Should PrivDog be in the Dragon Installer

Just a feeler for Comodo

Obviously most people voting here are going to be biased - Try to put your bias asside for this poll

I havent used it for quite a while but thats purely because I prefer how Privacy Badger works
But having seen the potential for what PrivDog is capable of undermining … I would not use it again.

So the question is about how the rest of the world sees Dragon, when it includes PrivDog, only fans of the plugin will know that it was fixed in short order, and that it is unlikely to pose a threat to users security again …

… But the rest of the world now view it as an evil plugin - The news was huge ( BBC News, PCWorld - Just Google Privdog Superfish ) - So is including it in the installer going to permanently drag down peoples opinion / reputation of Dragon forever after ?

And if so, should it be dropped from the Comodo Dragon installer ?, just keeping it on its own website and the software share sites like CNET as a separate plugin users will grab if they wish, and not have it as a default installed plugin with Dragon.

( Same for Chromodo if that also has it in the installer, I dont use it so dont know )

Note: The plugin that was included with the browser never had this vulnerability/issue.
Note: The issue with the plugin was fixed very quickly once it was found.
… But the only people who know the above, are participating in these forums.
The press generally were not so kind in reporting follow up actions.

If it is the Browser Plug-in then O.K, but I’ve read elsewhere on here that Chrome no longer supports Plug-ins ( please correct me if I’m wrong :wink: )

I voted no, as when I installed the latest version it slowed my browsing down considerably and some have already complained that it is / was not very clear that their Homepage was changed to ‘Yahoo’ when installing Dragon.

Installing PrivDog at the same time is not a good idea in my opinion, let people decide what, if any, additional software is installed. :slight_smile:

Hi guys,
I think it can be included, but made optional during installation.

A few articles posted doesn’t account for the rest of the world IMO.
Voting options missing to vote honestly.

Is this a wish or just feedback?

Note: The add-on/extension that was included with the browser never had this vulnerability/issue.

Edit: Corrected wording.

What options are missing ?

In light of what happened, do people think it should be in the installer yes / no … what else does it need ?

Or do you want to reword it to hide the issue that was in the news - As explained I believe that incident has reflected badly upon the browser that includes it in its installation, so imho the two should be separate …

… so that Dragon does not become tarred with the same brush

If it was a wish list I would just want Dragon in the installer, and remove all the rest of the default installing extras aswell, so no its not a wish list.

Google wanted to have more control over plugins / extensions ( and reduce the chance for security issues with plugins undermining the privilege levels in chrome for example ), so restricted the way they can be installed to just from the google extensions site.

Comodo I think got around that for their version of Chrome … I think … I dont know which came first, the change to how plugins get installed or the last update to the Dragon browser.

A question I have never received an answer for is - Why cant Comodo put the PrivDog extension, also on Googles site - They let other advertisement blocking plugins such as Ad Block, Disconnect, Ghostery … on there, so whats the problem for PrivDog ?
Maybe Undermining Certificates before it was found out eh.

Hi w33d3r,
IMO the answers should be simplified.

  • Yes.
  • Yes included, but optional during installation.
  • No.
  • Do not care.

I would then probably vote ‘Do not care’ but that is just my opinion.


Yes included, but optional - Still tars the installer with the same brush

Do not care = Dont vote.

No problem. :slight_smile:

Good point, included in the OP

One other reason for this topic I have not included in the OP :

I have a feeling that all the extras in the installer have a serious impact on production of updates to Dragon

Without Quality Assuring all of those, aswell as the new browser code, it cant be released. So they are adding to development time, while users of the old version are getting rejected on banking sites because the browser version is so old.

^^ Does that theory have any legs ?

Thank you. :slight_smile:

I would imagine the impact on updates to the browser to be minimal because of this, but hey anything to help speed up releases can only be a good thing. :-TU


There are ad-blocking extensions in Chrome Web Store, but are there any ad-replacing extensions?

Also, in the first post, it is not clear if you mean the extension PrivDog, which is included in Dragon, or the native Windows-application PrivDog. The poll appears to be about the Windows-application.

Should PrivDog be in the Dragon Installer?

Yes it should, but of corse it should be optional to install it.

No, not coz of the recent certs issue.
Simply coz clean installer is good.
Not in favour of optional too.

Users can install add-ons from the websites.

It can stay with in the installer but as an install option and nothing else.

Adblock replaces ads.

Both articles also mentioned that Comodo fixed it quickly. One could further argue that the people that read these types of articles would also know that vulnerabilities usually will get fixed. As Melih pointed out this man in the middle technique is also used by various other (renowned) vendors.

I see no reason to no longer add it to the installer of Dragon. Most certainly not because of reason of perceived public opinion.

I would like to see the option added that says: Yes, because I don’t think the impact on public opinion is an issue.

Privdog and Dragon have separated teams as is true for all Comodo products.

If an install option then would be better as opt-in.

Whatever the size of PD, increases the installer size too.
In this case, guess 15-20%.

Could we enable the option to remove/change ones vote? I’d like to switch my answer.

Basically my opinion is: Extensions - Yes ; Stand-alone - No / Opt-in, when I voted I was voting on the extension, but I realize now that this poll is probably about the stand-alone…

Really? With what ads? Where is that behaviour documented? ???