Comodo might come back from the grave

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ForgottenSeer 98186

And just to add your long list of blah @Oerlink , since you do not supply proof and ask us to research whatever statements you furnish, then let me make a few statements and perhaps you can hack into my system and check whatever I am saying below is truth or not:

- Love CS firewall at Cruelsister's settings. So, installed it. Considerably slowed down my system and I have a high end laptop with 16 GB ram.
- Considerably slowed down my boot time.
- Observed lots of lag.

Tried using Comodo on a windows 11 machine and got a BSOD. So, like others who have said, it works on their machine with windows 11 - well it doesn't on mine.,


Regardless of whether you trust my statements above, based on best practice guidelines supplied by the NCSC, I would rather not use products which have not been updated in a long time. Why? because as you already know both the threat and the technological landscape changes regularly and I would rather have something installed on my system from a vendor that works on updating their softwares regularly (which most AV vendors do) or even better just use Windows defender with Andy's tools.

And I am sorry to say but you do not know better than the NCSC.
Why would I not doubt what you are saying? It is unfortunate that you got performance issues and BSOD, but that happens to lots of other users that use other security software such as Kaspersky, Bitdefender, etc. You just have to go look at their support forums. Comodo is no different or worse than those products.

You are misapplying what the NCSC says in that document for your own nefarious agenda. That document does not apply to a product such as Comodo, which is not obsolete. If you want to be willfully ignorant because you think you can "own" me on this forum, then that is your prerogative.

Be better.
 

Trident

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 7, 2023
1,815
No you did not - you just claimed to do a google search for windows not updating its kernel drivers since the early 1990's. How much can you lie in a matter of a few minutes? Anyone can scroll back on this thread and see you have not provided any info!
Whilst I am unable to analyse decades of spaghetti code and compare what has been updated and when (this would require access to all kernels source codes and time), the Windows kernel has been updated many times and many attempts have been made to add additional defences… all these defences have more than one potential bypass.
It has been documented times and times again.

I am able to find the following:

There is no evidence I can discover that can support that some or all parts of the Windows NT kernel haven’t been updated since 1990.

Though there are indeed many parts of Windows not updated since the millennia - and this has always been proven to not be great.
 
Last edited:

Bumblebee Uncle

Level 3
Well-known
Mar 15, 2022
108
This is cool. At least we are providing proof of what we talk about. @Oerlink on the other hand has more or less the following to say:

- Does not provide any proof and says "sure i provided proof and told you how to do it" -> ok, then I go back and look at the thread as to where the proof was, I could not find it. Typical behavior that all he is doing here on the threads is playing around and misleading people. How is this acceptable professionally?

- Keeps saying statements such as I have engaged with the staff at Comodo on a professional level. Well, provide us with proof of that? Tell us that you have spoken to Haibo Zhang or reveal your identity and let Haibo Zhang come here and say what you have said. Based on this logic, I can also say that " I have spoke to Bill gates yesterday and Windows 12 is coming out next month". How believable is this?

- Keeps defending things for which he has no idea! Does not even know that other products such as Norton offer the same guarantee of a virus protection as Comodo does and instead writes on the forum and says "tell which product does this" - well - lots!!!!


In short and to summarize, talking to @Oerlink is very difficult since he (1) does not accept facts, (2) cannot accept when he is wrong and (3) views the world as black and white- i am right and everyone else is wrong.

A lot of people here including myself are here on the forum to learn not to get mislead by you @Oerlink
 
F

ForgottenSeer 98186

Norton, Avast, AVG, McAfee and Total Defense for instance. Are you claiming that they are not?

Protection engine might include a service - but is a whole platform with a lot more than that.
None of them offer a malware warranty. If you say they do, then you should read each one and make a screenshot of the sections that you claim do provide such warranty coverage and post them here.
Since NortonLifeLock merged with Avast and AVG to form Gen Digital, the same has been extended to Avast and AVG. It has been offered for years by McAfee too.
Oh. OK. So I was wrong. Isn't that wonderful for you? You got me on 1 thing. Now you can claim victory. lol
By the dictionary definition of the term, Comodo is outdated a.k.a obsolete :D
You can do dictionary lookups all you want, but Comodo is not unpatched and its technology is not obsolete. You can believe and think what you wish, but you're wrong and deliberately misapplying what the NCSC recommends.

No you did not - you just claimed to do a google search for windows not updating its kernel drivers since the early 1990's. How much can you lie in a matter of a few minutes? Anyone can scroll back on this thread and see you have not provided any info!
Because there are drivers, and parts of the Windows kernel that have not changed since the 1990s. You can go onto Windows kernel and driver development forums and ask yourself. They'll tell you the same thing. Y'all apparently know very little about software.

