By Staff What is really going on in the Comodo threads?

[rashmi]

Comodo Threads: A Critical Analysis!

The Comodo threads resemble a wild circus act—where Comodo's present sweethearts juggle denial, Comodo's ex-wives perform acrobatics of terrible experiences, experts share their insights and witty remarks, pseudo-experts balance their egos on a tightrope, competitors' clowns act to be practical, and the overweight audience is only there for the free fries and popcorn!

MalwareTips has been dominating the trends thanks to those Comodo threads for months—who knows, maybe @Jack will grace the next "Forbes' 100 Most Powerful People" list!

* The critical analysis wouldn't be complete without @Trident's diligent work—he's essentially the Robert Downey Jr. of research, post 37. Thank you for being our superstar, @Trident!

 

[Andy Ful]

Comodo Threads: A Critical Analysis!

The Comodo threads resemble a wild circus act—where Comodo's present sweethearts juggle denial, Comodo's ex-wives perform acrobatics of terrible experiences, experts share their insights and witty remarks, pseudo-experts balance their egos on a tightrope, competitors' clowns act to be practical, and the overweight audience is only there for the free fries and popcorn!

It is probably not as bad. However, some auto-discipline in writing extreme or off-topic posts could make Comodo threads more useful to readers.

 

[Trident]

The critical analysis wouldn't be complete without @Trident's diligent work—he's essentially the Robert Downey Jr. of research, post 37. Thank you for being our superstar, @Trident!

I’m trying

 

[Andy Ful]

I partially understand why those who like Comodo (1) can have a significantly better opinion about it than others who do not use Comodo and have a bad opinion about it (2).

The first group (happy Comodo users) is selected from a wider group of users who tried Comodo. Some (many) who tried Comodo might skip it due to accidental bugs, some usability issues, and other reasons. Those who survived the selection use Comodo in a bug-free way or can handle the issues.

Comodo critics often use arguments based on general opinions, accepted standards, and historical data. However, their arguments are rather related to general users who might try Comodo and not to the selected group of happy Comodo users.

So both Comodo critics and happy Comodo users can be right in some way about Comodo. No need to fight, just listen to each other.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Let me be clear, I have no personal stake in this, as I stopped using Comodo products years ago. My perspective is based on professional security analysis, and I see how Comodo's delays in addressing issues reflect poorly on their commitment to security.

Regarding the dynamic in this thread, I don't disagree with Andy Ful's rebuttals, but I do take issue with the process. If you are going to act as judge and jury and enforce rules for providing evidence, you must be held accountable to those same rules for your own assertions. I was pushing for that accountability.

I value the intelligent opinions of contributors like Andy Ful, Bazangs, and Trident. What I don’t value are the witty but degrading and childish remarks from others who contribute nothing substantive. The conversation could have been far more effective if both sides had presented their cases analytically instead of burying the facts under endless posts.

The one-sided demand for evidence was the primary problem. Stating that at least one bug has been fixed is a play on words, not a refutation of a pattern. The evidence lies in the history of CVEs. Research clearly shows a recurring pattern of vulnerabilities in Comodo products, especially concerning local privilege escalation, denial of service, and improper certificate validation. While these often require initial access, they can lead to total system compromise. The frequency of these flaws creates a tangible risk for users who are not vigilant about updates and of course varies due to the environment.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

No need to fight, just listen to each other.

This would be possible if people are willing to listen to others, but they are not. Not on the internet which is the culture war battlefield. The culture war and the online habits connected with it, have spread to every realm of the digital world.

 

[caleche]

Why are some people so invested in something they don’t even use? Is it merely a desire to play the role of a godfather?

 

[Andy Ful]

This would be possible if people are willing to listen to others, but they are not.

Fortunately, many MT members can.

Not on the internet which is the culture war battlefield. The culture war and the online habits connected with it, have spread to every realm of the digital world.

