Author Topic: Another COMODO EULA controversy  (Read 40041 times)

Offline Maxxwire

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Not Another COMODO EULA Controversy, Just a Rehash
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2010, 04:36:14 PM »
The Polish Blogger begins with...

Controversy over Comodo

As the dotTech, there are three problems:

Blah, blah, blah like Bad Frogger pointed out all of those issues were discussed in detail and resolved last year. Dredging up these previously published and resolved issues at Comodo's expense in order to gain a few minutes of fame should place this wannabe in the Blogger's Hall of Shame.

~Maxx~

Offline J2897

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Limted User Account Enforcer
    • YouTube Channel
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2010, 04:47:53 PM »
Personally, I think it should be removed from the EULA.

I use Security Software in the hope that it will prevent people from getting to my data.

Offline Bad Frogger

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1511
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2010, 05:26:36 PM »
That's the point that seems to get lost in the legalese.
Nobody is doing anything to, or with Your data.

All your base are belong to you.

Bad

CIS    Firefox  NoScript  Please remember to follow The Forum Policy.

Offline Breen

  • Product Translator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2010, 05:49:39 PM »
That's the point that seems to get lost in the legalese.
Nobody is doing anything to, or with Your data.

All your base are belong to you.

Bad


You're right.. but, why EULA is not precise enough? There shoud be info when, and what information is collected..Not everyone is a lawyer.

Offline Chiron

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11951
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2010, 06:04:57 PM »
I could be wrong but isn't this the sort of legalise(probably not a word but deal with it) that allows them to upload suspicious files to Comodo servers to be tested? They technically need to own the file in order to create a signature for it. I assume the wording is to cover circumstances such as this.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :-\

Offline BigMike

  • Product Translator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2010, 07:15:39 PM »
I'm no lawyer, but since EULA's of most software contain a clause, that you don't own, but only license a copy of a product, you can't grant "ownership" to COMODO. Actually you are not allowed to distribute most products or components, so the security software's submitting features may not be used for most files.

For example the corresponding excerpt of the CIS 4.0.x.716 beta EULA.rtf:
Quote
No Ownership Rights.  The Products are being licensed, not sold.  Comodo retains all ownership rights in and to all Products, including any intellectual property rights therein.

In fact, the EULA forbids you to submit such files:
Quote
Compliance.  You shall ... (3) not use the Products to infringe the privacy or intellectual property rights of a third party;

Even worse - you may not submit malware:
Quote
(4) not use the Products to distribute or transmit any file that contains malware,

That renders CIS's submitting feature theoretically unusable if you want to comply to the EULA.
But most users will breach with the EULA without even noticing, since the auto submit feature for unknown files is enabled by default...

Offline Bad Frogger

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1511
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2010, 07:22:08 PM »
FYI All,

I have lodged a request to see if they will part with some specifics.

I'm currently going into a holding pattern on this one.

Bad

PS: I'm no lawyer either, but I do note that if they wrote in straight up clear language, we wouldn't need to hire them and pay big bucks to have them decipher each others crap. ;)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 07:27:57 PM by Bad Frogger »
CIS    Firefox  NoScript  Please remember to follow The Forum Policy.

Offline Maxxwire

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2010, 08:24:17 PM »
For example the corresponding excerpt of the CIS 4.0.x.716 beta EULA.rtf:
In fact, the EULA forbids you to submit such files:
Even worse - you may not submit malware:
That renders CIS's submitting feature theoretically unusable if you want to comply to the EULA.
But most users will breach with the EULA without even noticing, since the auto submit feature for unknown files is enabled by default...

To those uneducated in the legal language of EULA agreements it would appear as though Comodo is blatantly encouraging people to violate its own EULA by using the auto submit feature which is precisely why a lawyer is needed to interpret the terms of the EULA agreement and refrain from non-professional interpretations which can lead to gross misunderstandings about what it actually means.

~Maxx~

Offline SiberLynx

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2194
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2010, 09:32:55 PM »
So does this mean Comodo have the right to take Files from my PC silently?
Hi J2897,
 
Well, I don't think so (despite any info taken is a "file", what else?)
Depends on what "Files" do you mean.