You have not provided a single proof of what you mentioned about some windows drivers not being updated since the 1990's!!!!! This is misleading people on so many levels.
Nobody is being mislead.
 

Trident

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 7, 2023
1,815
Comodo was one of the first to offer I believe it was $400 repayment(back then, now upped to 500 due to inflation) if you use paid Comodo and get infected… This money is repaid towards covering the cost of getting your operating system reinstalled at a local shop, most likely after supplying the relevant documentation/invoice.

It does not serve as an indication for high efficiency and I am not aware to what extent Comodo technicians will be able to even recognise an active threat, if there is such.

Similar “pledges” have been made by several different companies and are nothing more than a great marketing. I have experience with their malware removal skills (after I’ve planted it myself) and to say it frankly, I have not been impressed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Decopi
F

ForgottenSeer 98186

No you did not - you just claimed to do a google search for windows not updating its kernel drivers since the early 1990's. How much can you lie in a matter of a few minutes? Anyone can scroll back on this thread and see you have not provided any info!
You are so triggered you're not even taking the time to carefully read what I post. I never said that Microsoft has not updated its kernel drivers since the early 1990s. I said some drivers have not been updated since the 1990s, which is factually correct.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 98186

This is cool. At least we are providing proof of what we talk about. @Oerlink on the other hand has more or less the following to say:

- Does not provide any proof and says "sure i provided proof and told you how to do it" -> ok, then I go back and look at the thread as to where the proof was, I could not find it. Typical behavior that all he is doing here on the threads is playing around and misleading people. How is this acceptable professionally?

- Keeps saying statements such as I have engaged with the staff at Comodo on a professional level. Well, provide us with proof of that? Tell us that you have spoken to Haibo Zhang or reveal your identity and let Haibo Zhang come here and say what you have said. Based on this logic, I can also say that " I have spoke to Bill gates yesterday and Windows 12 is coming out next month". How believable is this?

- Keeps defending things for which he has no idea! Does not even know that other products such as Norton offer the same guarantee of a virus protection as Comodo does and instead writes on the forum and says "tell which product does this" - well - lots!!!!


In short and to summarize, talking to @Oerlink is very difficult since he (1) does not accept facts, (2) cannot accept when he is wrong and (3) views the world as black and white- i am right and everyone else is wrong.

A lot of people here including myself are here on the forum to learn not to get mislead by you @Oerlink
More ad hominems? That is all you've got? I've been polite and civil to you despite your repeated abuse. Is that really the kind of person you are?

Please be better.

Repeating the same nonsense over-and-over is not got to change the fact that I am correct. Throughout this whole thread I am the only one who has posted evidence, which y'all have willfully ignored many times. You can stick to your guns and argue "Comodo is a risk because it has no updates in two years" all you want, but again that does not change the fact that it is untrue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

ForgottenSeer 98186

Comodo was one of the first to offer I believe it was $400 repayment(back then, now upped to 500 due to inflation) if you use paid Comodo and get infected… This money is repaid towards covering the cost of getting your operating system reinstalled at a local shop, most likely after supplying the relevant documentation/invoice.

It does not serve as an indication for high efficiency and I am not aware to what extent Comodo technicians will be able to even recognise an active threat, if there is such.

Similar “pledges” have been made by several different companies and are nothing more than a great marketing. I have experience with their malware removal skills (after I’ve planted it myself) and to say it frankly, I have not been impressed.
Melih was the first one to offer such a warranty. Then all the other publishers copied him. It was just notable in the industry because nobody offered such a warranty until Melih did. There were additional provisions that covered economic loses but I do not know if it is still in the warranty because I have not looked at it in years.

Think about it. What good is a malware warranty when the technician can simply tell the user to clean install Windows? lol

So the warranty was never meant as an indicator that Comodo is bulletproof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhioRebel
F

ForgottenSeer 97327

Because you are making a false statement. A low-level employee on the Comodo forum, who is not a member of the development team, can say whatever they want - it is unofficial. Just because they are a Comodo employee doesn't mean their statement is the official position of the company. This is a matter of established consumer law.
Endless loop? Maybe this helps you to get out of it
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bumblebee Uncle

Level 3
Well-known
Mar 15, 2022
108
Because there are drivers, and parts of the Windows kernel that have not changed since the 1990s. You can go onto Windows kernel and driver development forums and ask yourself. They'll tell you the same thing. Y'all apparently know very little about software.
Getting incredibly tired and frustrated not just with your messages but your character in general! If we all know very little about software and you supposedly know a lot "enlighten us to these forums on windows where everyone says that kernels and drivers are not updated since 1990's" - you cannot do this and can only make statements like what you are making because you do not know what you are talking about and it is actually "you" who knows little about many things not us!

