Comodo support BBC!


How on earth can Comodo justify this? Supporting illegal acts?

I get why it might sound ‘good’ to say ‘Oh look, the BBC did this to help people’ but they did something ILLEGAL (with taxpayer money no less) and Comodo says it’s a good thing?

Liek the YouTube commenter - would you condone the BBC buying drugs just to prove it’s a problem?

Comodo: you just lost my business.

[Now after reading the forums for a few minutes, I’ll await the fan-boys and their weak attempts to justify it. Joy.]

Well, having the title Moderator will give me a hard time defending that I’m not a fan-boy. But I like having my own thoughts…

I don’t think that Comodo says : Great BBC, well done, give it another shot.
I think it’s more like : Great BBC, that you brought botnets in the spotlight !!! Botnets are still underestimated untill today ! People don’t mind that they’re being farmed, because then they don’t have to bother cleaning it up.
Botnets are a great danger, and I believe that BBC, even while doing an illegal action, actually did something good by making a public warning …


Just my view on security and what does it take to make people realize they need it.

It is a valid tactic by the news team to prove a point: how easy it is to become (computer) infected and hijacked if you don’t have an installed security program/package. More than what was spent will be saved if all computers are protected. What is wrong with a news team uncovering a security hole that needs to be closed? All security companies should applaud this as it will drive up demand for adequate security software.

Do you think terrorists will stop because this act is illegal? Just because there is a law does not mean it can’t be done, and certainly does not mean it is not being done right now by a terrorist group or (especially) Organized Crime.

Stories and actions like this are what wakes people up to what is happening around them and could even happen to them if they choose to remain unprotected.

Then why not just say that? Why not say ‘we applaud the BBC exposing the topic, but cannot condone their purchase of the botnet, and it’s use’?

The YouTube video title even says:

...commends the BBC for its insightful expose of botnets as a wise use of taxpayer funds.

Should the BBC have bought a gun and shot someone to prove there’s a gun problem? A knife and a stabbing to prove there’s a knife problem? Hiring ■■■■■■ and videoing sex with them to prove prostitution is an issue?
Just because this was with computers, doesn’t mean it’s any different a situation.

The whole action by the BBC is undefendable, and Comodos commendation of the action (and not just the exposure) - alone in the industry as such - further cements Melih’s opinion as ‘one to be ignored’.

Well, the internet sadly doesn’t work that way. There are no cops, no one that actually watches you what you’re doing !

If the BBC did this for informational ends, it’s ok I guess, however it’s still illegal. But for an explanation of Comodo, you’ll have to wait for Comodo to answer :)…


pbk thats being picky, no damage done, 88) BBC did some lame testing and are thanks to this informing thosands of people on how to secure their computers… :-TU Including those easy targets they found…

They should thank BBC for this. And so should you.
Thanks to BBC exposure of this internet users readiness and understanding will increase and CRIME online will decrease… The more people that secures their computers the less crime.
Maby they should not inform people about credit card frauds either?

After all, its illigal… Still I think I would thank someone showing me hw credit card frauds work, even if he took my card just to show it… Since he did it with good intention, and the option is that I go around unaware until some real baddie does this to my card, and I get robbed.

Melih is in for a safer internet and I think that is why he supports this…

Educating people are a good thing, Maby people will avoid having Hijacked computers thanks to this… Complaining about it being illigal is just lame… if you think of the consequences.

Better that people are aware and can take appropriate action than to leave them infected without knowledge.
At least that’s what I think.

Undercover reporting is a reality of life! Undercover operations are reality of life! What BBC did was to expose how easily one could buy and operate these botnets. Its no different than other exposes where journalists expose criminal activities by penetrating deep into them, and no different with law enforcement agencies where their undercover people do operate undercover and sometimes go with the flow of the ciriminal underworld in order catch a bigger fish. Do you really know how much of your tax money is being used for technically criminal activity in order achieve a bigger goal?!

I think its an overreaction to have people have a go at BBC for exposing such nasty underworld that affects our digital lives. Also this piece from BBC clearly demonstrates that we need protection from these criminal activities, I mean where is the protection, why have such hideous crime become so easy online? These are very important issues raised as a result of this show and without the influential effect of Press, the issues of online criminal activity will go unnoticed and at the end users will suffer!


By the way:

Did, the people who critisized BBC, even watch the program or see the article? Because they are barking up the wrong tree!

These machines were already a victim to Botnet. Its like BBC buying drugs from someone who inadvertantly smuggled it into the country. BBC did not make them smugglers. BBC showed the whole process how these people inadvertently become drug trafficers (botnet victims) dishing out spam. And they proved it by sending emails to “two” of their own email accounts. Do you really think that these victims’ machines were not going to be used by botnets (or previously rented to some other spammers before provided to BBC) if BBC didn’t use them! Most likely they would have been used for much bigger spam activity than what BBC did and most likely innocent victims of these computers would still not be any wiser about it even today. BBC used it to send some emails to their (BBC’s own accounts) own email accounts and informed the users.

I don’t understand why Graham Cluley in the above link talking about Chinese State Television breaking into computers and sending spam? Its an irrelevant comparison because BBC did not break into those computers and BBC did not send spam!?

Here are the excerpts from the BBC site:

“Click managed to acquire its own low-value botnet - the name given to a network of hijacked computers - after visiting chatrooms on the internet”

This means they acquired (effectively rented) the 22,000 owned computers.

Botnets owners broke into those machines and BBC sent emails to themselves (thats not SPAM) to prove that they can use these machines to send email or spam. And BBC then alerted those 22,000 users about their problem.

Actually tax payer’s money was spent to take those 22,000 machine off the botnet’s control and create awareness about this vulnerability. So again, money well spent!


Here is another voice on the subject I came accross:

[i]Mel Morris, CEO of Prevx, the company that helped the BBC, added a different perspective.

“Botnets exist primarily because of an abject failure of the PC security industry to adequately protect consumers from such threats. It is a myth, albeit a popular and industry serving myth that Botnets only infect PCs with little or no security. Users with well respected brands of fully up to date PC antivirus and so called internet security products are infected every day while their PC security product tells them they are clean. Maybe that’s a larger public injustice and one Graham and his team of very capable guys should focus a little more on than trying to pose as a legal expert,” Morris said in a response to Cluley. [/i]

from this link :



Yet another show of great journalism from BBC! exposing the issues with lack of Data Protection standards in India that is running a huge amount of customer operations for western companies. Here again BBC used tax payers monies to buy stolen credit card details! Who is complaining?

Once again…welldone BBC… tax payer’s money well spent once again for raising yet another important issue about Data Protection!


Hi pbk, welcome to the forum :slight_smile:

There is a difference between doing something illegal to HARM, and doing something illegal to WARN, don’t you think :wink: