As much as I’m sure it would disappoint her, (:TNG)
No, I would not call your posts as cheerleading or sackriding. I found your posts to be fairly unbiased.
You asked questions and made statements, but did not rush to judgement about my personal intent. I appreciate your gesture of giving an open greeting. I hope to stick around, but really that depends on Melih’s decision of whether or not he’s willing to answer my questions with the information I have requested. If he wants to continue with smear attacks, games of diversion, and obfuscation, then there really isn’t a point of sticking around here or trusting Comodo Products.
Why should I try to answer your questions ? I am not interested in them. I am only interested in your motives ( which are questionable in my opinion ).
I understand a lot of people probably feel the same way who have no interest in what modifications are made to their operating system. The issue is, trust is a two way street. There should be no issue with a software developer publicly disclosing the information I have requested. It allows a user to troubleshoot their machine.
This information is especially important when it relates to security products. Security Products are meant to be trusted, but how can you trust a security product from a software developer who refuses to disclose what changes they make to an operating system? It boggles my mind that Melih refuses to admit this, and makes up excuses and creates smears against me in an attempt to silence my request for disclosure.
Yes, CPF is a free product. Comodo proposes that the end-user should trust their product because they claim it is the best. There is nothing wrong either of those things at face value.
The concern and skepticism rests in the fact that Comodo refuses to publicly disclose what it adds to your system, the location of all changes made to a system, and how a user can “manually uninstall” all of those changes without having to depend on an automatic binary tool. This is suspicious behavior of any product, but especially from a security product. Enterpise environments in the corporate world would not tolerate this nonsense, and would refuse to deploy any solution without having this information presented. Whether you’re a home user, a small business, or a corporation, you should not have to go out of your way and be forced to validate that a software developer can be “trusted” because that software developer refuses to disclose how to manually remove their product.
The information requested about the CPF EULA and “manual uninstall” of CPF are not trade trade secrets. They can only be used for to convey transparency/trust of the product and for troubleshooting.
I could go through the steps of having an independent and full software analysis performed, with a clean system, but it could take some effort to be able to track down all changes made to an OS.
If any of these changes are hidden and not visible through the OS itself they will be more difficult to find. This is why the requested information should be public to begin with. Software developers that have genuine and honest intentions will show transparency. Software developers who refuse to release information relating to what files, directories, and registry entries that are associated with an installation of a product exhibit suspicious behavior.
I am a home user, looking to replace an older firewall.
I did some reading on available options. Comodo was one of the potential firewall replacements considered.
As I read here on Comodo’s forums, some questions were raised. I took note that some of these questions had been raised before and intentionally ignored by Comodo Staff.
I registered to the forums and posted a thread under Melih’s Blog in an attempt to get answers to questions which I had some skepticism about.
My original thread was moved by Melih to Off-Topic without a response to any of the questions I had raised about Comodo Personal Firewall. I perceived this action as an attempt to bury my questions in an unrelated forum in the hopes that daily Off-Topic posts would push the thread out of sight. https://forums.comodo.com/index.php/topic,12200.0.html
I mirrored my post to another security forum, based on Melih’s prior action to move the thread in an attempt to bury it.
8 ) Melih responded to my initial post, but did not answer my two main questions. What continued of that discussion Melih intentionally chose to excise from the Blog thread titled ““Give all that for FREE!!! What’s the Catch? How does Comodo Make Money?””
Melih again chose to move those questions which clearly concerned Comodo Personal Firewall to Off-Topic forum in an attempt to bury all questions raised from view. Melih created the thread below and moved all posts after Page 9 from his blog thread to the thread below.
In the process of all posts made to date, Melih has dodged the majority of my questions. Melih has resorted to smears, personal attacks against my character, and petty insults. If he wanted to answer my questions concerning the process of “manual uninstall” and concerns with the CPF EULA with the information I requested, he has had many opportunities to do so.
My motives are perfectly clear. I asked certain questions, I was looking for specific answers. Melih and Comodo so far have refused to publicly disclose what files, files directories, and registry changes that are associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall, the location of all changes made to a system, and how a user can “manually uninstall” all of those changes without having to depend on an automatic binary tool.
I also asked for Melih to address my concerns with the choice made to include a link in section 9 of the CPF EULA.
Melih has not addressed these requests, and instead has resorted of dodging the questions, games of diversion, smear tactics, and petty insults.
Had you read my posts that Melih, moved from his blog thread, when he created a thread in Off-Topic, you would have a better understanding of this thread.
I could, but I see no point in doing so. If a security company who develops and deploys software solutions will not disclose the information I requested, I see no reason to trust that product.