We are not forced on MT to propagate the culture war.

 

[Andy Ful]

Why are some people so invested in something they don’t even use? Is it merely a desire to play the role of a godfather?

There can be some good and bad reasons if you think it over.

 

[Andy Ful]

@Bazang and @Divergent,

What do you think about the subforum for hot topics with slightly more restrictive rules accepted by MT staff?
I noticed that you did not like the last thread about Comodo.

 

[Andy Ful]

The idea of a subforum for hot (troublesome) topics is as follows:

1. The topic starts in a standard thread.
2. If it becomes hot, the staff can close the thread, informing that it can be opened for further discussion in the HOT subforum.
3. The rules of the subforum are created by MT staff.
4. Users who want to participate in the HOT subforum must agree that they will follow the rules of the subforum.
5. Optionally, this subforum can be opened only for users who ask the staff for it. Users who often violate the forum rules can be suspended/removed by the staff from the subforum.

The HOT subforum is similar to the Sandbox, where people are prevented from polluting the thread or hurting themselves.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

@Bazang and @Divergent,

What do you think about the subforum for hot topics with slightly more restrictive rules accepted by MT staff?
I noticed that you did not like the last thread about Comodo.

I believe this is a deflection tactic. I value the potential for sharing knowledge here, but for that to happen, we must stick to the core subject. If these diversions continue, I will see no further point in discussing this.

 

[Andy Ful]

@Divergent,

I am serious. You and @bazang can contribute a lot to any thread. The last thread about Comodo was an experiment. Anyone could have some objections. I am asking because such a subforum requires a kind of agreement among MT members.

 

[Trident]

The idea of a subforum for hot (troublesome) topics is as follows:

1. The topic starts in a standard thread.
2. If it becomes hot, the staff can close the thread, informing that it can be opened for further discussion in the HOT subforum.
3. The rules of the subforum are created by MT staff.
4. Users who want to participate in the HOT subforum must agree that they will follow the rules of the subforum.
5. Optionally, this subforum can be opened only for users who ask the staff for it. Users who often violate the forum rules can be suspended/removed by the staff from the subforum.

The HOT subforum is similar to the Sandbox, where people are prevented from polluting the thread or hurting themselves.

I get the logic of it but currently there are 2-3 topics that cause disagreements, with Comodo being the primary one. As MalwareTips is not Comodo forums, I don’t think we should be creating isolated environments to promote productivity in discussing Comodo.

At the end of the day users should do their due diligence and devide for themselves what they believe, install and use.

 

[Andy Ful]

I get the logic of it but currently there are 2-3 topics that cause disagreements, with Comodo being the primary one. As MalwareTips is not Comodo forums, I don’t think we should be creating isolated environments to promote productivity in discussing Comodo.

At the end of the day users should do their due diligence and devide for themselves what they believe, install and use.

The subforum is intended for any hot topic. The rules are also intended to be the same for all hot topics.

 

[Trident]

The subforum is intended for any hot topic. The rules are also intended to be the same for all hot topics.

Yep. I get that, but only Comodo is this sort of hot topic, there is nothing else that creates a heated dispute really. And it’s even more work for the moderation team.

I believe users should learn to filter what’s not really trustworthy.

 

[Trident]

Also, instead of “Hot Topic” which could be misunderstood, a banner can be added on top that says:

“Increased moderation has been enabled for this topic.”
“Due to the nature of the discussion, additional rules apply here. Please ensure that you adhere to these rules”
“Rule 1”
“Rule 2”
“Rule 3”

You see, I am adding the fine touches to your idea.

AI can analyse the posts and flag posts which may need review/removal.

Potentially, upon clicking on post, the API can be queried to analyse whether the post adheres to the rules, before it even becomes visible.

But this should be the last resort when a discussion has really escalated. Not an attempt to silence the truth.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

@Andy Ful

While I recognize and share your goal of making these threads more useful and reducing noise, I must respectfully disagree with the proposed method of containment.

