This was bug in previous version.
It is fixed now.
This issue was FIXED! And now it doesn’t !
thanks siketa
Hi All. Please, take a look, that this is in the section of FIXED issues of this topic!
appreciate it sergey
I can’t install a portable version. Autoupdate does not work.
I downloaded a file from a website and tried to install the portable version.
Installation was successful, but I can not launch the browser. After launching a browser error message appears: “Whoa! Comodo Dragon has crashed. Relaunch now?”
Relaunching and reinstalling did not help.
OS: Win7x64
How can you install a portable version? 
I used an appropriate checkbox in the installer. According to my investigation the root cause is in Preferences file in Comodo\Dragon\User Data\Default
When I deleted it, the browser has successfully launched.
This is madness 
After a clean installation of the browser and logging in to the Google account Themes and Extensions was not synchronized.
Bookmarks, password and history are synchronized successfully.
What’s wrong with this version? I used CD almost three years and didn’t experience any significant problems with it.
Auto-update doesn’t work. Says ‘‘not properly singed’’.
:-TD
With all due respect, the dismissive response of its been fixed is minimizing the real question of why it had the flaw to begin with and while it had it, clearly it wasn’t working as advertised and yet there was no notice about it to the users until they were caught with it and fixed it. So a bit less high and mighty its been fixed and more like we failed to provide the privacy and security advertised and have resolved its failure would be the more appropriate response. Especially that now that it has happened at least once that we know, it means it can happen again, this shakes the trust in the developers and maintainers of the so called faster, more secure version of Chrome .
Just saying, especially that its not always faster and certainly not always more secure. A failed attempt to secure something can undo more security than leaving it alone, so that’s something to consider. I like the project and I have supported it since it started, but doesn’t mean it should get too high on itself, it has its flaws and not as quick to remedy them as you would like. I have been mostly communicating using the private support channels but had to finally sign up here and say my piece more openly. Because I feel that as long as its kept private, the company has the tendency to hide and remedy their problems then admit them.
Additionally, there are a few introduced mistakes that are greatly affecting the function of v30 which I will post in bugs instead, but wanted to put my two cents on this subject here.
There may have been some slight issues with privacy but none with security. How about the millions who use the Chrome browser and accept it’s so called “flaws”? Contrary to the beliefs of some, Google is not some evil entity bent on our destruction. To me this is making mountains out of molehills.
Actually your response bordering on fanboy-ism is more of a mountain out a molehill than my comment on attitude towards several users who posted concern and were summarily dismissed as if they had no value. I argued their posts had value as much as all the +1 YAYs that the update notification got.
I don’t care about the millions of herds of anything that follow anything blindly or do what they might, their right, their choice, their consequences, not my concern to judge them or care. You are comparing things that are unrelated. Google is indeed evil and if you need proof, then you haven’t been paying attention. To what extent you surrender to the devil is your choice and just because you surrender a little here or there, doesn’t mean you have given up or should be considered inconsequential.
Anytime one favors the hedonistic side, it can be argued we have danced with the devil, but did you give up your right to be a human or a person of value? Nope. But if you are going to compare this project with Google, and somehow say that since they are evil and we are less evil, we are still the lesser of two demons so accept it. Then your argument is seriously flawed as Google, never claimed Chrome was the safer and faster option, Comodo DID. So with that claim comes expectations and fidelity to the mission of it, simple as that. To hold someone to it should be the norm, not the exception, so when its done, its not a mountain, its duty under a social contract established by the claim and the user’s acceptance to enter into it with you. Where you fail, you are responsible to them, simple.
Now that you have successfully turned the molehill into a mountain, shall we call this a draw or you want to go again?
I’m confused, is Google being evil by evicting poor moles from their homes to construct mountains… or is that Dch48?
Seriously, I’d be grateful if posts were a little less confrontational*. Thanks.
