Get the Latest
Subscribe to our RSS feed or enter your email address below to get the feed delivered to you by email:
New! Follow Gizmo on Twitter
Security Wizard
Hot! Get our free security suggestions customized to your needs. Get started
Navigation
User login
| New: | Help keep this site independent with few ads by buying a Gizmo Cap or T-shirt or by Donating |
| Hot: | Get free personalized security suggestions from Gizmo's Security Wizard |
| Help: | Know your freeware? Then suggest a hot product or become a reviewer or moderator for Gizmos |
Comodo Software Removed from Softpedia
We don't normally feature news items in this column but this one is of unusual importance for freeware lovers:
From the Softpedia website:
"... if you had searched Softpedia for Comodo in the past week, you would have surely noticed that the company’s [i.e. Comodo's] flagship programs were no longer listed on Softpedia. This was not our decision, of course, but let’s start with the beginning.
On April, 15th, Softpedia received an official cease and desist letter from the Comodo legal team requesting us to "discontinue all references on Softpedia identifying CIS as adware" within seven days, because Comodo Internet Security is not adware.
The first thing we did was, of course, to double-check the license, but, as we’ve tried explaining to the Comodo team, CIS is indeed adware. Why? Well, for starters, because the installer attempts to change both the browser’s homepage and search engine. As if that wasn’t a good enough reason, the setup also offers to install SafeSurf. Here’s what the official Comodo letter states: "SafeSurf is optional and does not display unsolicited advertisements on a user’s computer, nor does it hijack browser settings or perform search overriding or home page changing without the user’s consent."
Aside from the fact that SafeSurf is a component that the program (CIS) does not require to fully function, therefore it alone would be a good reason to mark CIS as adware, this utility also installs Ask Toolbar without asking for the user’s permission. This type of behavior is clearly not the one described in the Comodo email and could be easily classified as spyware (since adware would imply prior user consent)."
What's my opinion on this? Both Softpedia and Comodo have a case. Yes Comodo does include additional components with their security software installs but as far as I can see they are up front about it in much the same way that CCleaner is up front about installing the Yahoo search bar. On the other hand the Comodo practice does seem to challenge Softpedia's "100% clean" policy.
In summary - caveat emptor.
Gizmo
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Comodo-Software-Removed-From-Softpedia-11...
Please note that Comodo products are now back on Softpedia as of October 2009. The designation of Comodo Internet Security has now been changed to 'Ad-supported'. Their other products are listed as 'freeware' or 'trial' as before.
- Article type:
Comments
I just tried to install comodo firewall, most recent version as of August, 31st 2010. The uncheck box was briefly displayed and seen, but checking it was / is nearly impossible!
The installation process I experienced was so quick, I could not check that box!
That says a lot about comodo's motives about combating user awareness (to not install bloated apps)...they offer a way to not install the adds, with an option to check a box, but nearly impossible to do so.
I could be wrong, as I did not continue with the installation. There may be options (boxes) to check to not install adware, toolbars, but it didn't look good to me, this quick installation menu. I only went a few steps into that install, (choosing next, only a few times) before I "felt" there was a point of no return...then I exited.
I tried 5 times to check that box, but could not as it was way to quick and vanished, onto the next step.
Yes..free is nice, but we should not need to worry about browser changes or any other significant or not, changes to our PC's, other than what the antivirus or firewall or whatever app it is, is supposed to do for us.
Most users leech these free programs and whine about adds..but its FREE! They godda get paid somehow, but not at my expense, respective to deliberate deception of installation of such "extras" (deliberate with this sonic speed install).
I'd rather pay 50.00 for a clean product that works well, then possibly have to re install my OS if such bloated apps corrupt it, (OS's which has a limit of amount of installations / activations...thanks Windows XP, and 7!!!!).
Since only way to get rid of Comodo products from Windows is a clean setup, I would not recommend it anyway. Included adware seems to be the smallest problem. :)
The Comodo installation operates on an "Opt-out" basis. In otherwords you need to untick the boxes that authorise the toolbar and homepage switch, to prevent them being installed.
These options are easily overlooked which is of course why they use them.
