comodo antivirus opensource

[sarah]

i think comodo should be open source so more ppl can contribute to its code what do you think


clamav is pretty successful and its open source same goes for firefox

if comodo av was open source it would almost certainly become the number 1 antivirus


post wether you think it should or should not be open source

[ganda]

i think comodo should be open source so more ppl can contribute to its code what do you think


clamav is pretty successful and its open source same goes for firefox

if comodo av was open source it would almost certainly become the number 1 antivirus


post wether you think it should or should not be open source

why should it? ClamAv is opensource and it's not the number one.
linux is opensource, but my uncle Bill is still the richest person on earth

[Japo]

That's a decision for the developers in my opinion, and it seems they have already taken it, presumably for a reason.

[aladinonl]

why should it? ClamAv is opensource and it's not the number one.

ganda, how abt FF, browser which has largest number of loyal supporters; or Keepass, best password manager. And by the way, ClamAV is the best AV for linux machine tho.

linux is opensource, but my uncle Bill is still the richest person on earth

cannot take linux to compare w Bill's crap coz da damn nice guy who created linux gav his piece for free, and dat's da purpose of an open-source program.

[Japo]

da damn nice guy who created linux gav his piece for free, and dat's da purpose of an open-source program.

Open source implies giving the product for free (and many other things whose desirability may be questionable), but giving the product for free doesn't imply opening the source code (see Comodo).

[panic]

Making a security application open source is like asking every person in the world to come inside and let you know whether they think your doorlocks secure you well enough. The main problem is that you have no control over who is looking, why they are looking and what they will do with any information they gain from looking.

Open source security = open door policy.

JMHO
Ewen

[Japo]

Open source security = open door policy.

Oh my, that just reminded me of some hilarious stuff:

http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=071009

[ganda]

cannot take linux to compare w Bill's crap coz da damn nice guy who created linux gav his piece for free, and dat's da purpose of an open-source program.

yeah, i mean M$ windows (not open source,not free) have more users than linux. long live uncle bill
Ganda

[aladinonl]

Open source implies giving the product for free (and many other things whose desirability may be questionable), but giving the product for free doesn't imply opening the source code (see Comodo).

tru, dats why i said free is a purpose of open-source (or another way: open-source is free). I didn't say its free, therefore its open-source.

yeah, i mean M$ windows (not open source,not free) have more users than linux. long live uncle bill
Ganda

yep, Its better doesnt mean it has mor users...
In order for a product to be popular, it needs mor dan jus quality. Sumtimes we tried burger or chicken w fries in some small foodhouse and regconized: "damn, this is a lot better dan McDonald's or KFC." but dat small foodhouse is stil there and u mite never see it becomes popular.

Most ops (open-source) is developed and run by some volunteers who obviously dun haf enuf resource to mak their products popular to compete w some closed-source apps which r owned by companies (meaning money and professional).

But Comodo has resource to do so (mak its products become most popular).

However, like ewen said, i'm not sure if its a good idea to mak comodo's ops.

[Japo]

In order for a product to be popular, it needs mor dan jus quality. Sumtimes we tried burger or chicken w fries in some small foodhouse and regconized: "damn, this is a lot better dan McDonald's or KFC." but dat small foodhouse is stil there and u mite never see it becomes popular.

McDonald's also started as one small foodhouse, and it was successful because its food was tasty. (EDIT: And apparently because it was fast above all, see here for the facts. The Wikipedia article has MD's bashing instead of objective information --the editors have placed a warning in it.) And if another small business had the same success, I'm sure its food would become so-so just like McDonald's. (But perhaps more, uh, sterile. )

Most ops (open-source) is developed and run by some volunteers who obviously dun haf enuf resource to mak their products popular to compete w some closed-source apps which r owned by companies (meaning money and professional).

I don't think it's only a matter of resources. Of course open source limits the income you can get from a product, because to start with you won't be able to sell it outright. But you can have other sources of big buck income (like Mozilla Corporation or Sun's and IBM's involvement with OpenOffice). Sometimes open-source is a damn good idea even with big resources. Well it's true that theoretically you could always hire all the helping hands you may get from the community, but still.

This is an example, it's not about a program but about formats:

http://www.opendesign.com/membership/sustain.htm

Many big business are members of the Open Design Alliance. When AutoCAD became so popular, other vendors were forced to work with its format if they wanted a piece of the market. So they ended up forming a foundation (actually a non-profit corporation) whose purpose was basically to crack AutoCAD's format! This benefits all the members of the alliance, and in the end the customer who will get to choose from more programs than just AutoCAD (what is really nice for 3D CAD). (BTW AutoCAD now also has its own open format along with the closed one.)

Since the issue of open source security arises now and then, I just added a link to the cartoon to my signature...

[gordon]

Making a security application open source is like asking every person in the world to come inside and let you know whether they think your doorlocks secure you well enough. The main problem is that you have no control over who is looking, why they are looking and what they will do with any information they gain from looking.

Open source security = open door policy.

JMHO
Ewen

Security by obscurity does not work
The evil people you are referring to are going to have a go at the
code of any security-software they can get their hands on and most of them wont tell about it,
just exploit it. better to make it easy for the real hacks to look at the code as they will tell
about their findings (or even provide solutions)

Your equation is just wrong : what is safest ? Open Source software running on open-source OS
or closed source software running on closed-source m$-OS ?
When was the last time you heard a Linux-user complain about viruses,worms and spyware ?

[panic]

When was the last time you heard a Linux-user complain about viruses,worms and spyware ?

Malware, in whatever form, is now about commercial gain. They attack Windows because Windows is the dominant platform and provides the greatest potential gain. As soon as Linux becomes simple enough for Mr. and Mrs. Average to install, use and administer and it gains sufficient penetration, some of the malware focus will shift to it.

Whether we like it or not, an intrinsic part of security is obscurity. The very nature of security is based around a need-to-know. Those who need to know - do. Those who don't - are obscured.

On our 3500-odd seat LAN at work, there are only 19 people who have the big picture on how our IT security is strung together. The lowest level of users are aware that there are security measures in place, but don't understand it. They don't need to understand it, nor should they have to.

In a perfect world, everything would be open. Similarly, I would be tall, thin, handsome, rich and perpetually youthful. 

Cheers,
Ewen

[Someone]

Open to be audited.
Obscure to be obscure.
Security - code, architecture.

About CAVS - this is really up to them, not users.

[Melih]

the reason why people like open source is cos the source code is open to review etc..


now

1)How many users review the code? (I mean, how about the person who wants CAV open source, would you review the source code and know and extract if anything is

2)Whose word should one trust when reviewing open source code? Is there a central authority who reviews open source and says there is nothing wrong in it? How about competitors disgusied as reviewers knocking the sofware?

Don't get me wrong, i do support open source, however open source does not mean lets get everything open source. It has its uses, like ability to start projects by getting volunteers to help write code etc, however taking an already developed code making it open source, especially when we have our own developers and resources.

Melih

[xiuhcoatl]

One of the main reasons LINUX has fewer viruses is that obviously if you are trying to attack a software/OS you a going to attack a software/OS that is in greater use thus a greater opportunity for your virus to spread.  This is true especially in the case of bots where greater volume means greater power for Spam and DOS attacks.

I too fully support open source.  It gives greater variety in development and is a great opportunity to learn how things work. However, I agree with Panic that Open source security is closer to an open door policy.

I would rather it is necessary to work a little to find the possible back doors and open windows

From my experience Comodo is a lot more open with info than many vendors

OD

When was the last time you heard a Linux-user complain about viruses,worms and spyware ?