*Reviewing the Forum Policy is good idea before embarking on this type of post. [nobbc]:)[/nobbc]
I know all about how Google operates and they are not evil in any way. I own a Google tablet and use many of their products and services. I couldn’t care less what goes on behind them because I know they are not harmful in any way.
Comodo says Dragon is faster and safer and guess what, even with this small slipup, it was and is. It was no big deal.
First off, I had no intent to be confrontational or anything of the sort, read my post, it was intended to simply give voice to those I agreed with and felt were getting the brush. Dch48 decided to to attack ME for speaking my mind politely and concisely directed to someone else. Also I wasn’t the one who said or brought into the conversation anything about anyone being evil.
Second, I was simply responding to what I perceived was another effort by someone who felt they could talk down to someone with less post count and be condescending about something that wasn’t their place beyond giving their opinion, in which case should not have been directed as an attack on me. If they had a valid point, they should have simply stated it and argued for it logically.
Third, Even then I didn’t attack the person, I simply stated my position against what they said. Offered them a draw to drop it at the end since I have better things to do than to engage in petty banter with someone I don’t know and couldn’t care less about. This is a technical forum and I shouldn’t have to teach anyone social etiquette. But after 20 years in the Corp as a Major, I won’t be strong armed into silence by anyone either, especially one post pumping by hijacking comments to someone else who made it.
So in summary, my intent was not to come here to confront anyone, or to engage in any type of posts like this so you and I both would be grateful for the civility. I appreciate your input and agree with you completely but its a two way road, I can’t be the only one. :-TU
BTW, Dch48 made the mountain but Google is STILL evil >:-D
That’s a concession that is YOUR choice, what happens to your emails, data, life and how they profit from it by selling you as a commodity is between you and them. But the only way you can know all about Google as you claim is to be Google and I highly doubt you are. Care to share how you KNOW all about it, please share so the rest of us can know too and therefore become loyal subject of the kingdom of Google and submit as well.
Comodo says Dragon is faster and safer and guess what, even with this small slipup, it was and is. It was no big deal.
Probably, and yeah we can probably accept it was a small mistake but what is insignificant to you may not be to others and frankly on a matter of principle, a failure is a failure is a failure when it doesn’t match the mission, no matter how you slice it. The fact that a small one happened means another can happen and how long before its a BIG one? Seems to you, nothing is a big one since you operate on the default that since any failure is covered by Google as a failsafe, we are all dandy. Which begs the question that if Google is so perfect and therefore the Chrome they make is perfect, why do we need Dragon to make improvements on it?
BTW, I promised @kail at least for myself that I won’t engage in this kind of waste, so consider this my last reply out of courtesy and principle, if you wish to continue it, make sure its actually related to something technologically useful to the function of the software as that’s the only reason I am here investing my time, not to have petty discussions.
I never attacked anyone in particular. I simply said that the uproar by some about a small glitch that had absolutely no security compromises involved was an overreaction. Security and privacy are not analogous. They are two different things. One involves malware and criminal activity, The other involves legal business practices that can be annoying but in the end are innocuous . Connecting to Google’s servers is not a security risk. Comodo’s response that the issue had been fixed is all the response that is needed.
OT but … Nice to see you here GµårÐïåñ, I was sad to see Google had not progressed the API needed for Chrome NoScript dev yet
Hey great to be here. I know that Giorgio hasn’t had a chance to get passed the massively lacking and pathetic Google API for Chrome to implement a “GREAT” solution, but I am working with someone else who has made some progress working with what we’ve got and shows great promise, might want to take a look at HTTP Switchboard, we’re on Git and the link to CWS is there to get it. I run it on my semi-production machine, works great and we have some options that can make it TRULY secure but will take some patience, so choose wisely.
(:NRD)
[u]
- ANY ACCESS TO GOOGLE SERVER THAT IS NOT STRICTLY PERMITTED IS EVIL. THAT’S HOW THEY GATHER DATA THAT THEY SELL WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. NOT EVERYONE CHOOSES TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE GUISE OF ITS FINE. *[/u]