Need "UnTrusted Vendors" :-)

Bad Adware, Unwant softwares are use digital signs.
ex) Bad Adware downloader: “avira_free.exe” has digital signed.

Comodo need ‘Untrusted Vendors’ for Blacklist.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Honestly I think this is a good idea, though I wonder how useful it would actually be. I mean, I doubt that many malware creators use their own signatures, I’d guess they either use hacked certificates or none at all. But hey I may be wrong and honestly I don’t know enough about the signatures or certificates or even how they work but if this idea actually works then yes I do want it!

Tip: Add a poll :wink:

Off topic: Does anyone know the guidelines for Comodo on how they decide what vendors are considered safe etc? I’d imagine there would need to be guidelines for untrusted vendors too.

I can see how useful this could be. For example, some of us do not want TAGE in any of it’s forms ever executing on our computer. Putting their signature in this type of list and blocking it would be useful.

Good idea!

Yes good, but comodo already has default deny, so if isn’t white-listed by comodo, will fall in hands of BB. So sorry for me is :-TD

I think this is neither needed nor desirable. The truly bad stuff will be controlled anyway and different people find other things desirable or not. For example, many people don’t want Ask anywhere near their computers but many others use and like it. Some people are also not worried about privacy issues but many others are. If it’s done on a manual add basis that would be okay but there should not be a default list maintained by Comodo.

I don’t think this is necessary.

By default any vendors not trusted by CIS will be isolated. Thus, the only advantage could be that they would be automatically removed, but I don’t think it’s worth the extra effort on Comodo’s part to add this ability.

I agree with Chiron. This request (and thread) is useless, as any vendor not trusted is, well, untrusted.

I agree it is not a priority. Although I think it would be a nice feature, like assuring Java is never installed, or forever avoiding Ask, I also agree it should be viewed (if Comodo wishes to implement this) as low-priority for now.

I have to agree. I read on Stack Overflow there were more than 12 million developers worldwide. It would be an impossible task to build a list.

more numbers . . . :slight_smile:

But even if it reaches a trillion developers, wouldn’t it be convenient to have certain vendors blocked? Comodo doesn’t have to build a large database (just placing any known unwanted application vendors in it is sufficient). This list could help users and administrators keep unwanted applications away, for reasons that may range from privacy concerns to compatibility issues and of course for security reasons too.

Perhaps instead of Comodo maintaining a list, Comodo could just add a untrusted vendor list which is empty and users can add vendors to? With the possibility to export and import these lists.

-shrugs- I don’t even know if it would be useful.

I see of your point, but if your not trusted then your not trusted. The largest offenders are already blocked by the software they offer with signatures.

Yes, I see your point as well. The solution then is to call this new feature Blocked Vendors instead of UnTrusted (which is already the case for unknown applications).

Many people use, like, and feel they need Java. It should never be blacklisted unless the user does it themself.

Oh yes 100%! I also don’t think vendors such as Java or even Ask should be blocked by default. Default vendor block should be only for known malware vendors. The idea behind being able to block Java is to protect a PC that doesn’t require it from its frequent security flaws. But this should be a decision made exclusively on the user end. Any known trusted vendor should remain being treated as it is.