Botnets! Ever increasing Threat!!

[Guest]

[Melih]

Well we will give our products for free to them!!!

Melih

[gibran]

Really. It is a major obstacle, something difficult to be broken, because most of the people only see the OS itself, and does not see (or understand) anything more.

This is a great idea, but I don't know if this can be implemented in a short or medium term. Does such companies really interested in something like that?

Maybe did they will first analyze the profit they will get, before trying something like that. And perhaps this profit is not enough to make them implement this.

Even using free solutions, we have to remember that someone (their employees) will have to install and test the solutions, and this will cost time and money.

Regards.

Actually they bundle a 60 days demo Usually norton
After users see their system crawl they'll simply uninstall norton and live without protection.
Worse they'll keep norton and will never update it after expiration.

[marcos.zy]

Well we will give our products for free to them!!!

Melih

Sorry, I had edited my post while you was writing yours. 

[MikeG]

Sorry, I had edited my post while you was writing yours. 

Interesting thread...

Yes a lot of companies who supply computers do sell them with Norton (Urghhh!) or McCaffee (nearly as bad) on them because they probably get a kick back from those companies and it makes them look good in their adverts (i.e. 'All our computers come with Security software installed' etc.)

The worrying trend is that in a recent survey on computers that I saw the other day 33% of those questioned said that they did not have a Firewall or any Security software installed. That I find very alarming. No wonder these nasties take hold so quickly! (Needs Smilie holding up hands in horror) 

Luckily with two of my sons in the computer industry I was made well aware of the risks. 

Mike.

[landsker]

I think the problem with the allow/deny pop-up, generally, is that most are rather technical and the average user does not understand them.
Plain English explanations would help, I think, perhaps with a simple explanation of the pros and cons of allowing or denying.

[marcos.zy]

I think that the availability of security solutions in a greater number of languages is also a important factor, mainly when thinking in offer it to PC manufacturers install in their computer for sale (OEM).

Many people around the world does not understands english, and in that case, the popups and another messages from firewall or another security solution will not make any effect, and possibly the user will make the only thing he cans and/or knows: "simply close the popup".

I think that any effort in this direction would be also very interesting.

[Japo]

Comodo may very well sell (for free) its products to computer sellers. An OEM has three choices:

• Selling their computers without protection. That's bad and besides their competitors could claim that their own products are safer because they come with a Norton demo.
  
• Including licenced security products that cost money. That would raise the computer's price and make it less appealing to customers.
  
• Including free security products, for example Comodo's. That doesn't have any of the aforementioned disadvantages, and it may be as safe as a paid product if the free product is. (And no firewall is safer than CFP and BOClean will always add a great deal of safety.) If the products pestered about an upgrade to premium version that may be a disadvantage, but that won't happen with Comodo.
  

So OEMs are not into including free security products right now, and they can't be expected to change their mind tomorrow morning. But I can't see any reason they won't change it some day. Go Melih go email them.

CFP 3 with D+, and also CFP 2, may be too noisy for the average user. (Yes I know that D+ is remarkably silent for the protection it grants, but still most people want zero popups.) I tend to think that people can live without an outbound firewall, specially since all new Windows machines will be more secure because of Vista and its default User Account Control, and basic firewall. But I think that any sensible OEM could be convinced now at least to include BOClean (CAVS in the future) in its machines.

 

[Melih]

I agree there should be zero popup.. thank to our Patented Clean PC mode, when the user turns their machine on, there will be ZERO popup anyway! Cos it will be a clean machine.. as they start loading software, if the software not in the safelist then it might cause popups..

however, we will solve the ZERO popup problem... the solution is called TC!!!

Melih

[weaker]

I absolutely agree with Japo. That's what I was saying pages ago. People don't care and don't want to see anything. If you say: "Here is my security package and that protects you at no cost and won't ask questions AND everything works like before." Then (and only then) people will say: "OK, fine, I'll take it."

