jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to ComodoDude
Re: Comodo Firewall Free No More?? I can't really get excited about this. What some company that purchases a license to a product does has little bearing on what the original product for me.
Comodo Firewall is still free and still available from Comodo directly. What a licensor does really has no bearing that I can see on the original product directly. Also, this second company, while needing to be evaulated today (and maybe spyware warrior could do an newer eval?), also does offer a value add in the extra configs and phone support.
I also don't really see how this is a reflection on Comodo any more than the products are a reflection on F-Secure or Kapersky. Or do we all also now dislike Kapersky for their licensing of the scan engine?
--
Opera 9.23(Build 8808); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 X2 4600+; 2.5GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 5/23/07(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
 Blue2Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1 | said by jp10558:What some company that purchases a license to a product does has little bearing on what the original product for me. said by jp10558:I also don't really see how this is a reflection on Comodo any more than the products are a reflection on F-Secure or Kapersky. Or do we all also now dislike Kapersky for their licensing of the scan engine? I think some question who they may be licensing their product to, and whether this may have an effect on the product and it's future. As just one example, when an anti-spyware vendor make a deal and suddenly certain adware is subsequently removed from the definition database, that certainly makes me pause. You wouldn't want your firewall vendor to be making deals that could some day result in certain connections being allowed that shouldn't be.
As for KAV, its licensing hasn't been without issues. When a security flaw was found in the KAV engine, it was NOT immediately patched in the KAV engine licensed to AOL (Active Virus Shield). The KAV forum refused to even consider the issue because they considered it an AOL product. But since KAV wrote the code and was the only one to patch the vulnerability, did they expect users to be satisfied with a vulnerable AV product due to this licensing arrangement? |
|
 GercekSeytanAbsinthe makes the heart grow fonder.Premium
join:2001-10-19 | said by Blue2:As for KAV, its licensing hasn't been without issues. When a security flaw was found in the KAV engine, it was NOT immediately patched in the KAV engine licensed to AOL (Active Virus Shield). The KAV forum refused to even consider the issue because they considered it an AOL product. But since KAV wrote the code and was the only one to patch the vulnerability, did they expect users to be satisfied with a vulnerable AV product due to this licensing arrangement? That would depend on the wording of the licensing agreement, wouldn't it? I mean if what was licensed was that version and only that version, was there a legal requirement that the 'new and improved (patched)' engine be provided to AOL for free?
I confess I have no idea what the details of KAV's agreement was or Commodo's agreement is. Still, the agreements may actually be pertinent.
--
One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once "The Unnecessary War". Sir W. Churchill, Second World War, 1948 |
|
Blue2Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1
1 edit | Of course, but that isn't the point. You as a customer don't want to be vulnerable while some lawyers try to figure out where the responsibility lies.
If Sony manufacturers a battery that explodes, but it's licensed to Lenovo for their computer, do you want to sit back for two years as they battle it out in court to decide who is legally responsible? You, as a consumer, are not in a position to decide if it's due to faulty design, faulty implementation or someone's negligence. But you surely don't want to be "burnt" while they point fingers at each other.
P.S. It wasn't an issue of "new and improved" which I would understand (feature enhancement), but rather a security vulnerability, hence, leaving an exposed and acknowledged vulnerability in an existing product. |
|
|
|
GercekSeytanAbsinthe makes the heart grow fonder.Premium
join:2001-10-19 | said by Blue2:Of course, but that isn't the point. You as a customer don't want to be vulnerable while some lawyers try to figure out where the responsibility lies. If Sony manufacturers a battery that explodes, but it's licensed to Lenovo for their computer, do you want to sit back for two years as they battle it out in court to decide who is legally responsible? You, as a consumer, are not in a position to decide if it's due to faulty design, faulty implementation or someone's negligence. But you surely don't want to be "burnt" while they point fingers at each other. P.S. It wasn't an issue of "new and improved" which I would understand (feature enhancement), but rather a security vulnerability, hence, leaving an exposed and acknowledged vulnerability in an existing product. I understand that it wasn't literally 'new and improved but "patched". As far as I know, vulnerabilities are found every day for what was, until the vulnerability was found, a (cough and a wink) perfectly secure program regularly.
I still think that what was agreed to may be pertinent. Of course, depending on the wording it may not have been or isn't. No way for me to know. Nonetheless, business is business and there are no free lunches unless one has agreed to provide free lunches. 
--
One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once "The Unnecessary War". Sir W. Churchill, Second World War, 1948 |
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to Blue2
said by Blue2:I think some question who they may be licensing their product to, and whether this may have an effect on the product and it's future. Well this is really going to be a different matter. I try and avoid predicting out too far as we have little info in this case. Specifically I doubt that Comodo would do this based on the history I've seen, but if they *did*, I expect we'd find out pretty quickly and then evaulate from there.