So far I’ve patientally responded to posts and repeated requests in excess of 36 hours in the hopes that Melih would give an honest and straightforward response to a request, which should by all accounts be common public knowledge. If he does not wish to do that, why should I trust his products?
I hope he chooses to share this information I have requested publicly, but I am losing hope based on how he has chosen to respond and stonewall my inquiries.
Presumably you are retired like me, or perhaps an academic enjoying a long summer break, as you clearly have a lot of spare time available?
You have obviously made an extensive study of the inner workings of computer systems and you seem to have very strong opinions about what information security system experts should be expected to give to anonymous enquirers.
I really did think you were from a competing company and a professional software developer with an agenda, although expecting any other forum to support your efforts did seem like surprising naivety for someone used to normal forum policies.
If I have misjudged your motives I apologise, but it does not excuse your original lack of tact.
I have some free time, but it could obviously have been better spent than refuting attacks of my questions over the past couple of days.
My opinion is my own, but I doubt I am the only person who will share this belief either as an individual or representing the security interests of a business/corporation protecting their network.
I’ll state it here right now, to put the accusations against my character to rest.
I do not, nor ever have worked for any corporation or software developer that has released competing products which could be considered a direct competitor of Comodo Personal Firewall
I do not nor ever have worked for a PR firm, think tank, or what could be considered an astroturf campaign.
With that said, my request is not naive, it is common within the IT world. As you can see in the link below, I answered Melih’s claim that this is some extraordinary request by linking to competing products that offer clear public information relating to the “manual uninstall” of those products, both for home users and corporate environments. The comments he made insinuating that this was some extraordinary feat was ridiculous.
What is unordinary is being able to have direct interaction with a CEO on a forum. I even commended having that luxury in a PM to Melih, long before Melih started trying to discredit me.
I’m not sure you really are convinced of my motives, which is fine. I listed my intent, I’m not sure how many times now, and people will make their own choices. All I can do is defend myself against character attacks. I do appreciate your apology though.
You come to this forum cos you claim you are looking for a new firewall…
you started your first post with total FUD…
you say you lost your interest in Comodo…
You say you are not going to help other members in this forum…
I came to this forum because I am looking for a replacement software firewall to compliment hardware firewalls in a home environment. I still am, whether or not it is CPF is and was largely dependent on whether or not I received answers to my requests. So far my requests for disclosure have been stonewalled, skirted around, and dodged.
I recognize your opinion, I disagree with it and have multiple times laid out a thorough explanation of my original post. You may or may not choose to except that explanation but I did take the time to explain my choices.
I have lost faith in the Comodo brand due to your specific actions. You are the CEO of the company therefore you represent the Comodo brand. I asked for direct answers to my questions, and I was met with dodges, smears, attacks on my personal character, and insults.
I was met by everything, but direct answers to my requests.
Is that my responsibility? I am not paid by Comodo. I am simply a potential user who registered on these forums. Melih, I asked you and Comodo to publicly disclose what files, files directories, and registry changes that are associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall, the location of all changes made to a system, and how a user can “manually uninstall” all of those changes without having to depend on an automatic binary tool. The public disclosure of this information itself would help ALL Comodo Personal Firewall users. In that respect, my request is an attempt, not only to answer one of my questions, but it also helps all Comodo Personal Firewall users who wish to troubleshoot their own systems.
I am here waiting to see if you are going to disclose the information I have requested, or end your charade and refuse to release the information. I would also like to know whether or not you or Comodo have any intention of removing the link from section 9 of the CPF EULA.
I find that very difficult to agree with, especially since I have explained my intent and motives in great detail, yet you continue to refuse to address my questions which I have laid forth in great detail. I am also not the CEO who has resorted to smear attacks, and diversions. I asked clear questions, you will not answer them. Will you give a straight answer to my questions? If you have no intention, then why not come out be honest and say you have no intention of answering either questions I have raised.
Why did you start your very first post with a FUD?
Why after claiming that you lost interest still here? I made my answer very clear in my post. Your issue is because I didn’t answer it the way you wanted to hear it and because your intention is to continue with FUD you are doing all this. Obviously you are sticking around and hiding your identity in order to spread further FUD A pathetic attempt at discrediting us and won’t succeed.
I was wrong about you, you have ill intentions.
Now: Forum rules: do not spam or multiple post, you have asked your question (filled with FUD) and you have received your answer. Do not try to multiple post or spam the forum. We do keep a fair and open forum and do not spoil it for the 27,000 other users please.
