Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Acadia, Apr 26, 2009.
I didn't say they tagged it as malware. exist did. My comment was to that.
Softpedia is a respectful source of information, and many people go there to check on news, etc. It's of Softpedia's interest to provide the best service possible to people going there, and that means tagging, according to their views, what xyx application is.
Otherwise, it would be one more of those services that would host software for the sake of doing it, and that means including rogue crap.
Now, saying that Softpedia is "no one" to tag something as "malware" (not my word", is no reason to justify anything.
I'd ask anyone posing this question, do you work for free. People want free software, and it's great the vendors pay for it, but they have to generate revenue to pay for it somehow. Ask.com toolbar is just another way of doing it.
If anyone loses in this, it's Softpedia.
As a regular user of their website, I have seen over the years numerous applications tagged by them as adware, among them Avira (nag screen) as well as others that offer a toolbar to be installed at user discretion.
I really disagree with Softpedia on this one, but they remain one of my primary sources for downloads and information about software.
Right, Comodo has to do what they have to do to stay afloat and I have no valid criticism of that. Their market will determine what they deem acceptable and unacceptable and probably act accordingly.
It's good that Softpedia puts the information out for people to be aware of it, whether it bothers a potential customer or not. At least people can make a more informed choice. To take information pointed out by Softpedia and make up your mind based on your own criteria, regardless of the final "score" calculated by Softpedia, would seem to make a little more common sense.
I don't visit Softpedia or Comodo either one - I just find it a philosophically interesting discussion.
No one works for free... Unless someone is a volunteer at something... At least, I do believe volunteers do not get paid.
Anyway, what's in discussion here (I believe so.) is not if COMODO integrates a toolbar (or anything else, except for malware, of course) into their products. What's in discussion is how they do it, and that makes all the difference.
Sure, you and I, we're technical enough to uninstall some crap toolbar that users are forced to install, if they wish to get SafeSurf protection, which is not needed, since that protection is provided by Defense+.
But, others install CIS (and other products) because someone mentioned it to them. They install it, and well, its a respectful security vendor, so why should they be suspicious about anything? They allow, allow, allow, etc. By the end, modifications in the system.
Bottom line is that, even if SafeSurf offers additional protection to CIS users, and if they install it, they shouldn't be forced to install the toolbar as well. Yes. Because, even if some user reads what is going to be installed, and believes will be more protected, then the crappy toolbar will also be installed. There's no opt-in or opt-our for this toolbar installation. There's only a later uninstall, if the user is technical enough. Period. That's what happens. Not only with COMODO, but, that's what we're discussing here.
There is also opportunity here for Softpedia to be more trusted. I wasn't a user before, but added them to my list, partially based on their willingness to enforce their policies rather than being intimidated by large software houses. As reported, Comodo sent them a cease and desist that required them either to ignore their policies or remove CIS. Negotiations were unsuccessful (which would have required Comodo to change from an opt out to an opt in) so they complied with the cease and desist. Comodo hasn't said that their contract with Ask requires the Opt Out or strongly incentivizes it, but has always behaved as though that might be true. And no one needs to "authorize" Softpedia to do what they think is in their users best interests. How leaving the Opt Out is in Comodo Users best interests escapes me. An "opt in" with a "please opt in for the beneift of Comodo" posting would seem more appropriate.
There's big money in these included "toolbars". Hard for some to resist.
Per Bill P. (Winpatrol) who opted out:
Very good decision by SoftPedia. A slap on stubborn adware policy by Comodo.
I totally agree with it.
[hope it will compile in the poll even if I'm atheistic]
comodo make money by selling security certificates.
I have always hated bundled toolbars and always untick them.
if you cant untick a toolbar or it installs even if you untick it I simply dont install that software.
your installing software that is ment to prevent adware,spyware etc yet it installs adware itself?
id rather and do pay for security software that doesnt try to install any of this type of stuff.
I find it more sad than funny.