We delude ourselves in thinking stuff can be 'free', somewhere, somehow everything has to be paid for.
I dont have an issue with companies using 'free'software as a basis for promoting a paid for version, nor seeing adverts during the download process.
However in their desire to make money sometimes they will rely on people being uninformed or unobservant.
I imagine most people who would be sufficiently knowledgeable to install a firewall will be aware of the use of such techniques and take the appropriate steps to prevent these unneccessary addins.
Comodo produces very unstable programs :)
Oy. This is ridiculous.
Comodo's installer doesn't try to change anything of which the user isn't made fully aware... exactly like CCleaner does it.
And the SafeSurf product makes changes to the browser because... well... it's a browser helper object. Being upset about that would be a little like being upset about how a CD player utility, once installed, interacts with one's CD drive.
Now, all that said, I must confess (and as I think about it, I believe I've even said this in Comodo's forums) that whenever an installer offers additional stuff, it should always be defaulted to the little checkboxes being unchecked... so that if one moves through the screens of the installer so fast that one doesn't actually read them (which is so stupid on its face that one could argue that one gets what one deserves... but that's a rant for another time), then one will not get extra stuff installed.
In other words, Comodo's installer operates from the "we'll opt you in by default, and make it so that you must intentionaly opt-out to avoid the extra stuff being installed."
And that's not right. That, it seems to me, is what makes the whole thing feel feel adware-ish. Offering extra stuff is fine as long as one must take action to opt-in. But if one must take action to opt-out, that's adware-like behavior.
So Softpedia could take that unassailable position, regardless. But to go so far as to categorize Comodo's products as adware, just generally... I dunno. I mean, I get that by Softpedia's definition, it is. And it's Softpedia's site, and so it gets to make whatever rules -- and categorizations -- it wants. However, the notion of common usage should apply, too. I mean, a web site could define blue as red and green as purple on its own site if it wanted to, but who would respect it.
Adware, by common definition -- regardless what Softpedia thinks -- is generally thought of by the rest of the world as being somewhat more egregious, just generally, than Comodo's being.
Softpedia's position is technically defensible because, after all, it's Softpedia's site and so it gets to do whatever the heck it wants.
But that doesn't make it inherently reasonable, given the rest of the world's general understanding of things.
Well put. That was my reaction exactly.
I disagree with softpedia. yes if you are not careful or paying attention you will end up with the ask tool bar or home page changes. This is your own fault for mindless clicking the next button. I have been using comodo's firewall for 3 years now and I can assure you its the best free firewall I have found that actually isnt a pain in the ass. Yes some of the more advanced features can be daunting but they can be turned off as well. I love it and its not adware in truth but if compared to the "definition of adware than yes techinically it would be but I can assure its not. I dont know how you cant trust COMODO they make SSL Locks for Christ Sakes SSL you know those secure privacy locks yah comodo makes those. Why would a company who makes SSL locks create a program thats adware? Think about that before you criticize.
Tell you what this does for me though -- it makes it 100% certain that Softpedia will be my first stop for software downloads.
Looks like they have their principles and stick to them even though it will cost them. Customer safety seems to be more important than commercial pressures. Good for them.
chris.p
Realistically software should only install that software and that's it! To many legitimate programs have options to install all kinds of extra "Bloat" (or call it whatever). I.E. Adobe comes bundle with the Yahoo toolbar. How many other programs bundle toolbar's with there programs, I can't even count the number of times i have had to go into a person's house to remove the numerous toolbar's so they can check the email again, because popups are being blocked.
Install your program that it, installing should be mindless and not have to read every dialog box, so you don't accidentally install "bloat" you do not need because you didn't read closely.
not that i disagree,but this is a lot of complaining about a excellent freeware program.if you are willing to pony up some cash i'm sure you can avoid this hassle.
listen up i dont care who it is or how noble the cause,once people have made a name for themselves they will sell us out to some extent.ie:spybot,lavasoft,ccleaner,spyware terminator which has also been labeled as adware by some etc..