Just assuming that they would somehow change their product for a licensor might be stretching it a bit, I expect there would need to be a bunch of money for that. Also, such a change would make Comodo's "warrenty" plan more expensive to them. There are financial incentives for them to also keep things on the up and up. |
|
 altermattPremium
join:2004-01-22
White Plains, NY
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Blue2 is correct, IMHO: while the actual licensing of their product to a commercial vendor who charges is NOT really an issue for me (perhaps they offer more support, or extras, or even nothing more---it's their product now), but to WHOM they issue the license IS an issue. If the vendor is questionable, and Comodo knows that (and if users do, Comodo does), then at the very least their ethics, and their commitment to "trust online", are compromised and questionable, and given that, do I want a security product from them?
This last is an important distinction here: security vendors perhaps have an even higher standard of ethics to meet than the average bear, since their products involve such a high level of trust on the part of the consumer. That's why the scum who push malware in the guise of "your computer is infected, click here to disnifect" to newbies, or those who established "adaware.com" knowing that many wouldn't know that the real adaware is available from lavasoft.com or lavasoft.de) are so despicable.
And I guess personally, I'm more upset with Comodo because of my years of highest respect for, and trust in, Kevin and Nancy from BOClean. Comodo went up in my eyes because those pioneers became part of it.
--
The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it. -- Stanley Kubrick |
|
| reply to ComodoDude
Well I have just rewad through all nine pages of the thread on the Comodo forum and TBH it sounds like a storm in a teacup to me. Some people simply object to the licensing of a free product to a third party who then sells it with support. Others object to their inclusion on spywarewarriors rougue list which according to the explanation by said company is the direct cause of their inclusion on the site advisor list and possibly others. Now reading the posts from PCSecurityShield they are saying that the rougue listing is several years old and they no longer engage in such practices but until de-listed by spywarewarrior will not be de-listed by anyone else and they are not getting a response. Comodo claims to have checked them out and confirmed that they are at present a legitimate business who also license technology from F-Secure and Kaspersky both companies with major reputations which would seem to enforce their claims of legitimacy.
It is clear the listings are old why haven't they been de-listed well we only have one side of that story however I remember a lot of controversy with Crawler and Spyware Terminator because they used to be a rogue listed company that was eventually de-listed but whilst lots of people recommend them on here a few people still point to the previous listing as reason that they are still rogue (despite de-listing) and hence can never be trusted.
Comodo's firewall offering is still free from Comodo and still highly rated as a product and there are no recent confirmations of PCSecurityShield's rogue activities so in the balance of things I don't see why this is an issue at present.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you |
|
 mers2Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8 | said by MorpheusUK:Others object to their inclusion on spywarewarriors rougue list which according to the explanation by said company is the direct cause of their inclusion on the site advisor list and possibly others. Now reading the posts from PCSecurityShield they are saying that the rougue listing is several years old and they no longer engage in such practices but until de-listed by spywarewarrior will not be de-listed by anyone else and they are not getting a response. Comodo claims to have checked them out and confirmed that they are at present a legitimate business who also license technology from F-Secure and Kaspersky both companies with major reputations which would seem to enforce their claims of legitimacy. It is clear the listings are old why haven't they been de-listed well we only have one side of that story however I remember a lot of controversy with Crawler and Spyware Terminator because they used to be a rogue listed company that was eventually de-listed but whilst lots of people recommend them on here a few people still point to the previous listing as reason that they are still rogue (despite de-listing) and hence can never be trusted. Bolding by me. Frankly, any company who has engaged in rogue practices are not to be trusted. As to Comodo "checking them out" they seem to accept that a company is legitimately if they are listed by the BBB and have a license. Unfortunately, there are many businesses that are corrupt that are listed by the BBB. That listing is meaningless. I have lost some respect for Melish through this. I don't mind 3rd party licensing to make some money - especially since they give away a lot of security software, but they need to be more careful who they license.
--
"The best proof there is intelligent life in outer space is the fact it hasn't come here." Arthur C. Clark 1917-2008
Team Discovery
|
|
Blue2Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1 | reply to MorpheusUK
said by MorpheusUK: Now reading the posts from PCSecurityShield they are saying that the rougue listing is several years old and they no longer engage in such practices ... said by MorpheusUK:Comodo claims to have checked them out and confirmed that they are at present a legitimate business who also license technology from F-Secure and Kaspersky both companies with major reputations which would seem to enforce their claims of legitimacy. (emphases added) I used to be a [insert here] (ex. manufacturer of tainted toothpaste) but I "no longer engage in such practices". Comforting? Reputable companies always need to be careful who they jump in bed with. History is a greater predictor of behavior than "campaign promises". What if they change their mind again?
F-Secure and Kaspersky are in business. They are not a Good Housekeeping "Seal of Approval" and their "judgement" of who they do business with is their evaluation, not your guarantee.
