Desulpe the intrusion, but I think he wants the web filter improved. Like other competitors in search results show icons with green (safe) yellow(represents risk) and red (site contains malicious content is blocked).
see the attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Most of what Space_Marine is describing is already being done by PrivDog or by the Web Filter (albeit not well by the web filter’s lackluster database). In order to forward this for voting I would need to narrow down exactly what would be the most important enhancement. At this point I wasn’t sure if Space_Marine was aware of PrivDog.
liosant, I understand your wish about showing the icons. That is one which, if you wish, you could create a new Wish Request topic and I could forward that for voting (assuming you’re saying it should be done automatically through the web filter for supported browsers).
I hope that this explanation was helpful. Space_Marine, please do let me know what your thoughts are on this matter.
Thank you.
First, I’m sorry about talking about other competitors, but I have to explain using the products names. If you have to delete my post after reading, it’s ok and I understand.
liosant is right. To be honest I don’t like and don’t use Privdog. Basically it only changes the Ad’s with safe Ad’s of it’s own database. I’m not talking about Ad’s only. I’m talking of something like Avast Online Security or Bitdefender TrafficLight with the icons on search providers results. But also pop-up blocker function, automatic cookie destruction upon exiting a website, and also blocking any malicious code from being loaded upon entering an infected website.
For example: You search something on google, and the results have green/yellow/red “C” (like Comodo’s “C” desktop icon) in front of them. Then you enter an website. Upon closing the browser window or separator, the cookies are automatically deleted. You type a website url wrong, so you are redirected to a malicious site. Since you didn’t search for the website, you couldn’t see the icon on the search providers results. So this extension should also block any website that has malicious code in it (a bit like Avast’s webfilter blocks malicious code). And this extension should have an online database (Comodo’s servers) and an offline one (the users pc). Or only an offline one that is updated when the virus definitions are updated.
I suggest this offline database because of Bitdefender Trafficlight. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all. It keeps loading, and loading… for hours. I think it has an online database, and for some reason can’t connect (maintence or something) so it does nothing to protect you. But when it works, it works really well blocking phishing sites, malicious code, tracking cookies, malware, etc etc etc.
So, since Comodo is all about prevention, I think this could be a great addition to it.
Chiron, I’m aware of your articles in Techsupportalert website. This one is a perfect example:
https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/how-harden-your-browser-against-malware-and-privacy-concerns.htm
The above article is nice example of what this extension should be. You’ve already done the homework. Join all of the most important extensions you selected and you basically have the perfect security extension. I know an All-In-One can have it’s disadvantages, but if it was created right, the user could also select what options to activate or deactivate (like Avast Online Security and Bitdefender Trafficlight).
One more thing. Avast saves it’s changes in cookie format, so if the cookies are deleted, it reverts to the default options. This design is not good. So, I would also suggest not using the “save the extension options on a cookie” plan for obvious reasons.
First, I’d like to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using other product names. I know that some other forums have rules against that, and I’ve never understood that. It’s absolutely allowed here.
Second, I don’t use Privdog either (although I will point out that there is the option to just have it remove ads and not replace them with its own). The reason I mentioned adding these as wishes for Privdog is that I know that Comodo has plans to drastically improve Privdog, and extend the types of threats which it protects users against. I don’t know too much, and there is a little I do know which I can’t share. >:-D
However, I can say that I’m nearly certain that Comodo will not consider adding anything into the Web Blocker which is already protected against by Privdog. The assumption is that users who want that protection are using the included extension. I know it’s probably not the best answer, but I’m being honest.
However, having the option to provide real-time analysis of sites (for supported browsers of course) is a possible wish (although it’s also possible it would be rejected if they are planning on incorporating this into Privdog). That said, I don’t know that is the case, and therefore it would be an acceptable wish.
Also, and I know this is a bit of an annoying restriction, but a topic can only have a single specified wish. Your first post is also a bit too vague, as it lists many possible enhancement. If you like we can continue this conversation until we reach a small number of enhancement requests. At that time you could create a Wish Request topic for each.
Please feel free to ask me any questions you like.
Thank you.
Thanks for the reply.
Ok, by now you already have the ideia of what I’m trying to say. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Amtso’s anti-malware test. There’s a phishing website test that Comodo fails. I don’t use Privdog, but since Comodo Web Filter blocks one of the Eicar download test files with a message in browser, I’m thinking Privdog isn’t protecting against phishing either. I use BD Trafficlight, and it does a good job (when it works). Since Comodo’s Web filter only blocks 130+/- sites, this is not good enough. But if Privdog is going to add a lot of extra protection in a near future, let’s wait and see.