An idea of a "HOT subforum", described as being "similar to the Sandbox, where people are prevented from polluting the thread or hurting themselves", while well-intentioned, this model is fundamentally flawed when applied to security discourse.

Security analysis thrives on open, and at times adversarial, review. By creating a separate, more restrictive forum, you risk creating an information silo. This can quickly become an echo chamber where only a particular narrative is tolerated, and critical viewpoints, even if backed by evidence, are labeled as "polluting." This stifles the very scrutiny that is essential for identifying and understanding security risks.

There is a critical difference between moderating behavior and censoring content. The problem in the recent threads was not the "hot" topic itself, but, as I correctly pointed out, a "one-sided demand for evidence" and "witty but degrading and childish remarks" that buried the facts.

Creating a special subforum with different rules doesn't solve this, it institutionalize's it. It creates a system where the narrative can be more easily contained, which is a form of censorship, not moderation.

From a trust and transparency standpoint, walling off controversial topics is a red flag. It suggests that the subject cannot be discussed under the standard rules of open debate. As @Trident noted, "MalwareTips is not Comodo forums", creating special environments to discuss a specific vendor's issues can damage the platform's credibility and create the perception of bias.

In my assessment, this appears to be a deflection. The fundamental problem lies not with the topic itself, but with the process of the discussion. The solution is not to create a new set of rules for specific threads, but to consistently and impartially enforce the existing rules across all threads. Personal attacks and "degrading remarks" should be moderated strictly, regardless of the topic. The focus must be on the argument, not the individual.

As I argued, if you "enforce rules for providing evidence, you must be held accountable to those same rules for your own assertions". Claims, whether positive or negative, must be substantiated. This fosters a culture of accountability. Off-topic posts, which you rightly identified as a problem, should be managed in all discussions to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the desire for a more productive environment, the creation of a "HOT subforum" is a step towards information control, not productive discourse. The better path is to reinforce a forum-wide culture of rigorous, evidence-based, and civil debate through firm, fair, and consistent moderation for everyone.

 

[Pico]

The Court didn't work, new attempt, introduce new steps to dictatorship and censorship on MT...
Where does this insanity end?
One Comodo forum is enough.

 

[Andy Ful]

@Andy Ful

Security analysis thrives on open, and at times adversarial, review. By creating a separate, more restrictive forum, you risk creating an information silo.

Yes, I know such a risk. However, this can depend on the staff, rules, and participants. We cannot know how this will work if we do not even try.
Otherwise, there is a risk of avoiding hot topics or recreating them after closing by the staff.

From a trust and transparency standpoint, walling off controversial topics is a red flag. It suggests that the subject cannot be discussed under the standard rules of open debate. As @Trident noted, "MalwareTips is not Comodo forums", creating special environments to discuss a specific vendor's issues can damage the platform's credibility and create the perception of bias.

In fact, this is happening now, when threads have to be closed by the staff.
We cannot know for sure how such a subforum will work in practice if we do not try.

In my assessment, this appears to be a deflection. The fundamental problem lies not with the topic itself, but with the process of the discussion. The solution is not to create a new set of rules for specific threads, but to consistently and impartially enforce the existing rules across all threads. Personal attacks and "degrading remarks" should be moderated strictly, regardless of the topic. The focus must be on the argument, not the individual.

You propose something more restrictive than only doing it in a subforum.

As I argued, if you "enforce rules for providing evidence, you must be held accountable to those same rules for your own assertions".

Ther rules are not yet established. The creator of the thread has the same rights and obligations as others. The rules are not created by the thread creator, but by the staff. The staff decides if the rules are fulfilled and which actions should be taken.

Claims, whether positive or negative, must be substantiated. This fosters a culture of accountability. Off-topic posts, which you rightly identified as a problem, should be managed in all discussions to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.

You demand something more restrictive than HOT subforum.