I think we should start a list of all the "adware" products listed by Softpedia. This will help us be more objective and help us see if "adware" as defined by Softpedia really is dangerous in a significant way or merely dangerous like a kitty cat. Obviously, I won't include Comodo Internet Security because it isn't listed anymore at all. So the following list is completely accurate as to the software on Softpedia that are currently listed as "adware." I don't agree with all of them and I think they should add some additional software, but here is the list as it appears on the site. I will add to it as I find more.
Advanced SystemCare (formerly Advanced WindowsCare) 3.3 [*Gizmo Top Pick]
Alcohol 120% 1.9
AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) 5.9
Auslogics Registry Cleaner 1.3
Auslogics Registry Defrag 5.2
AVG Free Edition 8.5 [#1 download on CNET]
AVG LinkScanner 8.5 [*Gizmo Pick]
Avira AntiVir Personal - Free Antivirus 9 [*Gizmo Top Pick, #1 download on Softpedia & #2 on CNET]
DAEMON Tools Lite
DeepBurner Free 1.9
DFX Audio Enhancer/Enhancement
digsby Build 20700 [*Gizmo Pick]
Download Accelerator Plus 9.1
FlashGet 3.0.0.1024 Beta
Foxit PDF Reader 3.0 [*Gizmo Pick]
FreeCommander 2009.02
Game Booster 1.0 [#1 download on MajorGeeks]
GetGo Download Manager 4.1
Google Desktop 5.8
Google Earth 5.0.11337.1968 Beta
Google's Picasa Photo Organizer 3.1 [*Gizmo Top Pick]
Google Toolbar 6.1
GOM Player 2.1 [*Gizmo Pick]
IrfanView 4.23 [*Top 4 Gizmo Image Viewers]
jetAudio 7.5 [*MajorGeeks Editor Pick]
KCleaner 0.16
McAfee SiteAdvisor for Internet Explorer 2.9
Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D 4.0 Beta
MSN Messenger 7.5
Nexus Radio 3.2 [#5 Download on Softpedia]
PC Tools Firewall Plus [*Gizmo Pick -- Top 3 firewalls]
RealPlayer 11.1
SmartDefrag 1.1 [*Gizmo Top Pick]
Spyware Doctor 6.0
Spyware Terminator 2.5 [*Gizmo Pick]
UltraVNC 1.0.5.6 [*Gizmo Pick]
Vista Sidebar 2.5 Build 2514
Vuze (formerly Azureus) 4.2 [*Gizmo Top Pick]
Winamp 5 Full 5.552
Windows Live Messenger 8.5 [#6 download on Softpedia]
Wise Disk Cleaner 4.31
Wise Registry Cleaner 4.31 [*Gizmo Top Pick -- 64-bit List]
Yahoo! Messenger 9.0
ZoneAlarm Free
This seems clearly in Softpedia's favor. The issue isn't with whether or not Comodo's software classifies under a given person's definition of adware, spyware, or whatever else. It is about listing on Softpedia, using Softpedia's criteria and definitions. And under them, it is very clear that Comodo's software is adware. Nod to Softpedia in this instance for keeping the playing field level.
Softpedia aside, the description of what Comodo's software is bundled with, "upfront" or not, is enough to keep me from their products. And if in fact their installer tries to change browser settings or install any superfluous software (like the Ask Toolbar) without notice or consent, that's automatically malware in my book. Trust is everything, especially with this kind of software. Anyway it's not like there's any shortage of good alternatives...heck until now, I don't think I'd even given that company's name a second thought.
in that case anyone who ever bought a computer system has bought adware. is there any computer product with less bloat than the computer itself.
i think that they should consider the spirit of it all.does anyone believe there is any malicious intent on the part comodo
" this utility also installs Ask Toolbar "
as far as I'm concerned any Company that engages in this kind of activity is borderline malware.
I'll be using other products rather than have a company engaging in software sophistry rather than being forthright and honest to potential customers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
I am not sure if I would call CIS adware but I found this to be hilarious (it is an "Update" to the Softpedia article):
As a final note regarding the Ask toolbar, feel free to install Comodo with all three checkboxes unselected and then download the Ask toolbar separately. When the download process is over, Comodo will detect the Ask toolbar as Unclassified Malware@8305287 and require confirmation for copying it to your download folder. Any other comments on this matter would be redundant.