Nobody is being mislead.

You are misleading others and providing fake information repeatedly and when asked for proof about whatever you are saying, you are also not furnishing any proof.

You can do dictionary lookups all you want, but Comodo is not unpatched and its technology is not obsolete. You can believe and think what you wish, but you're wrong and deliberately misapplying what the NCSC recommends.

You did not even read what the NCSC has said. I think you read all of these messages with a bias thinking "oh, this person responded to me. They must be wrong. Let me show it to them how they are wrong". You have a black and white and win or lose mindset which is sad to see.

Regardless of whether you trust my statements above, based on best practice guidelines supplied by the NCSC, I would rather not use products which have not been updated in a long time. Why? because as you already know both the threat and the technological landscape changes regularly and I would rather have something installed on my system from a vendor that works on updating their softwares regularly (which most AV vendors do) or even better just use Windows defender with Andy's tools.
READ my message again :)


While we are it, provide proofs about your conversations with people internal to comodo as you have claimed repeatedly on this forum that you have done so! You are misleading everyone and twisting facts and truths.
 
  • Applause
  • Like
Reactions: Decopi and Trident

Trident

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 7, 2023
1,815
Repeating the same nonsense over-and-over is not got to change the fact that I am correct. Throughout this whole thread I am the only one who has posted evidence, which y'all have willfully ignored many times. You can stick to your guns and argue "Comodo is a risk because it has no updates in two years" all you want, but again that does not change the fact that it is untrue.
We are people who like to learn from history.
Aren’t you?


CVE-2022-26522 and CVE-2022-26523 were found in the Avast Anti Rootkit driver, introduced in January 2012 and also used by AVG. The first vulnerability was present in a socket connection handler used by the kernel driver aswArPot.sys, and during routine operations, an attacker could hijack a variable to escalate privileges.

Security products must run with high privilege levels, and so attackers able to exploit this flaw could potentially disable security solutions, tamper with a target operating system, or perform other malicious actions.

The second vulnerability, CVE-2022-26523, is described as "very similar" to CVE-2022-26522 and was present in the aswArPot+0xc4a3 function.

"Due to the nature of these vulnerabilities, they can be triggered from sandboxes and might be exploitable in contexts other than just local privilege escalation," SentinelLabs said. "For example, the vulnerabilities could be exploited as part of a second-stage browser attack or to perform a sandbox escape, among other possibilities."


Research shows that antivirus products provide "an easily accessible attack surface that dramatically increases exposure to targeted attacks," said Google security researcher Tavis Ormandy in a blog post back in September, in which he analyzed one of the many antivirus vulnerabilities he found in recent months. "For this reason, the vendors of security products have a responsibility to uphold the highest secure development standards possible to minimise the potential for harm caused by their software."

Since June, Ormandy has found and reported over 25 vulnerabilities in antivirus products from ESET, Kaspersky Lab, AVG and Avast. In the past he also found flaws in products from Sophos and Microsoft.
 
Last edited:

Bumblebee Uncle

Level 3
Well-known
Mar 15, 2022
108
You are so triggered you're not even taking the time to carefully read what I post. I never said that Microsoft has not updated its kernel drivers since the early 1990s. I said some drivers have not been updated since the 1990s, which is factually correct.

Triggered is the word which applies to you and suits you best! If something is factually correct, then as I have asked before, send proof :) You have no proof because what you are saying is not true.
 

Bumblebee Uncle

Level 3
Well-known
Mar 15, 2022
108
Melih was the first one to offer such a warranty. Then all the other publishers copied him. It was just notable in the industry because nobody offered such a warranty until Melih did. There were additional provisions that covered economic loses but I do not know if it is still in the warranty because I have not looked at it in years.

Think about it. What good is a malware warranty when the technician can simply tell the user to clean install Windows? lol

So the warranty was never meant as an indicator that Comodo is bulletproof.
Again Melih worshipper- prove this and also prove that you have spoken to Comodo staff before etc etc which you claimed before! Prove all of this.
 

Bumblebee Uncle

Level 3
Well-known
Mar 15, 2022
108
Repeating the same nonsense over-and-over is not got to change the fact that I am correct. Throughout this whole thread I am the only one who has posted evidence, which y'all have willfully ignored many times. You can stick to your guns and argue "Comodo is a risk because it has no updates in two years" all you want, but again that does not change the fact that it is untrue.
Actually, you have never posted any information which is correct in any way, shape or form! Which is why I keep repeating "proof please"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top