[Vulcan] Manual Uninstallation info.

Because Melih chose to move my thread to Off-topic forums without responding, I feel it is necessary to repost my questions here in hope of an official response.

Original Thread Topic:
“Comodo Firewall: I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts”


This statement is directly at odds with the “Log Files” section of Comodo’s privacy agreement

Comodo Privacy Agreement (Log Files Section):

[QUOTE]“Comodo Security Solutions uses log files comprising of IP addresses to analyze trends, administer the site, track movements throughout the site, calculate the number of document and file downloads, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.”
Melih states:

[QUOTE]“We do NOT have a business model of selling user information nor do we collect and use it.”
Melih states:

[QUOTE]“who exactly may have access to it: Comodo only”
These statements are directly at odds with the “Sharing” section of Comodo’s privacy agreement

Comodo Privacy Agreement (Sharing Section):

[QUOTE]“Comodo Security Solutions will share aggregated demographic information with our partners. This information is not linked to any personal information that can identify any individual person.”
Comodo’s Investor Relations page lists Comodo Group as having a “4500 strong global partner network

This claim is re-iterated by Comodo’s fastfacts.pdf

A. Who are Comodo’s partners?
B. What is Comodo’s definition of “demographic information”?
C. What demographic information is being shared with those partners?
D. How many of Comodo’s “4500 strong global partner network” does Comodo share information collected through CPF with?

E. Does Comodo Personal Firewall connect to Comodo servers or Comodo’s partners at any point beyond initial activation?
F. If the answer to Question E is yes, what information is being relayed back to Comodo during the life cycle of the product?
G. If the answer to Question E is yes, what information is shared with Comodo’s Partners during the life cycle of the product?

I am also interested in a more thorough answer to Melih’s statement about the UI, “it is only used to enforce licensing so that we can measure the success of our products.”

The statement “measure the success of our products,” is a fairly vague and generalized explanation of what is being done with information collected. Does Comodo employ the use of data mining to examine trends in actual software usage?

I look forward to clarification on these topics by Comodo Staff.


already answered these in the past.

1)The poster (Vulcan) is complaining because we have created an uninstallation tool, because some of our users complained about not being able to uninstall… Please show us what we are doing wrong rather then simply state, with no evidence what so ever that we are doing anything wrong. The poster merely does not like our explanation hence declares that we are doing something wrong.

2)but bottom line is that the poster is confusing the word “user” with word “web visitor”.
if/when our users come to our website we don’t know if they are our users or not, we have no way of differentiating it.

a)Mainly web hosting companies who buy our Digital Certificates (SSL) from us. We can’t list them as that would then be a very nice way of our competitors to get the list and start ringing them. Hope you understand.
b)Whatever is available from a person visiting a website. Nothing more than what any other website can get by you visiting them. (Again, you are confusing a comodo user with a Comodo website visitor)
c)Nothing. (is that clear enough?)
d)Since C is Nothing, D is going to be ZERO. (Again is that clear?)
e)CFP connects to Comodo servers (not Comodo partners!) for checking updates, submitting files and v3 will have a real time lookup of safe files. (nothing to do with our partners). (is that clear?)
f)explained above: checking updates, file submittals for safelist/blacklisting, realtime look up safefiles.
g)Nothing. (is that clear?)

Again, along with many of the questions above, the reason for licensing has been discussed over and over. Vulcan, if only you cared to do some background reading, you would have seen what is it that we use licensing information for. And once again its purely to see how many people install our products. We do not track nor do we have the ability to, how you use our software! Is that clear?

Vulcan, your issue is merely that you don’t understand why we are giving things for free. Because if you did you wouldn’t necessarily suspect what we are doing. The only reason why you are questioning these is because as you said: “I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts”. So your root problem is that you are having difficulty understanding the benefits of our business model! What aspect of this biz model are you having problem with? Why can’t you understand that giving users a top notch products for free will get Comodo an amazing brand that would allow us to leverage that brand with enterprises and even with our users for many other products? Its very simply, elegant and bloody genius even if I may say so actually :slight_smile: We give high quality products for free to our users, in return they trust Comodo. Do you understand the value of this? (i think that is the problem you are having).

Anyway, even though i did get frustrated with your post, I must thank you for taking the time post it and I hope we can clarify your questions.


