site safety ratings when using Google. Without reading the reams of posts, I gather that those ratings were previously available only for searches done with the Ask toolbar??

    I'm not going to check the IE Norton Toolbar because enabling that one scrambles around all my toolbars.

    If you still need any of those questions answered, let me know.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
  15. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,238
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    :rolleyes: good on you for saying so.
    Uumm afaict: NO.
    See new thread
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1458485#post1458485
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
  16. sded

    sded Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Posts:
    512
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    Well the discussion at Comodo has imploded, so maybe Norton can supply some insight. http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackco...ged_threads-t37565.0.html;msg278465#msg278465 has degenerated into a discussion (monologue?) of whether Softpedia is allowed to use their own definition of adware, and points to a definition that Melih claims is a standard, but is for "Advertising Display Software" instead. No indication of any intent by Comodo to actually address any of the issues.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2009
  17. eXPerience

    eXPerience Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    98
    Isn't it strange that when Comodo is using such a toolbar and giving you an option to disable it, it gives so many reactions. While when Norton does it without asking you !!!!!!!!, they actually install things on your computer without asking you, gathering information about you !!! = read pifts.exe, but it seems, when it isn't Comodo, nobody cares... :doubt:
     
  18. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Probably because people are all in agreement of condemning Symantec, and there aren't any fanboys to jump out and defend them with all sorts of retarded reasons.
     
  19. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,238
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    :D
    :D
    Oh no, a few apologists were in there: they got ground into the dust. :D

    eXPerience: where were you when the symantec endusers community raised themselves out of NIS induced torpor:

    ( a cunning hypnotic state induced by Symantec from watching NAV downloads and constantly being told " you have the greatest endpoint protection" in order to pay squazillion $$ fees every year )

    and with ONE BIG VOICE shouted :"GET THAT FSCUCKING SHYTE OFF MY BOX" ??

    Lo and behold: the Gods at Symantec were confused and distressed that the topor had been shrugged so easily by the PIFToff ASK.commed masses and realised they were in some personal danger :-

    They said "oops, sorry", and they did remove the offensive toxic wastes and offer olive branches all round to explain the tiny little error that was PIFT.
    Took their licking and promised not be such a-holes again; for a while anyway :cautious:

    And it came to pass that the hypnotic torpor was reinstated and all was good again in the Kingdom.
     
  20. sded

    sded Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Posts:
    512
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    Last edited: May 1, 2009
  21. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Posts:
    112
    Hi Folks,

    Just to be clear, many of us have rejected Norton/Symantec long ago because of dubious practices, including the difficulties of uninstalling their software, so I am not surprised if they also get involved at times with toolbar shenanigans.. I know their software is not on my radar and, although apparently they have improved in some ways the last year or two, I strongly suggest not getting any Norton security product to clients and friends. McAfee similarly, although less emphatically so.

    That leaves a tier of fairly well-known security products Avira, AVG, Avast, Comodo, Eset, BitDefender, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, Emsi, and maybe a dozen more. Generally fairly nimble companies.

    Each one of these has to be very aware of their reputation. They should not try to cover-up missteps. I did not know of the ESet email advertising tampering until this thread .. and I will be very cautious of their products. Kaspersky ran into some trouble with how they handled their low-level stuff around 2006-2007 in the Microsoft-Kasperksy finger-pointing escapade.. Opinions vary, for now I will not put their software on my system, while acknowledging that they are a relatively nimble and strong techie company -- when their website isn't being hacked :) .

    As for Comodo, they have blundered terribly -- first with the deceptive toolbar push (yes it was craftily done, I think I even fell for it and I am pretty careful -- you do installation quickly and you are trained to "accept the license" .. in bold no less .. very tricky, they really had to think hard how to pull that fast one. In my case I know how to use uninstall and Revo to try to clean up such messes quickly and well before they multiply).

    Second with not even trying to dialogue, but calling out the 1,000,000 lawyers with their cease-and-desist against a freeware and shareware software distribution company that was simply being 100% consistent, with integrity on this point. Ugh, this was terrible, anybody who has ever gotten an essentially bogus and deceptive cease-and-desist from a larger company with some lawyers on retainer can tell you what they think of such companies. Made worse with the Clintonesque followup explanations and scouring the countryside for some shills.

    This puts Comodo, in their own way, in the same doghouse as the others you mention above. In some ways, worse .. calling out the lawyer dogs instead of simply calling up CEO to CEO -- or public webpage or forum thread to public webpage -- or simply inquiring and considering first with the security community (their own forums, Wilders, etc).

    Then they act all hurt that their lawyer stupidity backfired on them. Amazing. Why not simply apologize ?

    "We erred, whether we keep the toolbar or change it or dump it (all under review) we have no gripe with Softpedia. The cease-and-desist was an overzealous attempt which was out-of-place. Please consider it inoperative, and in the future our internal systems will be far more cautious on such matters. We will seek to dialog with our compatriots directly, not through the legal beagles."

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

    PS.
    Another software that has created a lot of havoc with this type of toolbar stuff in the last months is PDFCreator, which has a sourceforge and open source heritage. However since it is not a security software, their responsibility is a bit less and they have largely flown under the radar. Plus the numbers are a lot smaller.

    PPS.
    Just looked at the Melih posts at the Comodo forum. What a clueless CEO. ("Our deceptions don't matter, our trickery doesn't matter, our thuggish lawyer attempts don't matter .. I found a definition somewhere that I like, don't bother me with consistency, integrity, context, precision or other facts and definitions .. and I will bury my company with that one definition that I now like because I can pretend that my company is honourable.")

    Either this fellow is incredibly dumb, or the recent Comodo success in the home PC-security market went to his head, or he is getting some very bad advice. Or all of the above.

    PPPS
    I read in one spot that Comodo can have uninstallation difficulties. Don't have the spot handy, I looked at one freeware software product that specializes in security uninstalls and it does not seem that they have added Comodo yet. (There are also special tools for Norton, McAfee and I think AVG.) Anybody familiar with these issues ? It may come up pretty quickly (I still have the firewall on from the recent install on one puter.) This can be on another thread .. I will look for the uninstall difficulty report.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2009
  22. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,841
    Location:
    KEEP USA GREAT
    Here Here!!
    Why Melih does not just stop doing this is beyond me!!
    very shady for a buck :thumbd:
     
  23. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Sorry for this delay, but, I've been away from computers since now. I wanted to get some of my sanity back. Now, I'm back... Damn! :D

    If you opt-out of SafeSurf, then you also, automatically, opt-out of Ask.com toolbar.

    Anyway, by now, I'd think this thread was more than dead... Keeps alive... It seems like those duracell batteries... Grrrr.... I hate those rabbits.


    Cheers
     
  24. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    The same Kevin, whose BOClean detected Ask.com toolbar as adware/spyware/malware/whatever before the deal between COMODO and IAC? This I'd like to see Kevin explain, COMODO to explain, everyone to explain.

    Or is it unexplainable? Maybe so...

    I'd like to hear an explanation about that. I'd even like to know if BOClean also detects the stand-alone toolbar as being crapware/whatever you like to call it.

    Maybe Kevin had to make such a statement? No idea... But, it is all interesting... in it's very least.

    Yes... So, I've seen it. I don't see what's the purpose of that toolbar in what comes to providing security? Maybe I'm misseeing something here...


    That was the end I was expecting. COMODO had no other solution, other than having to be - who knows - sued by IAC. After all, they do have a business with IAC, and I'm sure that detecting the toolbar as malware, wasn't part of the deal.
     
  25. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,514
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Softpedia cares. :thumb:
    From their Comodo article:
    <S>
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.