Not sure how true it is (don't have CIS nor do I plan on downloading it) but it makes me lol.
Avira Free is adware? Uh, no, dude it isn't. Adware is a type of sw that downloads and displays ads within your browser. Avira shows a window when it completes an update. Big difference. In any event, if it bothers you the ad can be disabled. Just google it to learn how.
Maybe you care to say that to Softpedia ? it's also their label !
I use Comodo firewall because it's one of the best firewalls out there and it's 100% free. So if I need to uncheck something during installation for this firewall to stay free I will do that. Softpedia needs to change their adware definition, because Comodo products are not adware(dangerous). They make great apps and Comodo Time Machine seems like it will blow away all other virtualisation programs.
Thanks to Comodo for having one of their reps take the time to surreptitiously give their two cents.
And you know this, how?
It must be an important source of income for CIS. But I kinda agree with Comodo, there is no comparison with an adware such as the free Avira Antivir (which is a pure nagware). Anyway, search other mirror.
nagware that is one of the best av products hands down.and its free...
I agree with Gizmo's fair-handed analysis. Caveat emptor just about sums it.
Rizar also brings up some good points.
However, what deeply troubles me here is the attitude of Comodo's CEO. Melih is anything but a dummy, and yet I was shocked at how OBTUSE his posts were. I am also concerned at what seems to be increased arrogance on the part of the company. Maybe this all trickles down from him?
I've used their Firewall and now CIS for quite a while and until now considered Comodo to be a co that could be TRUSTED. In this world of ours, and more importantly in their business field, it's absolutely CRUCIAL that their customer base have that very basic trust/comfort zone.
I'm sorry to say that recent events have eroded my level of trust in Comodo, due entirely to their actions and attitude. It's not a good thing when a company's customers start thinking "what's next?" It has been the beginning of the end for many out there!
A definition of adware is a grey area indeed. Does the definition for computer adware differ greatly from that of every day ads (or advertising) we encounter? What is an 'ad'...I look upon it as a 'plug' or 'push' for a product. In that sense what Comodo are doing and indeed what a lot of publishers are doing would be deemed advertising and hence their products adware.
Based on the general conception of what actually constitutes computer adware, it is possibly a tad harsh but in the strict sense of the definition I think Softpedia may be technically correct.
What Rizar says is true also, if that is the criteria to be used then many, many more products fall into the category.
It is a fact that a heck of a lot of users do not check through the installation options and consequently end up with unwanted 'extras' on their machines. I agree that these options should be opt-in by default and not opt-out but would that appease the strict dictates which Softpedia applies?
I have never liked the Comodo company. They should say thank you when someone reports a bug. Not Comodo - huge defensiveness every time.
I agree with SoftPedia. Toolbar downloads and home page changes, set by default, are adware. I thought the reason Comodo was adding those in was to get money for it, just as Vuze does (and uTorrent will soon do).
Is that not adware?
I think a software that does not have those add ons, or does not install by default, should have that recognized. Classifying those that do install by default as adware does that.
If Comodo was truly "upfront" about it, then they would not have those enabled by default.
I do not mind software, especially freeware, adding those things in, but why by default? Seems like it is a trap for those who do not pay attention to their installs and SoftPedia's adware classification hopefully has people paying attention to their installs.
I agree - it's a question of defaults. And so by DEFAULT, the Commodo product should install itself - and that's all. But to "impose" other things by playing with default settings stirs up a legitimate issue or complaint. You can offer anything you want during the installation - that's not yet adware for me. Adware is "embedded" into the said application and when in use, it pushes adds on you without your consent. But if there are only offers upfront during installation NOT triggered as defaults, heck, I don't see any problem with that. They simply went overboard when when purposely hijacking the default setup procedure - that's where the mistake is... that really is questionable practice...
See also (from about comment 10):
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm
Here is mine too.
Well Comodo certainly isn't adware and none of the components it tries to install are adware. But it does present automatically checked options in its installation that users may miss and, therefore, it may install something like the Ask toolbar without you knowing; though you can just uninstall it if you forget to uncheck the option.
Ask toolbar is not adware in the sense that you need an anti-spyware program to detect and remove it.