PS: Vulcan, you seem to have a misconception about what is FUD. Asking questions is NOT a FUD. Asking questions along with your statements/suggestion without any proof is FUD. I hope you understand the difference.
Let me give you few examples: You start the thread with:

  1. “Comodo Firewall: I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts”
    This is not a question. This is a statement and any one with an IQ of 13.4 (thats me btw :slight_smile: ) will associate this heading/statement with a trojan and ill intention. That is FUD and this statement alone, as your heading, is good enough reason to consider all your post an FUD.

2)you clearly state: “Reasons for skepticism” . With this statement, you are making it very clear that you are skeptical, in this you are trying to justify your skepticisim by trying to show that we are giving people uninstaller to make it easy for them to unistall. You are not merely asking a simple question but trying to justify your skepticsim. That is FUD

I hope you can understand the difference. We have no problem, never have and never will, answering all the questions that our users or potential users ask us. However we do not react well to FUD. The reason why I have answered in this occassion is rightly or wrongly so, i do believe, you mean well (might be wrong :slight_smile: we’ll find out soon :slight_smile: ). And now I am going to go and spend my saturday morning/afternoon with my 2 little boys and my beutiful wife! Aferall, whats the bloody point! (so do not expect answers until later!!! )


As Vulcan chose to put up a moan on Wilders, linking to this thread and complaining that he had been brushed off, it seems to me only fair that a reciprocal link should be placed here:


Frankly I would think that Melih would have better ways of spending his weekend than having to defend himself from this kind of attack.

It makes me wonder what people like this are trying to achieve.

Instead of listing the location of _ALL_ drivers/files, directories, and registry entries that Comodo Firewall installs, Comodo Staff instruct the user to download an .exe/.dll uninstall package tool.
Little Mac is not Comodo Staff, as far as I know.

There were responses to this question in the past, but I would not call them direct answers. The answers given were more like dodges to requests for information.

Is it wrong to request a list of files, directories, and registry entries associated with each release of Comodo Personal Firewall? I can’t think of a well known security product offhand that will not share this information with its users and make it public. No trade secrets are involved with that information. The only real usage of such information is so a system user with appropriate admin privileges can perform a “manual uninstall” and remove all traces of a software installation from an operating system.

A list of all registry entries, files, and directories related to the installation of Comodo’s Firewall or any other Comodo product should be easily accessible in a concise .txt file to even the CEO of an IT security company like Comodo. This information should be within reach to any Comodo employee as reference to troubleshoot and relay apropriate tech support. The first question relating to manual uninstall procedure (removal of files, directories, registry entries) is not really a question of extraordinary nature for a software developer. The answer should on file so it can be reference quickly or copied if necessary.

Simply providing a user an .exe/.dll binary as an “uninstall tool” while withholding information relating to all files, directories, and registry entries that a product installs is suspicious behavior. I would call that suspicious behavior for any software developer. Shouldn’t Comodo trust its users? Trust is a two-way street. I hope you reconsider this request for Comodo Products presently available as well as in the future.

As I read the Privacy Policy, I associated most of the Privacy Policy with the implication that it was to be used towards normal web-visitor traffic.

What concerns me is section 9 of the CPF EULA referencing the Privacy Policy via a link with no direct notation made in either the CPF EULA or the Comodo Privacy Policy that “Log Files” and “Sharing” sections of the Privacy EULA do not expressly apply to CPF EULA.

As section 9 stands, CPF users agreeing to the CPF EULA agree to all conditions of Comodo’s Privacy Policy, which could potentially be argued legally that the user is agreeing to share that information with Comodo’s partners.

Comodo Personal Firewall EULA references Comodo’s Privacy Policy via a link much in the same form that Microsoft referenced a separate page in Vista EULA via a link to allow it significant wiggle room to apply sub-stipulations to its EULA when it felt like changing the physical terms on the page to apply retroactively to all users. Why require the EULA to direct to a static page which can be changed at any time? Comodo’s CPF EULA requires a user to agree to terms in the privacy agreement which may be changed at point in the future without consent of the end user.