I already stated multiple times, I did not try to promote what you perceive as empty rhetoic in an attempt to spread panic. The topic was a metaphor for my skepticism and the initial post was backed up with a detailed argument laying forth my concerns, which was followed by my questions. If you had simply answered the questions with the information I had requested on Friday, we would not be here today.
No. you did not answer my request, you dodged the questions. You continue to dodge my questions right now, as you would rather dismiss my questions as FUD because you refuse to answer them.
As I’ve stated multiple times and I quote.
I have asked direct questions relating to Comodo Personal Firewall. You are refusing to answer those questions. Instead of answering the questions directly you are resorting to smears, and personal attacks on my character. For a CEO whose mission statement is “creating trust online” you are doing the exact opposite by refusing to answer my questions directly and reducing yourself to character attacks.
I suppose your quote is the same as a policeman repeating the command “stop or I’ll shoot,” while an innocent person stands passively by making no aggressive action.
You can continue to play games Melih, but it only makes you and the Comodo brand look worse with every post you make.
Let’s be clear, I asked questions, you refused to answer.
You then buried my initial thread in an unrelated subforum where it was deleted by a moderator.
You buried my posts to your blog by excising them and creating a thread, again in Off-Topic.
Now you’re playing the role of the policeman threatening aggressive action, when I am clearly being civil.
I am not the individual who is playing games. I asked questions, you refused to answer. You have resorted to smears, character attacks, and now threats. Why don’t you outright end the charade and just admit you have no intention of disclosing the information relating to the “manual uninstall” of Comodo Personal Firewall. Why don’t you admit you have no intention of discussing section 9 of the CPF EULA which includes a link.
I’m not sure I want to assume the role of a catalyst.
I raised questions, Melih clearly does not want to answer them. I’ve left him the opportunity to answer the questions I’ve raised and it will remain open. If someone wishes to reference my posts for further inquiry or to mirror on another forum, I have no problem with that at all, but I’m not going to initiate any independent analysis. Someone else will have to assume that task.
First you started with FUD and now you have promoted to lying
Now you are blatantly lying! I have answered your question, you simply don’t like the answer. So STOP LYING!
For an “innocent” “potential user” (which means you haven’t installed our firewall and looking for instructions to manually uninstall, automatic is not enough )who “lost interest” in Comodo, you are spending long enough time here in our forums to discredit us. I hope you are getting paid well for your time ;). This is NOT a behaviour of a “potential user” who “looses interest and confidence” in a product and they still “look for the manual uninstallation notes and demand to have a list of all all registry and file entries “certified” by developers” for a product they are yet to install for a product they have lost interest!
(:LGH) (:LGH) (:LGH)
What a bizarre opinion.
Is it based on experience or are you just paranoid?
I can see it now, Melih and Egemen come knocking on your door, “because you raised a few questions about their Comodo Personal Firewall product”. (:LGH) (:LGH) (:LGH) (:LGH)
The only person lying is you Melih. I’ve explained my motives, my intent, and the reasons behind my questions. You only needed to address the questions I have asked.
Instead of directly addressing those questions with the information I and others have requested, you continue to avoid answering those questions with the information I requested. Melih, you did not answer my questions, you dodged. If you wanted to answer the questions you would not have resorted to smears and character attacks. As a CEO you are doing yourself and your brand a disservice by playing games, rather than addressing an open request for disclosure.
As I’ve stated multiple times and I quote.
I am only asking for information that should be public knowledge. I am not hiding this information, you are. I registered to this forum because I will not install any security product that does not openly or transparently provide a complete list of what files, directories, or registry entries are associated with an installation of that revised software build, list the locations of those changes, and provide instructions on how to remove all traces of that installation from an operating system without relying on an automatic binary tool.
I continue to post in this forum for two reason.
because you continue to smear me and attack my character.
because you attempt to dismiss valid questions about your software, which you refuse to answer questions to.
because I really hope that you will realize you are doing a disservice to yourself, the Comodo brand, and all CPF users by refusing to release the information I requested.
I am getting paid nothing to post here, as I’ve stated earlier in this thread I have no conflict of interest or association to any of your potential competitors. I am simply a home user who is looking for a software firewall. However, I do not take lightly to smears and character attacks from an individual who clearly is not being honest with himself or with me.
I’ve repeated my request more times than I can count. Why don’t you simply say you have no intention of releasing a complete list of what files, directories, or registry entries are associated with an installation of that revised software build, list the locations of those changes, and provide instructions on how to remove all traces of that installation from an operating system without relying on an automatic binary tool if that is your intention?
If that is not your intent, then please by all means disclose the information I along with prior forum members have requested.
A pathetic attempt at discrediting us and won’t succeed.