Average users are helpless with even one single pop-up. Unfortunately.

[Japo]

I agree there should be zero popup.. thank to our Patented Clean PC mode, when the user turns their machine on, there will be ZERO popup anyway! Cos it will be a clean machine.. as they start loading software, if the software not in the safelist then it might cause popups..

Yes and I think that the clean PC mode is a great idea. But as soons as something is updated, not to mention if something must be installed, popups will appear. As reasonable as they are and as safe as D+ is, that would cause a lot of support calls for the OEM. If any I would recommend to publicize to OEMs D+ separately from your other set-and-forget programs.

Patented yet? Not pending any longer? That's good to hear.

however, we will solve the ZERO popup problem... the solution is called TC!!!

And you're not talking about Trust Connect... Oh boy when are you telling us?

[gibran]

I absolutely agree with Japo. That's what I was saying pages ago. People don't care and don't want to see anything. If you say: "Here is my security package and that protects you at no cost and won't ask questions AND everything works like before." Then (and only then) people will say: "OK, fine, I'll take it."

Average users are helpless with even one single pop-up. Unfortunately.

I don't think it's fair pushing such heavy weight on a 3rd party alone. While Comodo is steadily advancing toward a Secure Internet there would be no way to protect users that don't take time to learn about the current threats nor how to properly use a security software.That is the ultimate goal but it cannot really accomplished. Security is like a chain, its strength equals its weakest joint. If that is the user it will be the user.

Safety, Security and Clean are common words that carry different meaning when are used by madmans, common people  and tech savvy users. Like a writer could write a novel with a pen, other people can take notes with it while madmans can use a pen to harm people. And a pen is such a simple device...

A software is like a black box and people usually are only able to figure only part of its external appearance. When an user can actually misuse a software to damage his system or use a function that worked the intended way and blame the software for the results is there a way to prevent this? If a legit software is usually harmless but it can be exploited to work in a malicious way can we call that software secure?

There are countless of question like this and the answer is usually too subtle for a computer to grasp when usually many people cannot.

Comodo safelist has a great potential yet to be leveraged and I can hardly wait to see new features to come.
Meantime I'll learn to use CFP and CMG properly

[Burillo]

Again, community-driven safelist... if a user like me who tries a lot of different stuff could simply push a button to submit a security rule to COMODO - the safelist would be much stronger! Of course this is a potential security threat - a guy sets a rule for the trojan he just wrote, other user receives it, opens up and CFP automatically downloads rules for it and it installs silently... But if a Comodo server could gather all the rules for one program and choose the most common (like everyone sets "Allow all outgoing" to Skype, and server picks this rule and makes it default for this application) that would minimize the risk... Of course if a bunch of people start checking the rules it would be too long to work effectively - therefore i recommend automatic process... Or maybe a special volunteer group (in which i would gladly participate ) of users who could get a bunch of new rules to approve...

[weaker]

[ at ]gibran: I'm not pushing heavy weights to a third party.
The problem is: If there is no such thing from a thrid party, people rather go unprotected than fighting pop-ups. You can't help people that don't understand and don't want to invest any energy to understand.
That's why I say: Make it noisefree or try to educate the masses. Both are nontrivial tasks but the latter seems to be a little harder to me.

[marcos.zy]

Can we expect (or understand) that the files already sent today through CFP 3 and his  "submit suspicious files" function, is a part, or will do one day, of this "community-driven safelist" tool/way of work?

[Japo]

Can we expect (or understand) that the files already sent today through CFP 3 and his  "submit suspicious files" function, is a part, or will do one day, of this "community-driven safelist" tool/way of work?

Well in a way it is, only much safer because Comodo checks everything. If Comodo trusted "the community" completely, that would be a huge security risk that everyone might regret. Yes Comodo could trust only the rules/whatever submitted by a big enough number of people, but if there's one thing cybercriminals are good at, it's spamming en masse.

[Tags:]