Comodo has built its electronic services and products with your privacy and security in mind. [B]To ensure your privacy, Comodo periodically publishes a Privacy Statement that [I]is incorporated by

reference into this Agreement.[/I][/B] You can view the Privacy Statement at Endpoint Detection and Response, Free - What is EDR Security?. Please check this page periodically for changes in our privacy policy. [B]By agreeing to

the terms of this Agreement you acknowledge that you have read, understand and agree to the provisions of the Privacy Statement.[/B]
I misread section 1.4, I apologize for that. I have read section 2.3 and assume that corresponds to your post made to bayj in regards to the UI, which you stated is a serial number.

a) I can understand trying to keep a competitive advantage without having competitors move in on clients.
b) I’m not confusing the two, it looks like a standard website privacy policy, which applies to web traffic. However, as aforementioned, Comodo Personal Firewall’s EULA has a direct reference via link to Comodo’s Privacy Policy. Technically, Comodo could argue that the Privacy Policy and any terms apply to CPF users. There is no designation expressly restricting the “Log Files” and “Sharing” sections to “comodo.com web traffic”.
c) I’ll take this at face value, I would hope that Comodo removes the link from the CPF EULA or restricts the terminology used in the Comodo Privacy Policy to reflect restriction the “Log Files” and “Sharing” sections to strictly “web-traffic”
d) Again, I’ll take this at face value (although I do not appreciate your tone)
e) I appreciate the explanation (although I do not appreciate your tone)
f) I appreciate the explanation
g) crystal (although I do not appreciate your tone) :slight_smile:

I did do some reading regarding licensing. However, my questions were not related to that specific subject. The CPF EULA references the Privacy Policy via a link allowing for a broad interpretation of how the Privacy Policy could be applied. There are no express limitations to the “Log Files” or “Sharing” sections, hence the questions.

I can understand your mission statement. What I do not understand is the apprehension to withhold a list of files, directories, and registry entries associated with each release of Comodo Personal Firewall from users. This decision removes the balance of trust from the Comodo-User relationship. A home user or security professional can not verify what changes are made to an OS without physically comparing a backup of the windows registry and in the process comparing all of the entries against each other.

Again, I can understand your mission statement and approach to building Comodo’s reputation in banking and IT security. What I don’t understand is the refusal to withhold information from the end user of what files, directories and registry entries are added on installation of CPF, and how a user can remove those files without the user of an .exe/dll binary tool. The binary tool in itself is not suspicious, but combined with the reluctance to release “manual install” information, it does seem out of place.

Then there was the issue expressed about the link in Privacy section of the CPF EULA

I understand this is the part where you feel compelled to plug the Comodo brand/image. Again my concerns are with the questions I’ve made specifically with respect to Comodo withholding information from the end user of what files, directories and registry entries are added on installation of Comodo Personal Firewall, and how a user can remove those files without the user of an .exe/dll binary tool. The secondary concerns expressed were relating to shared/collected information, which are the result of Comodo’s EULA using a link to reference the Privacy Policy. The privacy page does not distinguish between what sections are expressly limited to web-site traffic and which apply to specific Comodo products.

I’m sure it was difficult posting that lol :Clapping:

I assume that someone may have directed you to a thread on another forum? I wonder who that could be? lol Unless, you go by another name posting anonymously? lol

I’m not challenging your IQ, although I expected that an individual of your stature would not attain such a position without sufficient drive, education, and cultural understanding and thus you did not disappoint me. :wink:

The intent of the topic heading was skepticism. Skepticism does not equate to fact, but I will admit I am apprehensive to use any security product that does not openly share a full list of files, directories and registry entries associated with each subsequent product revision from its users. This is suspicious behavior from a security product. Thus questions were posed, in the hopes that my concerns would turn up as unfounded, or at least that I would receive answers to lay that skepticism to rest. I still can’t say I have received an acceptable response yet…

The issue isn’t that Comodo is providing a binary tool to automate the process, which would normally be handled by installshield. The issue is that this is all Comodo is providing. As a security expert running a security company I would expect you to understand this concept. I imagine you would not trust any physical hardware or software solutions on your own network with source code that could not be completely examined or if it came to an OS at the very least have a detailed list of the location of all related files and registry entries.

There is no documentation relating to a true “manual uninstall” process, which explains in detail what files, directories and registry entries that Comodo Personal Firewall installs on a users machine, the location of those files/directories/entries, and a detailed process of how to remove them. This is not FUD, this is a genuine tech support and security issue. Until such time that Comodo decides to include a full list of this information without the binary tool, I can not forsee myself install Comodo Personal Firewall on any of my personal machines, or recommending CPF.

I’m not sure if that’s a direct reference to your interpretation of my posts and subsequent personal reaction to my comments or if you’re referring to Comodo, or Comodo Personal Firewall?
If you’re referring to Comodo, honestly I am genuine interested in the product, but I have skepticism due to certain decisions made with respect to the withholding information on how to manually uninstall CPF, and also concern with part of the CPF EULA.

