I noticed today at an AV company’s forums that they were not recommending COMODO Firewall due to it installing HopSurf toolbar, (blah blah blah…)
They also quoted an article from hpHosts blog…
And when I took a look at hpHosts database…
IP On Record: 188.8.131.52 (3)
IPOR PTR: secure.comodo.net
Added: Not recorded
Added By: hpHosts
Classification: EMD (What is this?)
I honestly don’t know what to think of Comodo, Melih and everyone now…
(But I’m gonna stick with my beloved COMODO Personal Firewall, and nothing is going to change that)
That was exactly what I was thinking =)
For you, me and everyone here, that app may be perfectly safe, but for some people (aka hpHosts) it is malware/spyware/adware.
Do take a look at hpHosts blog, it seems to have quite a lot of articles about COMODO
It’s in other peoples interests (other companys) to bad mouth, find fault, or just plain put down another business. Can’t say I’ve seen/heard COMODO do the same, after all they help others in the security iindustry.
Regardless of anything, I’m happy with COMODO and will continue to trust them in their efforts to keep me safe.
Kind of off topic (don’t see it as a rant) but just as a general reply of opinion, I can’t go too technical like you can too much…yet.
comodo.com, comodo.net, secure.* aren’t listed in hpHosts (and haven’t been for well over 12 months if memory serves)
If you look at the information provided, it clearly states “www.instantssl.com is listed with the WWW prefix only”, which means it is NOT listed as simply “instantssl.com”.
Quite why this is, I’ve no idea as both instantssl.com and trusttoolbar.com, were added prior to my taking over the project in 2006 (as shown by the lack of an “Added” date), however, I am satisfied that instantssl.com should not be listed, and it will be removed as soon as I’ve posted this.
Which means, the following, quoted from a post above, is incorrect, there is no “indirectly” with hpHosts, it’s either listed, or it isn’t (in which case, see #4).
secure.comodo.com is listed indirectly because it is the reverse pointer for the sites in the screenshots
If a domain is listed, but the “Added” field states “Not recorded”, then it was added before I took over the project, in which case, do feel free to point me to it.
I’m curious as to why no-one felt it necessary to contact me with these queries, and instead decided to speculate, but never the less, if you’ve got any further queries regarding this, or indeed, any other site listed in hpHosts, I’ll be happy to answer them.
Honestly, I never knew that hpHosts was not originally your project… that explains the weird “not recorded” about the adding date.
I could have contacted you when I got to know about this, but I didn’t know if I could PM you at MBAM’s forums about this (MBAM was how I got to know about instantssl.com’s blocking). That was the easiest way for me to do it ;D
My sincere apologies to you and everyone here for this situation. :a0
Whoever added it, forgot to add it without the www. prefix
It failed to resolve without the www. prefix at the time of addition
In either case, when you see a result like this, I’d appreciate a heads up as it either shouldn’t be listed, or needs to be checked to ensure it’s listed with and without the www. prefix (where both resolve)
Thanks for pointing it out though I would appreciate if you could confirm if in the above mentioned case the query instantssl.com successfully matched www.instantssl.com or not and if anybody should be discouraged to rely on a query result if that “is listed with the WWW prefix only” message is mentioned.
I never discourage replying/comments or suggestions, I just like to correct confusion when such occurs.
It’s possible instantssl.com matched www.instantssl.com, but if it displayed a message that it was listed when infact it was only listed with the www. prefix, then it’s a bug in the code and I’ll take a look when I get home (it’s in desperate need of a re-write anyway)
In that regard I’m still confused and I hope you could later confirm if the results of the instantssl.com query pertained www.instantssl.com (field host in the above screenshoot) or not whenever that www. prefix message was displayed.
I the result was actually erroneous I feel the posts featuring such screenshot should be edited to mention that though I gather such aspect could be confirmed only after checking the code.