The the other main wish is the website real-time analysis. As you don’t know if they will incorporate this in Privdog, I say let’s wait and see a little more. 8)
It would be good to see an icon next to the search result, instead of hoovering the mouse to open a small popup with the websites evaluation like some other extensions work.
I really like CIS, and it’s not really that hard to configure and use, but it’s behind some of it’s competitors in some aspects. So I’m just trying to help ;D
Hi Space_Marine,
I am not against extra protection, but I also do not rely on or use community only related filters.
This would be putting trust into the unknown.
The following quote from the CEO maybe of some interest.
Kind regards.
Cool 8)
Also, I’m not saying to use a community only related filter. That would be nonsense. :azn:
Apologies if my comment in my previous post was a little obscure, my intention was just to clarify what I would not want. 
That would be nonsense. :azn:Agreed. :)
Space_Marine, in that case is there anything which is not already mentioned, or believed to soon be incorporated into Privdog, which you would like to see added to CIS? I know it’s a confusing gray area which we are wading into, but I hope it’s starting to make a little more sense.
Thanks.
Space_Marine either adding a function capable of showing up in search results the level of trustworthiness of the sites that appear in search engines.
Increase in the number of the list of malicious sites, which now is very small. It is possible to do this manually in the web filter, but by a bug, makes it very laborious manual configuration and the user gives up.
As the refusal of PrivDog, many people distrust the genre programs. So the idea of adding the functions suggested by Space_Marine should not be discarded.
Sorry inconvenience!
liosant is right. Comodo forcing PrivDog installation to add this or more layers of protection can be a bit confusing to most people, since other competitors don’t use a separate program to do this. But since most of the stuff I “wished” are being added as a part of PrivDog, there’s nothing more to say.
Yes. Despite the fact that PrivDog is going to be the almighty browser protection app, it would be nice to see the Webfilter updated by Comodo, as it is part of CIS and not PrivDog.
And thanks for your pacience Chiron! Is nice to talk to a Moderator that is open-minded ;D
Okay, although I have my doubts about whether the wishes of the sort you mentioned in the first post would be added to the WebFilter component, I am willing to forward a Wish Request to the Waiting Area for voting.
However, please edit your first post so that it focuses on the most important wish. Currently your first post mentions many different wishes in one post. In order to be forwarded to the Waiting Area it must focus on one particular enhancement.
Thank you.
I guess you didn’t understand. The part about the webfilter was about the Firewall’s Webfilter, not a browser extension. The webfilter’s database is too small for those who don’t use PrivDog.
But I’ll change my post just to focus on the webfilter, since Melih is including most of my wishes into PrivDog’s next updates.
Thank you, although just a clarification, it’s not entirely clear when those additional protection features will be incorporated into PrivDog. There is no timetable which I am aware of.
Please let me know when you have edited the first post and would like me to take a look at it.
Thanks.
Space_Marine, I just looked over your first post, and at this moment it just reads that you would like to see the Webfilter database be updated. While I would like to see that as well, it is not the sort of wishes which are processed through here. These wishes are for added functionality, or for current functionality to be changed in some way.
Therefore, while I agree that the biggest problem the webfilter currently has is that it is not updated regularly, I cannot forward that as a wish. Is there another wish which you would like for me to consider?
Thank you.
Sorry, my bad. I’ll change my first post again… :-. It’s a new wish, so if you want to delete the whole conversation, be my guest.If you want me to create a new topic, just say the word and send this to the rejected.
Sorry for the trouble. 88)
No problem at all. I also believe the Webfilter should have been updated much more regularly, but sadly there’s nothing I can do about that.
I see that you have edited your first post. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your new wish, but if you go to Scan, then select Custom Scan, there is an option called “More Scan Options”. Selecting this opens the Advanced Settings tab where all user-created scan profiles are stored. The scan can then be run from there with one click.
Please clarify how you would want this to be handeled differently. For example, I understand that if there was only one user-defined scan created it could possibly be an option to add it to the UI menu. However, what about the times when a user may have created 5 different custom scans. What are your thoughts about this sort of situation?
Thank you.
Sorry, I was literally translating it from the Pt-br version of the program. Can you understand the wish now?
Thank you. Now I understand, and the attached picture was very helpful. :-TU
I made some small changed to your first post. Please let me know if it still looks correct.
I also added a poll. Please let me know if the wording is correct.
Thanks.