I do mean well, but after all, trust is something that works both ways. It is built through transparency, and cultured through camaraderie. Blind trust only leads to a slippery slope. One party retains rights at the expense of the other party. Trusted Computing is one example of Blind Trust with the casualty being user rights. I’m not sure if you pay attention to politics, but world events are also quite unfortunate to these metaphors.



Please accept that you are not simply asking questions but your post does qualify for a good FUD. Hence I can’t let you get away with an innocent statement like: "Is it wrong to request a list of files, directories, and registry entries associated with each release of Comodo Personal Firewall? ". Your post’s heading was not “Please post a list of files, directories and registry entries associated with each release of CFP” was it? Instead you chose (again it was your choice) to start with: “Comodo Firewall: I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts”

So, for the sake of fairness, I would invite you to accept that your post did qualify for FUD. Once you have done that, I am more than happy to continue our discussion. Until then, I don’t know whether you are someone who wants to create FUD, doesn’t understand FUD or simply someone who is out there to cause problems. You understanding and accepting that your original post was a FUD, will allow us to establish that you understand our point of view so that we can be at the same frequency.

Once you have accepted the above we can discuss the issues you have come up with

1)list of files, directories and registry entries associated with each release of CFP
2)Link to our Privacy statement from CFP EULA

I think the above two summarises your issues in a concise manner.
Also, I would kindly ask you to stop referring to as “withholding” information. Withholding information is when someone asks and we say no we are not going to provide it. As we established above, you are yet to ask that question cos you are busy making some greek statements in the FUD land :slight_smile:

So ball is in your court…


As I posted as Wilders,

I understand and agree with your general premise, that there is only so much time in the day and that time is prioritized. However, as stated before, Melih took the time to acknowledge my thread by moving it to Off-Topic and creating a thread to say it got moved to Off-Topic. No PM was sent explaining why that choice was made, no response was given to acknowledge that questions would be answered even if it couldn’t happen then. The logical assumption is that Melih attempted to bury the thread in an unrelated forum where off-topic posts would push the thread away from sight. The questions posed were clearly about the manual uninstall of Comodo Personal Firewall and Comodo’s EULA/Privacy Policy. If that’s Off-Topic, I’d be interested to see what is considered On-Topic.


PS. It is also fairly clear that Melih’s response here was precipitated by someone tipping off Melih to the thread over at Wilders. Hence Melih’s “PS:” statement about FUD. The thread at Wilders was created hours after Melh moved my original thread here in this sub-forum to Off-Topic without giving a response that questions would be addressed, even if a response took a couple days. I laid out concise detailed questions about Comodo Personal Firewall along with a request for answers in my orignal post. That post was only mirrored at Wilders hours after Melih moved my thread to Off-Topic without any sort of response saying that he would get back to me with answers.

Again, you can be the judge

Melih’s moved a thread concerning Comodo Personal Firewall to Off-Topic, acknowledged moving the thread, but did not post anything saying he would respond to the questions with some answers at a later point in time. I perceived this action as Melih attempting to bury the thread in an unassociated sub-forum without responding to any of the questions.


As you’ll notice Melh did not reply to my original thread, which he moved to Off-Topic. He replied to my post here. I’m glad he did, but based on his initial choices on how to handle the thread, I did not expect a response.

I started the thread with a clear layer of skepticism, and I laid out the reasons why. The questions related to “manual install” have been asked before by other posters before me, but direct answers have not been given. I asked questions, which I hoped and still hope would put to rest some of that skepticism. It is comforting to have a dialog, however the response I’m receiving is clearly skirting around my original question.

I asked for a list of all files, directories, and registry entries that are associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall along with instructions on how to manually remove them. I have yet to receive that information or see that information posted. I know you posses this information, and I also know this is not an extraordinary request as software developers and security companies routinely have such information on hand for their own tech support, which they do not consider trade secrets.

I’m not going to agree that as a potential user of CPF, that I shouldn’t have apprehension to installing a product if certain questions about manual removal are intentionally not answered by the software developers. Further, I can not agree that as a potential user of CPF that I should not express skepticism to an intentional inclusion in the CPF EULA of a web link to Comodo’s Privacy Policy, which can change the physical scope of the EULA at any time and effect all Comodo CPF users retroactively, without the knowledge of those users.

I value my rights, no matter which software I use, and those choices deserve skepticism. I asked questions in the hope that my skepticism was unfounded. At this point I am still undecided, until such point as my concerns are addressed with respect to manual uninstall and CPF EULA.

