Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Acadia, Apr 26, 2009.
Yes it is bundled with Adware, I think so.
Softpedia isnt by no means a perfect source for reviews ECT, they basilcy have every software on the net on their site regardless of what users think about it..
If you don't want to install the so called adaware in Comodo then uncheck them during installation, wow an option to install a toolbar, now their software is adaware?
O would trust a foreign security software over an American security software any day, because they could care less about the American agencies that would like them to white list all their spy bullcrap!
A couple of concering things I have with CIS is:
1. The installer attempts to change both the browser’s homepage and search engine. And the setup also offers to install SafeSurf.
2. It installs Ask Toolbar without asking for the user’s permission.
Which offers no additional security to it's users, since that protection is already provided by Defense+ - shellcode injection (memory buffer overflow).
.1~> Those are optional.
.2~> Since when? I use comodo but this never happened to me!
Yep. Unfortunately it's true. Do a regedit search for "ask.com" and you will see an entry even though you opted out of the ask.com toolbar. I am really disappointed but understand there is no such thing as free quality software unless a profit is made somewhere else.
1) yes, but the user has to actively disable them during installation. Opt-out, rather than opt-in.
2) iirc, "safesurf" is simply a rebranded ask toolbar?
However, Melihs replies to the issues raised by Softpedia are priceless indeed, not once does he directly address those concerns, rather he argues about semantics (at one stage even going so far as to state that the merriam-webster dictionary provides "interesting definitions"), desperately points at other software that may be classified as adware per Softpedias' definition, and is otherwise being deliberately obtuse to a measure that's hard to believe.
The comedy starts here https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackc...a_adware_in_cis_merged_threads-t37565.75.html
ps don't read if you already have high blood-pressure
I never cease to be amazed at how Comodo is able to sustain itself by riding on ill-deserved goodwill from unsuspecting users. If only they were half as good at making their products...
Melih doesn't seem to know a whole lot imho, and what was said is right, he skirted every which way around the subject. We don't need a frigging dictionary, we need results.
Just wondering, what security software are you using that is supposedly better than Comodo?
And how is it unsuspecting of comodo if their is an option to install the toolbar, ect or not?
I'm using Kaspersky Internet Security and no im not saying its better than comodo, but comodo is from the UK! might want to give it a thought or 2 with all their little new laws they are creating such as warrentless spying?
Comodo CA Ltd
3rd Floor Building 26
Office Village Exchange Quay
Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ
1) Define attempts? It asks you do you want comodo search to be your default homepage? And after all if you by accident allow your homepage to be "altered" its easy to put the ordinary one back in place.
2) It asks for this as well see the image attached by Warlockz. If you don't have ask toolbar selected then you will end up without ask toolbar.
No install without premission..
Don't worry, also you can remove ask afterwards as well with add remove programs.
I do not like nor trust software that places registry entries of unwanted programs without my permission. Call me old fashioned but I am the owner and operator of my computer not some "sold out to crapware" company.
yo man , if u dont know things better dont reply such a noob reply, CIS put zero what u call "crapware" , if u got evidence to such action , feel free to provide us the info ,otherwise .... <beepp>
Actually main Comodo offices (HQ) are located in Jersey City, US.
You can also read more on my blog page www.rejzor.tk regarding Comodo and adware situation caused by SoftPedia.
I agree with Softpedia on this one. Comodo is bundled with adware (i'm not saying it's a bad product, just that the setup installs adware). And they removed Comodo not because of that fact, but because Comodo asked them to hide that fact. Softpedia had 2 options: to keep the product and risk a legal fight, or to remove it. They just made the second decision.
Your right, I guess they have many branches, but their main office is in Jersey City, New Jersey, USA.
I think Im going to start using Wikipedia from now on when I need to look something up, It has all the basic Facts on just about everything!
Installers Hall of Shame @ CoU
To it's credit Comodo gives 'opt-out'
Ask.com been pushing itself out there lately.
RejZoR, it seems that your site is not online...
Here is my response in the Softpedia site:
Allow me to ask: Who gives anyone the authority to tag something as being bad?
Who gives the authority to some security vendor to tag something as bad? Just because they define it so?
For example, some still tag Ask.com toolbar. Even BOClean did, before the agreement to include that toolbar in CIS. Others don't. Who gives authority to those that do?
Who gives authority to whom?
Sooner or later, malware developers will come up and shout out loud: Who are you - security vendors - to tag our doings as bad? Can't we, as well, tag your software, that quite often does a lot of damage to your users system, for example by deleting important system files, by tagging them as being "infectious", while they're not? The so called false positives. Slowdowns, etc.
Sooner or a later...
For me... its all malware (malicious software), because if it screws up my system, then its malicious.
They are not tagging it as "bad".
Only that it does not meet criteria to merit their "100% Clean and 100% Free award" http://www.softpedia.com/user/licensing_adware.shtml
Yes, I know.
But, exist was questioning who is Softpedia to tag whatever they tag as malware.
My comment was to this.
Again, they did not label it as malware, rather “adware”.
In that it does not meet their criteria:
Yes, experienced knowledgeable users will/can work around the issue, but many (most) users are not so enlightened.
I'm glad Softpedia actually spends the time and resources to validate soft.s downloads it offers.
Comodo offers great software, no argument of that by anyone that has posted here.
It is just disappointing that they had to compromise themselves in order to make some more $.
Whether it be tagged malware or adware, the answer is simply this: Assuming Softpedia is prepared to cope with any consequences of their action, they are given the "authority" to affix such labels by whoever accepts their clearly stated criteria for doing so and considers them to be a credible source of information.
This requires no official "authorization" by any regulatory agency or government body that I'm aware of.
No one is required to pay heed to Softpedia's classification and if Comodo can enforce a cease and desist or otherwise impose consequences on Softpedia, then more power to them.
P.S. OK, now I realize when m00nbl00d refers to "exist", they refer to member "3xist" - I thought I was just reading English that was slightly off, my apologies. Then my response was misdirected to m00nbl00d, but stands nonetheless.
Separate names with a comma.