Developers will reply, I hope. Then, at least that's openly stated about gathering info.

At the same time we do know for sure that MS can indeed change any file silently on our systems
There are articles, and that was even discussed in the forum in the past, so they can take anything as well (why not?).
I am not talking about "the patches auto-updates"... but we still are using Windows

Cheers!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 09:40:05 PM by SiberLynx »
Main OS - Ubuntu
XP Pro, SP3 (32bit), Admin; Comodo Firewall 3.14.130099.587; Proactive with Defense+; Emsisoft Anti-Malware v9; Sandboxie
Win 7 x64, Admin (UAC off); Win7 advanced FW +TinyWall; Emsisoft Anti-Malware v9; Sandboxie
Win 7 Ultimate 32bit (UAC off); Emsisoft Internet Security v9 beta

Offline andyman35

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2010, 10:22:26 PM »
I'm sure he meant targeted advertising, like if you use the search engine.

Have a lovely day.
Bad



Yes that's correct.I realise that using the word spamming may have given the wrong impression since of course your email address doesn't need to be given.I'm thinking more on the lines of those Google ads that appear on some sites (I use Opera so don't see the things  ;) ).

Of course nobody knows exactly what data may be passed onto 3rd parties and how any such data could be used.

Offline andyman35

  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2010, 10:33:16 PM »
[at]BigMike

In fact, the EULA forbids you to submit such files:

"Compliance.  You shall ... (3) not use the Products to infringe the privacy or intellectual property rights of a third party;"

That refers to downloading/distributing copyrighted materials such as music + films,sending a suspicious file to Comodo for analysis doesn't constitute illegal file sharing otherwise Virustotal would be in the courts every week. ;D

Even worse - you may not submit malware:
" not use the Products to distribute or transmit any file that contains malware"

The wording there could be interpreted as you say,although that wasn't of course its intention.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2010, 10:35:17 PM by andyman35 »

Offline layman

  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2010, 02:09:10 AM »
The EULA also mentions that the privacy statement of Comodo website will prevail (though it refers to www.comodo.com\privacy - which does not exist). So, isn't it that the following link is the current privacy policy of Comodo? That does not state that personal information will be collected without consent or will be sold etc. etc.


http://www.comodo.com/repository/privacy-policy.php

Offline BigMike

  • Product Translator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2010, 04:10:01 AM »
I'm pretty sure, that it isn't intended this way (for practical use), but I didn't interpret much - it's simply the content of the EULA. Also software is "copyrighted material". I can't find any hint that only music or movies are affected. Simply, because this isn't the case!

And you're right, it's the same as it's for VirusTotal or any other security solution offering to submit files:
Probably you're breaching with the EULA of the corresponding product, the files belonging to, by submitting the files.

Offline Ronny

  • Retired - Product Translator
  • Global Moderator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 13551
  • Retired - Volunteer Moderator
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2010, 04:43:14 PM »
Even worse - you may not submit malware:
" not use the Products to distribute or transmit any file that contains malware"
Beware that this document is not only about CIS, also about TrustConnect and others like Hopsurf.
With TrustConnect you can "submit" files that will "enter the internet" over the servers of Comodo, so in theory it's their IP address that can get linked to these file transmissions....
Retired - Volunteer Moderator
Any concerns? Please send me a PM or review the Forum Policy -  update Jan 3rd 2013!

Offline BigMike

  • Product Translator
  • Comodo's Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Another COMODO EULA controversy
« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2010, 05:19:14 PM »
Beware that this document is not only about CIS, also about TrustConnect and others like Hopsurf.
With TrustConnect you can "submit" files that will "enter the internet" over the servers of Comodo, so in theory it's their IP address that can get linked to these file transmissions....
Maybe different EULA's for the different products would make some things clearer. By the way there are also paragraphs for the different products.

My point is, that something should be done about the formulations of the EULA. The further, the better! As it's now, it's a waste of time to read it. Afterwards you still have to guess, what you're allowed to do and what's not allowed.

The "file transmission clause" was just an example to make this clear.

 

Free Endpoint Protection
Seo4Smf 2.0 © SmfMod.Com Smf Destek