You can view the entire Comodo setup process in the User Guide, section 1.3: http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/support.html.
It tries to get you to join a Threatcast community. And in a separate popup it asks whether you want SafeSurf, Ask Toolbar, make Ask the default search engine, etc. If you don't want them, you click no or uncheck them.
I consider the Threatcast community and the other options installation "nags"; not adware. Though, I do usually mention these installation nags in the negatives, as in the case of SiteAdvisor's secure search engine and Winamp. Though, I do so by using the term "nag" in cases where the programs being installed are not themselves adware, referring to the usual use of the word "adware".
Some people voluntarily install toolbar products like Yahoo or Google or Ask, so it would be odd to consider them adware. Ask.com has a high, 90% WOT rating and is not out to deceptively give your computer malicious popup advertisements. SafeSurf isn't adware. Threatcast isn't adware. So how does Comodo become adware when the components it gives as options aren't adware -- well, perhaps Softpedia's argument is that it tries to install them maliciously and therefore those programs will popup without you intentionally installing them.
But, still, that is different than adware that hides in some mysterious place on your computer. The Ask toolbar displays as an installed program and can be uninstalled easily.
But you have to take this article in context. Be sure to adjust the normal use of the word "adware" to Softpedia's specialized, functional use of the word.
Softpedia has a complicated multi-part definition or test for whether a product is "adware."
Some of the most trusted and most used free products meet the definition. Winamp, for example, is one of the most downloaded products in the past and it gets the tag "adware" from Softpedia.
Most IOBit products do. But I think they are wrong about Game Booster. The setting they refer to for changing the default search engine is not pre-checked during installation.
Softpedia also gives SmartDefrag and ASC the tag "adware."
I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm surprised Threatfire beat their test and made it in as "freeware." I suppose because its installation makes it clear whether you get your information sent off or not. But the distinction between Winamp and Threatfire is not significant. I think both should get Softpedia's "adware" tag because Threatfire doesn't give you updates without your consent to send off information and therefore is basically useless and functionally equal to Softpedia's tag for "adware". Especially for dial-up users who can't download the program or updates all the time!
I agree with what you have said. Technically the toolbar etc., are not adware.
However, there is the issue of "consent". The installation does not require your consent to install, it requires you non-consent not to install. Adding unnecessary software and changing home page without consent is adware to me.
I think the problem with this use of the term "adware" is that it is too broad.
Too many safe programs would get the term. It defeats the purpose of the term and makes it nearly a reduction to absurdity argument against their use of the word "adware."
If we define a negative use of a word, like "danger here," and our functional definition of dangerous items includes kitty cats because they happen to have claws, then we have just turned our definition into a joke. Softpedia, for me, gets very, very close to absurd with their use of "adware"!
Are IOBit products, Comodo, Winamp, Vuze, Threatfire (in my view it meets their definition of "adware"), Spyware Doctor, Spy Sweeper, Google Toolbar, Nero 7, JetAudio 7.5, AVG antivirus 8.5, or Avira 9 scary?
Shall we continue adding to this "adware" list? Pretty soon all our top picks will get in as "dangerous"! Here kitty, kitty!
I took a look at their top download list. Out of the top 5 downloads on Softpedia, 3 of them are "adware." #7 Nexus Radio is. Nero is.
It reminds me of Wizard of Oz ... misguided fear of lions, tigers, and bears ... oh my!
(Sorry for the fun; it's early.)
Good point. Softpedia's adware definition may be out of date.
It used to be that freeware did not have these toolbar addons, but they are becoming more commonplace nowadays and there should be a different definition for these. They are not adware as most people would understand it (as you have said).
Still I think there should be some designation for these, as those software makers who resist the money from these addons should have some credit.
I know WinPatrol was offered this (and the money would have been good) and refused.
How about "nagware"?
They nag you by forcing you to click "uncheck" every couple dialog boxes.
how about 'sponsorware' or 'searchware'
I like sponsorware.
How about "optionware" for those with opt-out issue?
Softpedia has since changed its "Adware" tag to "Ad-supported"
The definition and criteria for "Ad-supported" remains the same as it was for "Adware". Only the name for it has changed.
Post new comment