I would hope that as an IT security company built on trust, that regardless of my personal opinion expressed here, that you would address these areas of concern for all Comodo Personal Firewall users. I was not the only person who posted here on Comodo’s official forums requesting an answer to the first question. I can only assume that the second question would also be of interest to other Comodo Personal Firewall users.

I have made a clear and concise request. I have yet to receive or see a direct answer detailing the location of all files, directories and registry entries made associated with each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall. I can only perceive that as an intentional choice. I hope that you choose to share that information, but I have yet to see the information shared.

I’m not trying to play a game, I’m looking for some answers. I hope Comodo or you can shed light on those questions by providing direct answers.

I’ll go ahead and post this PM conversation here that I just replied to as I see no real reason that it should be private at least when I’m being accused of FUD.

I really am having a difficulty continuing this discussion with you knowing that you don’t understand the difference between a question and FUD. Within your FUD there are 2 questions, I would love to answer… however, I simply will not to a person who confuses FUD with a question! You keep on insisting that you have asked a question while your post was a FUD.

Do you or do you not accept your post an FUD?


(:AGL) Thank you Ganda :smiley:

It means Fear Uncertainty Doubt.



It puzzles me honestly why you are trying to change topics. You could clearly answer my questions relating to manual install right now and list the information I and other Comodo users have requested. The concerns raised about the CPF EULA referencing the Comodo Privacy Policy via a link would require revision of the CPF EULA itself, which is not something as easily addressed although it should be.

You acknowledge that you could share the information related to manual uninstall, which would answer my question, and be of technical assistance to Comodo Personal Firewall’s entire userbase, yet you say you are unwilling to do so because of a personal critique of my original thread topic and thus wanting to label my questions as FUD?

This is not game theory, or a game of chess. I asked a direct question asking for a list of all files, directories, and registry entries that are associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall along with instructions on how to manually remove them. I have yet to receive that information. Other posters on Comodo’s forums have asked the same question and have not received a direct response. I hope you share this information, not just to answer my question, but also so Comodo users may benefit.

I believe I clearly addressed your FUD claim in a prior post

lol. I believe for the most part that my posts have been gentle although somewhat pointed. No vulgarities or obscenities have been exchanged and they would not either as it would be used to try and discount the intent of my questions. :stuck_out_tongue:

FUD is an acronym for “Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt”. FUD often relates to a tactic used by corporations, small businesses, and even governments to create a uncertainty in a position, product, organization/institution, etc. Usually FUD, will equate to deliberately propagating false or questionable statements in the face of detailed information that is contrary. It’s often used by Corporations, public relations firms and think tanks to shape a debate and promote a position that is favorable to the party disseminating the information.

Even though I can understand Melih’s claim, I take offense to the accusation that this is what I’m engaging in. I asked questions relating to a list of files, directories, and registry entries associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall and how to remove them. This is a question that would help myself as a home user to remove Comodo Personal Firewall, if I chose to do so, and be confident that I removed all traces of a CPF installation from an operating system. Even businesses and corporations will require this information even before considering to delploy a software solution. Melih and Comodo have to know this, so why is this such a big secret that they won’t make that information public? There are no trade secrets involved making that information public. This was the basis for my skepticism with CPF, which then grew as I read the EULA and found a link in the Privacy Policy.

Your original post was clearly a FUD.
You do have 2 issues (not FUD).
however they were lost in your FUD post.

Vulcan, why are you insisting that you are merely asking a question without acknowledging, straigth, that your initial post was a FUD. It is in your interest to understand the difference so that you don’t fall foul like you did here, again.

Also, I really do not want to spend time with people who do not understand the difference between a question and a FUD, as there is no end to any discussion with these kind of people.

So do you accept that your original was a FUD or not? (not saying you intentionally posted as FUD, but you must understand from our point )


Once you have answered, in a simple straightforward answer, i will be more than happy to answer those two issues you raise.


As stated previously: Please look at the heading of your original post. I did not see a question there! its a statement that associates trojans with us. This is what is known as FUD. I can see that you are new to the definition of FUD, however “its not a shame not to know, its a shame not to learn”. Please do not insult our intelligence by trying pass your FUD as innocent questions, although there are some valid questions lost within this FUD. Once you have, as any decent man would, accept that your post was a FUD, we can get down to business and answer your questions, until then, to us, you are someone who does not understand the difference between FUD and questions and will continue to cause FUD.

