Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. The goal of the thread was to evaluate Comodo’s current products using verifiable evidence, starting from the assumption that “Comodo is not bad,” and to share experiences and research. Many of you adhered to these rules and provided useful data – including bug‑fix lists, configuration guides and personal experiences. This is exactly the kind of evidence‑based discussion we want.
However, in later pages the conversation strayed into repetitive complaints, speculation, personal critiques and calls to ban the topic. Please remember that our forum rules require respect and courtesy at all times and forbid posting purely to inflame or derail a topic. Under the thread’s rules, claims that Comodo is “lazy” or “abandonware” must be backed by solid evidence; simply repeating past points without new research is not constructive. Likewise, calls to censor discussion or invoke legal threats violate our guidelines.
There are a few ongoing problems I’d like to address:
- Repetition and speculation: Several posts simply repeat the same criticisms without offering new research or personal testing. Constructive debate requires fresh data; if you don’t have something new to add, please refrain from reposting old points.
- Calls to ban the topic and accusations of censorship: @bazang, I understand you feel strongly about this product, but suggesting that Comodo discussions should be banned or accusing moderators of “1984‑style” censorship is neither accurate nor helpful. Our moderation policy is about keeping debates civil and evidence‑based, not silencing opinions. We encourage criticism when it is backed by verifiable facts; we ask that all members – regardless of viewpoint – respect that standard.
We will continue to monitor the thread. Persistent repetition without evidence, personal attacks or attempts to derail the discussion may result in warnings. If you have new information or research to share – whether positive or negative – please do so. Otherwise, let’s focus on helping fellow members make informed decisions rather than on debating motives or moderation.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
----
@bazang, I want to clarify our stance in response to your concerns. This thread was set up to encourage evidence‑based discussion about Comodo. It is
not an attempt to silence criticism. You are welcome to critique the product – many users have raised valid issues – but simply repeating that Comodo is “toxic” or suggesting that all Comodo discussions should be banned is not productive. Likewise, suggesting that moderation here is “1984‑style censorship” or invoking external legal claims does not reflect how our forum operates.
We’re asking that you stay within the thread’s guidelines by focusing on verifiable facts rather than speculation and by respecting other members. If you believe Comodo is fundamentally flawed, please provide concrete evidence or documented cases rather than broad statements. Continuing to post the same negative assertions without new information isn’t helpful and risks derailing the conversation.
The topic here is whether Comodo’s products are still worth using. To stay on topic, contributions should focus on verifiable facts—such as bug lists, CVEs, performance comparisons, or personal experiences with recent versions. If you believe Comodo has systemic problems, please back that up with evidence. If you don’t wish to discuss Comodo, it’s fine to abstain from the thread; asking to ban the topic is not acceptable.
That would be counterproductive and, above all, pointless.
