Unfortunately, I believe that calendarofupdates have got this one wrong. The SafeSurf toolbar was, as they stated, an IAC/Ask toolbar. The HopSurf toolbar, on the other hand is an in-house, Comodo authored toolbar - not IAC, not Ask - Comodo. The Comodo HopSurf toolbar does contain a search entry field which uses the Ask search engine to provide results, but that is the sole connection.
The installer become worst because there’s no EULA presented.....
As it is a Comodo product, the CIS EULA also covers the HopSurf toolbar.
Note that it is a security software that should offer clean installer no?
Obviously no. All available options are clearly laid out in the installer. Some are pre-selected, some are not. All are user selectable.
That NEW! COMODO Secure DNS is introduced as a new free service is from DNSadvantage.com/Neustar, Inc. and again, this NEW! COMODO HopSurf Toolbar - COMODO SafeSurf Toolbar has been discontinued and superseded by COMODO HopSurf Toolbar means you need to agree with (not included EULA in the installer) the EULA in using Ask Toolbar/IAC/Ask.com service.
Please see above for explanation of the EULA that is relavent to HopSurf.
See HopSurf EULA online: https://accounts.comodo.com/hp/management/eula or http://www.hopsurf.com/license.jsp
and strangely there is NO mention of an ASK toolbar or an IAC toolbar anywhere in either of the two links.
I am not interested in HopSurf Toolbar, but I visited the site mainly in order to familiarize myself with it, find out how it looks like and learn about it.
I can see those likes/dislikes etc. and I can understand things Melih was talking about in the initial post here: “popular / unpopular / /interesting / Social Authentication, but what I cannot find is information, which explains a bit more how that can
… create a safer internet by tagging sites you like/dislike…
How “likes / dislikes” can make it safer?
What if there are thousands of surfers who are very often and intentionally visiting poisoned malicious sites … just because they “like” those very much
Should one read through the reviews written by others?
Will there be any “flaggings”/”warnings” implemented?
Are all those visited sites will be checked / removed by whatever new dedicated Comodo service or alike so others can be easily and quickly notified?
a site that frauded you will not be marked as a site you like. A site that caused malware in your PC won’t be marked as a site that you like. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule and some people will mark it as I like, however thats where the power of social capital comes in. All these people can’t be wrong is the theory and it works well enough to be used. Also everytime you recommend something to your friends and families in the real world you are sharing with them a very valuable piece of information and piece of authentication. When you say, hey i like that Turkish Restaurant down the road, this is a huge authentication information valided by a trusted third party - you! In the onlie world we don’t have a way to share these experiences for authentication. With hopsurf now we do. We will be able to share our experiences about sites with others and that will help internet become not only safer place to be/surf but also easier place. Imagine the power of hopsurf can also make life easy and show you only sites that are liked by people on a specific subject rather than you troll thru 20million results that google throws you. As there are more and more web pages/sites spawn every hour it is becoming more important to differentiate good from bad.
I hope this explains what we are trying to achieve with Hopsurf, if not pls feel free to ask more questions.
a site that frauded you will not be marked as a site you like. A site that caused malware in your PC won't be marked as a site that you like. Of course there will be [b]exceptions[/b] to the rule and some people will mark it as I like...
Hi Melih,
Thank you for reply.
I am talking precisely about those exceptions and that there should be some techniques to prevent such things.
You do remember the case with YouTube video promoting Comodo and showing the link to the rogue Antivirus. That was their way saying “I like that site”… and how many people got caught and being lured we don’t know.
I haven’t checked that video recently, but how many users here were flagging that video during our discussion and it was still staying alive for a long time.
My point is - the offered Comodo site and service should have similar feature of flagging and probably something more sophisticated and reliable that will allow the service reacting much better and faster when and if such “exceptions” may occur.
That is just one of the suggestions, which can make the site better and more attractive plus bringing safety on a bigger scale than HopSurf site alone. There could be many other thoughts in that direction.
How it stays now “create a safer internet” using HopSurf is more declaration than reality.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am just trying “constructive criticism” ;D
There will always be exceptions to the rules. There is no 100% security. That doesn’t mean that security shouldn’t be available.
Of course there will be processes put in place to handle exceptions and do so quickly, but exceptions should not prevent majority from benefiting from security.
“7.2. If you wish to remove and uninstall HopSurf from your computer, click on the “Start” button; then click on the “Settings” button, then click on the “Control Panel” button, then click on the “Add or Remove Programs” button, then look for ”Ask Toolbar” and click on the “Change/Remove” button.”
Just confirmed that this is the old EULA that got put up by mistake while the website was being updated. We will correct it in the coming week. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
No mention of Ask or IAC, also note there is Nothing installed on PC with any ties to either.
So the HopSurf Search box uses Ask search engine, BFD.
The poor FUDsters are gonna have to dig more to find more irrelevant stuff to support their baseless accusations about trust.
They really thought they had something here, an old transitional EULA.
Now all they have is their misguided, misleading, false understanding of the intentions\implications of DV certs.
Ask yourself: What is their motives?
Why are they spending so much time and effort to bad mouth Comodo?
Who is paying for their time
Why are they blatantly lying in an attempt to bad mouth us?
Why are they holding back important information and going public before informing the security vendor? (thats a NO NO in the security world)
You might be right Melih. There certainly is some bad-mouthing going on at Wilders, and I’m pretty sure it’s an attempt at pulling users from Comodo’s Firewall to eg. Outpost. There’s a moderator for the Outpost forums that continues to bad-mouth Comodo and tries so hard to make Comodo look as bad as possible.
Do I lose respect for Outpost software generally though? Not at all. Do I lose repect for the Outpost moderator? Most definitely.
On the other hand, the Online Armor team seem to be very well behaved with this! I don’t see Mike Nash accusing Comodo of doing wrong at all, but I’m pretty sure he’s enjoying the bad press Comodo’s getting deep inside haha.
I’m not going to get into the polemics >:(enough is enough.
But…
Softpedia has a Traffic Rank of 291 in alexa.com.
By not being in their site Comodo loses thousands of potential users; plus it gives those “ill intentioned” folks arguments to use against CIS (rightly or wrongly, that’s not the point here).
Is a box checked by default worth that much?
If Softpedia stopped practicing wrong naming convention than I would be happy to let them host our software. They are making a big mistake with their definitions, as long as they correct their mistakes, then I would be more than happy to take part on their website, until then we will stand by our principles!
Actually I was just pointing out in jest to Panic that he didn’t read it as well as he thought, but thanks for clearing this up anyway.
This happens all the time everywhere, web pages not in sync.
What would you have SP call it when a program is by default installing an unnecessary & unrelated third-party program to make money? Make-a-bit-more-money-ware?
IMO, SP was fairly close in their definition.
And is a little dispute over a definition and a prechecked box worth losing all those potential users?
Like people still install Firefox whenever they got Google as their default homepage and as default search engine without even a check-box there is no disputing whereas users actually have a checkbox to choose during installation.
Whenever Firefox changes are “necessary” and strictly “related” to its functions is arguable whereas search engines can still be bookmarked like it used to be years ago whereas integrated search boxes were introduced as a result of partnership with search engines…
If we let them call us adware and the whole industry understand adware as this Anti-Spyware Coalition Definitions then we would be spreading around a wrong message to potential users. Softpedia is wrong to re-invent a industry accepted term.
to Panic that he didn’t read it as well as he thought, but thanks for clearing this up anyway.