Here's a glib, smooth-talking salesman who's conned unsuspecting users into relying on his shoddy products for security and thinking they're protected. It WOULD be funny if everyone treated him like the joke he is, but the thing is, there are people who actually take him seriously. Not good for the reputation of security software vendors as a whole, all it takes is one bad apple to undermine public trust in a field where much of the value is built on user trust.
I'd say your system is messed up. Webpage is online.
Right there was the whole problem, the idiot was more concerned about definitions than just answering the question and saying "You don't like it? Don't list us". Regardless, it's a done deal, they aren't going to change. I'm not forced to use Comodo or listen to him spout off his bs, so it doesn't affect me
But I STILL want to see Eice's definition of "sad" so this can be truly resolved!
Nor did I say it was malware!!!! I was commenting post by the user 3xist, that he made to Softpedia. That's all I did!
Actually, as I previously mentioned, the user has no choice whether or not to install Ask.com toolbar. The user only has the choice whether or not to install COMODO SafeSurf, which is unneeded, as in, it won't provide additional security to it's users, because that protection is provided by Defense+. But, if the user(s) choose to install SafeSurf, then, they will automatically be forced to install Ask.com toolbar.
Do your homework before saying something without any proof. Prove me otherwise. Maybe, I was the one missing some option to opt-out of the Ask.com toolbar, and still install SafeSurf. Maybe...
Well, I did ask my system and he told it's all fine everywhere else.
Now did you actually try the link? coz this message in browser page does not originate of my system. So go there tell and convince them that they are all messed top...
And don't forget to go tell them also while you are at it...
Many app.s, unfortunately, by default want to install this toolbar (or other nonsense).
I feel (maybe wrongly so?) that security software vendors should be held to a slightly higher standard.
Ask.com toolbar is detected as spyware/adware by several vendors...I would suspect Comodo is not one of them?
Well, I'll let you decide by yourself whatever you decide to judge, but, I can assure you that, before this agreement with IAC (InterActive Corp), BOClean, which belongs to COMODO for quite a time now, tagged it as well. No longer since that agreement.
Judge by yourself.
I believe that it would be much more productive to discuss how dangerous it is to trust in the recommendations of self-proclaimed Wilders Security "experts". Just to refresh your memories: weren't it Wilders Security "experts" who hyped abandonware from Diamond CS, never finished alphasoft from Ghost Security, underperformers like BOClean and badware like Comodo In(ternet)security? Just for your consideration. A little self-criticism may never hurt.
SAS, MBAM, CounterSpy/VIPRE, used to tag it, not so long ago. But, I've also see in a thread at the COMODO forum users complaining their anti-malware tools were detecting malware in COMODO suite, and it was due to Ask.com toolbar, and they were told it was a false positive (Depends on who says it is or not a false positive, I guess.).
Anyone is free to install the suite and BOClean, using BOClean's updates before the introduction of CIS, and see what happens.
I believe NOD32 does (or did).
Which is not to imply that Comodo's inclusion of ask.com is evil or horribly malicious.
People pay money and put faith in their AV proggies to detect viruses, trojans, malware, (and yes, adware); and to subsequently report any findings therein.
Even if the threat is fairly benign.
I'm not saying that MBAM, SAS and VIPRE/CounterSpy don't anymore. I don't know. Ask the developers. They can answer you better than me.. Or just test it yourself. I honestly don't give a f*ck about COMODO.
I just enjoy having a healthy discussion about a problematic issue for many users of any product.
I'm not strictly talking about COMODO, but about any vendor doing it, and I did show my disapproval very recently in one other thread about one other vendor.
But, I do wonder why before CIS was introduced, BOClean tagged the Ask.com toolbar. Interesting, in its very least.
Actually, NOD32 did pick it up. If Eset stopped tagging Ask.com toolbar, for whatever reason, and that's something you may ask at the Eset forum, which is not far away, beats me.
I say it, because I'm a user of NOD32. Not of CIS. But, NOD32 did tag it.
I don't have the paid versions of MBAM and SAS. But, on manually checks, they picked registry entries, even after uninstalling Ask.com toolbar.