Hence, I would refer to my previous post and answer the question as YES or NO.
thank you for your understanding.


That is your personal interpretation and a critique, a position I do not share.

Yes I have listed in my original post two areas of concern, which had questions resulting from those two areas of concern. I still have yet to receive a clear direct answer regarding “manual uninstall” with a list of all files, directories, and registry entries associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall along with information on how to remove them from an operating system.

As previously stated, this is not a game of chess or game theory. I am not playing games, I am looking for direct answers. You are trying to play games by changing the focus off of answering my questions and concerns directly, to critiquing my original post by your own personal interpretation. I listed my intent, and reasons behind my skepticism. You could address that skepticism by sharing the information I have requested publicly, and also through making changes to the CPF EULA. The first request is trivially easy, which is why it is so puzzling why you will not share that information and put to rest one of my concerns.

I don’t normally enter into a conversation and invest this much time with posts unless I feel it to have a beneficial outcome. I understand your position trying to shape this conversation without releasing the information publicly that I and others requested, but you have to realize it only will confirm my personal skepticism by not making that information public.

I’m not going to fall into your trap of trying to label me, so then you can discount my questions relating to the process of a CPF “manual uninstall” and CPF EULA. You have had the opportunity all along to answer my first question, without much more effort than asking a Comodo programmer this information if it was not on file within reach, which it should be for an organization of Comodo’s size. This information should be easily accessible to Comodo employees to troubleshoot and or offer tech support, which is why it makes no sense at all why Comodo will not make it public.

This demand should not be a pre-qualifier to information which, should by all accounts be public information. The questions pertaining to the CPF EULA referencing the CPF Privacy Policy via a link are genuine concerns, hence my skepticism.

I made it very clear.
Once you answer a or b, I will answer your questions.
This is not about labelling you, but we have to make sure you understand the difference and it seems so far, you still don’t understand the difference between FUD and simple questions.

Do you honestly think that you will get answers by calling people trojan? And what is even more unbelivable is your insistance, despite my confirmation that I will answer the questions, that you don’t think calling people trojan is not FUD.

All these information that you want, is and will always be accessible to people who ask these questions straight up. Not to the ones who start with FUD.


As previously stated, the intent of the topic was to convey a sense of skepticism that I hold for a product which will not reveal information relating to the manual uninstall of a security product.

The expression can be viewed many ways. It obviously relates to Virgil’s Aenid. Your critique equates that I am directly calling CPF a trojan horse. At no point have I claimed this to be the case. I have however, stated that the behavior to not release a list of all files, folders, and registry entries associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall is suspicious behavior for a security product, hence my skepticism. I conveyed the reason for the skepticism and asked questions, hoping that direct answers would be given. I have yet to receive answers relating to “manual uninstall”, nor have I received any response on your behalf to concerns about the Privacy Section of the CPF EULA including a link.

You are welcome to make any claims and assumptions about me or my intent. You are however, not serving Comodo well in my opinion my intentionally choosing not to answer my first question.

I already stated, I am not going to fall into your trap of trying to discount the questions raised in my initial post relating to the process of a CPF “manual uninstall” and CPF EULA. . You have had the opportunity all along to end part of my skepticism by answering the questions related to a request for a list of all files, directories, and registry entries associated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall along with information on how to remove them from an operating system. As previously stated, the public release of such information would not be difficult as it should be within reach to any Comodo employee. The CPF EULA would actually require an effort made to remove the link from the Privacy Policy section. That is not something that you can easily address without consulting your legal dept. to revise the EULA itself, but it is a concern nonetheless and should not be discounted as FUD.

Please refer to my previous post.


PS: do you know what a registry tracker is?

Your recent posts about FUD are a clear attempt made to change the topic without answering my questions relating tothe process of “manual uninstall” or the CPF EULA. If you wanted to answer the question relating to my request that Comodo release a list of all files, folders, and registry entries asociated with an installation of each revised build of Comodo Personal Firewall and how to remove them, you could do so and make that information public. That would put one of my concerns to rest, asuming Comodo continues the process of releasing the information with future product releases.

As I stated earlier

I asked this information straight up, I have yet to receive an answer. I believe my prior post sums this up best

For the sake of your argument though, I created another thread which clearly poses the question that has been asked 30+ times by my posts in this thread without a direct response. The topic is clear and related to the question I asked, so no misinterpretations can be made as to what the topic is concerning.

Comodo Firewall: Manual Uninstall - all files, folders, regitry entries requested