Comodo might come back from the grave

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

I have gathered here EULAs of companies that can be considered market leaders. Please point out where these “publishers” state that.

Symantec does not warrant that the Software and Services will meet Your requirements or that operation of the Software and Services will be uninterrupted or that the Software and Services will be error-free.

I do not need to look at any other EULA. All software publishers use the same basic template, which protects them from liability and puts the entire risk onto the user.

A protection engine is a lot more than a service. And yes, they do. They will not tell you we updated drivers A, B and C and will not provide you with the updates source code, but all of them maintain various changelogs on the security enhancements implemented - and these frequently require updates to various platforms, components and drivers as well.

I never said anything about a publisher providing the source code.

And give an example of a changelog that shows a driver is being regularly updated. So that means you need to provide two or more changelogs that explicitly state that a driver has been updated. Let's say within a year time period.

 

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

You have not told where to get the info! You haven't said anything except "blah blah - this is how windows works. Blah blah , windows drivers have not been updated in years" "blah blah"

All you have said is blah! no facts! Zero- zilch- nada

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. It only takes a 10 second Google search.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

@Trident and @Ink you are absolutely right!







It's not a matter of freedom of speech.
It is a matter of RESPONSIBILITY with others or third parties.

As long as someone decides to use a +2 years not updated, deeply bugged, not OS compatible etc security software... this is totally fine... even in totalitarian countries people are free of eating their own feces.
But, at the moment that this same someone, who likes to eat his own excrement, he starts to make a public apology to everyone encouraging and motivating everyone to eat poop... that is IRRESPONSIBLE towards others or third parties.
As much as a person says that his feces are safe and delicious... eating any kind of excrement is not good for health.
PS: My eschatological vocabulary is simply a consequence that reflects the low level of this thread.

Wonderful summary of @Oerlink 's blah blah

 

[Trident]

The moment he said a protection engine is a user-mode service and only Comodo offers malware warranty, the level of his knowledge became evident. Don’t expect any proof.

 

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

Wonderful summary of @Oerlink 's blah blah

So you believe in a person eating their own feces too? That's just nasty. Are you guys like a cult or something?

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

Read this guidance @Oerlink which Trident shared: Obsolete products

Perhaps you now know more than NSCS as well. Gosh! Since you cannot provide any proof of whatever I have asked for, on what basis should anyone trust your blah?

 

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

The moment he said a protection engine is a user-mode service and only Comodo offers malware warranty, the level of his knowledge became evident. Don’t expect any proof.

I never said a protection engine is a user-mode service. I said it is often a service. You should go back and read my post carefully, but you're not interested in accuracy. You just put words into peoples' mouths. That's all you've done on this thread.

Who else provides a malware warranty? A EULA is not a malware warranty, but you obviously did not know that.

"One thing that distinguishes Comodo's paid products from the free ones is an impressive warranty. Comodo promises that if malware gets past the product's protection, support agents will spend as much time as it takes to remotely remediate the problem."

Who else provides such a warranty? Nobody.

 

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

Read this guidance @Oerlink which Trident shared: Obsolete products

Perhaps you now know more than NSCS as well. Gosh! Since you cannot provide any proof of whatever I have asked for, on what basis should anyone trust your blah?

So what does that have to do with Comodo? Nothing. That's what. That document is talking about obsolete systems such as Windows XP and Office 2007. Comodo's technology is not obsolete. You provided zero.

I did provide you the infos. You explicitly stated you would not do the research.

 

[monkeylove]

"Unintended consequences" says it all.

 

[Trident]

"Unintended consequences" says it all.

He claimed that in the EULA they all state software is provided on “best effort” basis.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

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.

 

[Trident]

Who else provides such a warranty? Nobody.

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.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. It only takes a 10 second Google search.

You did not - keep writing ! it is for everyone to see here!

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.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

I never said a protection engine is a user-mode service. I said it is often a service. You should go back and read my post carefully, but you're not interested in accuracy. You just put words into peoples' mouths. That's all you've done on this thread.

Who else provides a malware warranty? A EULA is not a malware warranty, but you obviously did not know that.

"One thing that distinguishes Comodo's paid products from the free ones is an impressive warranty. Comodo promises that if malware gets past the product's protection, support agents will spend as much time as it takes to remotely remediate the problem."

Who else provides such a warranty? Nobody.

Actually lot of vendors do!

Look here:

Virus Protection Promise

Virus Protection Promise

uk.norton.com

The fact that you do not even know what you are talking about and mindlessly writing statements blows my mind!

 

[Trident]

Actually lot of vendors do!

Look here:

Virus Protection Promise

Virus Protection Promise

uk.norton.com

The fact that you do not even know what you are talking about and mindlessly writing statements blows my mind!

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.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

So what does that have to do with Comodo? Nothing. That's what. That document is talking about obsolete systems such as Windows XP and Office 2007. Comodo's technology is not obsolete. You provided zero.

I did provide you the infos. You explicitly stated you would not do the research.

Lets look at the dictionary definition of the word obsolete:

Do check the synonyms ! To understand what synonyms mean, this is the dictionary definition of the term:

By the dictionary definition of the term, Comodo is outdated a.k.a obsolete

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.

And this further goes to show that @Oerlink is misleading people here and has zero idea what he is talking about!

I did provide you the infos. You explicitly stated you would not do the research.

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!

So you believe in a person eating their own feces too? That's just nasty. Are you guys like a cult or something?

No, he is summarising your behavior

 

[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]

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:

https://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/Oct2009.ppt

Kernel Versions

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.

 

[Bumblebee Uncle]

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

 

[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

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.