I like to make my own evaluations. As I see it, it was a bad business decision to go into business with anyone who had ever been on the rouge list, whether they've changed their ways or not. |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | reply to ComodoDude
Ok. We are getting nasty comments over at Comodo. I just read the last five pages of posts to catch up. The CEO of PCSecurity is posting in the thread. Everyone needs to read his crap. Eric and Suzie are taking a bad hit there and everyone is saying, including Arthur Frischman the PCSecurity CEO, that Eric and Suzi can't be found! Huh? Aren't they still at Sunbelt?
Most everyone in the thread is blaming the two of them for not removing the rogue designation. Why the CEO complains that he has asked them to remove it. Someone mentioned several threads here and the CEO and others replied that the threads here were way too "old" to have any relevance currently to the totally changed, now lily white PCSecurity. They don't seem to know about this current thread.  But the CEP ridicules this thread from here as being old and insignificant:
»Fraternizing w/ the Enemy
Melih has posted and he brought Frischman to post and calm everyone down. The mods are threatening to lock the thread because Melih says:
"I am sure we all care about Comodo and what it is doing for end users. Arthur has been open and has come and explained himself (including his efforts to try get himself off that list).
Anything else we can do? pls let me know..
thanks
Melih"
So, the mods want to shutup any further naysaying.
I think Eric and Suzi need to be contacted. The Comodo folks are saying that is not possible...well, gee, they are at Sunbelt still as far as I know. Alex Eckelberry has an open door to everyone. Why hasn't Melih contacted him?
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
 CudniLa Merma - VigiladoPremium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13 | I didn't see any threats to lock the topic at Comodo forum although it will not surprise me if they do lock it as it has descended into farce.
Cudni
--
"Mercifully, he hit him with the soft end of the pistol."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2008 |
|
 Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
 ·Time Warner Cable
| That is because there are no threats to lock the thread there.
I do not know about you but anything that is 4 years old in the way of technology or companies is old information.
--
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". - Sherlock Holmes |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to Mele20
quote:
I think Eric and Suzi need to be contacted. The Comodo folks are saying that is not possible...well, gee, they are at Sunbelt still as far as I know. Alex Eckelberry has an open door to everyone. Why hasn't Melih contacted him?
I think you need to reread that entire thread at Comodo and then correct your post. 
quote:
Why hasn't Melih contacted him?
Why don't you go over and ask him.
quote:
Ok. We are getting nasty comments over at Comodo.
Where? I guess what you consider nasty is vastly different then what I consider nasty.
--
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". - Sherlock Holmes |
|
approval from:
Blue2 
Curley
| reply to ComodoDude
Regarding Shield Firewall Check this out:
»www.symantec.com/enterprise/secu···nce.html
Interesting Business concept  |
|
CudniLa Merma - VigiladoPremium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13 | Unscrupulous business method indeed. As they licence also from Kaspersky and McAfee it would be good if the users on their respective forums would kick up similar fuss to the one on Comodo forum
Cudni
--
"Mercifully, he hit him with the soft end of the pistol."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2008 |
|
Blue2Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1 | reply to ComodoDude
You got that right Cudni, and great find poopscan.
As I said before, what makes you think that because F-Secure and Kaspersky are in bed with someone, that's who you want to be in bed with?
They're thinking about their bottom line and I'm thinking about my...bottom. |
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | Well, I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is standard industry practice, or not. That is, I have to figure out if I should no longer recommend Kapersky or F-Secure etc based on this?
For some reason, no one who is bashing Comodo is actually saying the above - so it all seems like some sort of hate on for Comodo, for what still seems like little reason to me. I expect that Comodo may well not renew the license if it's this much bad publicity. |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| quote:
so it all seems like some sort of hate on for Comodo, for what still seems like little reason to me. I expect that Comodo may well not renew the license if it's this much bad publicity.
You hit the nail on the head.
What Comodo is doing IMO is not different then some other software vendors that offer a free product but also will sell that product to another company that then rebrands it, offers support in some cases, then sells it.
--
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". - Sherlock Holmes |
|
1 edit | reply to Blue2
said by Blue2:I like to make my own evaluations. As I see it, it was a bad business decision to go into business with anyone who had ever been on the rouge list, whether they've changed their ways or not. Fair enough make you own decisions, thats fine but as demonstrated by the Crawler/Spyware Terminator example it is possible for rogue listed companies to come good. The reason I first tried Spyware Terminator was because a lot of people on here recommended it despite the companies past and they are now a reputable company accepted by many as having been reformed from their rogue list days.
I am not saying that PCSecurityShield have definitely done that but without evidence to the contrary I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as a licensee of a company I do business with (or in this case two as I use KAV). After all they should have no influence on the core product and unless that happens I don't personally see a problem. If they are proven to still be rogue then it might be in Comodo's, Kasperky's and F-Secure's interest to sever ties with them as soon as contractable possible. However it would affect all of the above not just Comodo as this does seem to be a case of Comodo being held to a higher standard than some of the far bigger fish in the security industry.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you |
|
