Firefox is not securty application.
88)
And Search functions were not something hard-coded in browsers whereas usually search sites where accessed through bookmarks…
Whenever somebody likes Google or not FF installer do not provide any checkbox and comes with Google search as homepage and a search box function enabled by default with Google preselected.
Browser function is to display webpages and search boxes are not required for that “function” 88)
Though it would be likely that some definition which would seemingly neglect FF could be featured on a site which bears Google Ads (not necessary for that site to fully function)…
In that case each bundled FF feature may become “necessary”, “related” and “useful” even without a check-box. :-\
And what about search engine results? Anybody willing to badmouth Google to have them remove sponsored links (or maybe ask them for a checkbox)?
Sure Google would be interested to acknowledge such badmouthing arguments and regard sponsored links as a small compromise… :-X
Endymion, Firefox is a browser. Searching is naturally part of browsing. It “goes” together. 
A browser without a search box would be, IMO and probably most other internet users, incomplete.
But security suite like CIS is not meant to browse, or help users browse, the web. Its main goal is to protect, not to adjust the default search engine so someone can find a better pea soup recipe quicker.
But to the main topic, “why is HopSurf selected by default”. Ask Toolbar could fit this “Anti-Spyware Coalition’s” definition of adware.
[b]Adware:[/b] A type of Advertising Display Software that delivers [u]advertising content[/u] potentially in a manner or context that may be unexpected and unwanted by users. The ASC’s Risk Model document details many of the behaviors that may be considered [u]unexpected or unwanted[/u]. Many adware applications also perform tracking functions, and therefore may also be categorized as Tracking Technologies. Some consumers may want to remove Adware if they object to such tracking, do not wish to see the advertising caused by the program, or are frustrated by its effects on system performance. On the other hand, some users may wish to keep particular adware programs if their presence subsidizes the cost of a desired product or service or if they provide advertising that is useful or desired, such as ads that are competitive or complementary to what the user is looking at or searching for.[i]Underlining by me.[/i]
The toolbar is advertising Ask.com, and since it is selected by default, it could be “unexpected or unwanted.”
(So SP may have been right in the definition.)
There was a reason for the box to be, by default, unselected then: the Ask Toolbar could be considered adware, and it had no extra protection that the later versions of CIS didn’t offer.
But now, according to Melih (can’t find the post[s]), HopSurf has some security/authentication use. So it is something like a security app, and has some reason to be selected by default.
That may be what you have come to believe after search-box has been tied to browsers for a long time nevertheless the search box by itself is not required to render (display) webpages.
Obviously search engines are web-pages/sites too
Though search-boxes are not necessary for “searching” whereas search webpages are ( you cannot neglect this since you argued about main functionality) .
BTW please do not forget (since you argued about defaults) that Firefox homepage is set to google by default as well.
Besides (since you argued about money), you should know that Mozilla partnership with Google and the defaults without any checkbox generate most of the revenue for Mozilla.
Thus you cannot ignore that Web browsers are “functionally” meant to display web pages, not to deploy default search engines and homepage as well…
Besides Toolbars and search boxes do not cause any unexpected advertising “content” to be displayed. And advertising content do not mean “partnerships” but actually pertains real adware, which display Adverising banners or automatically open a browser to display an advertising website, without user intervention (thus unexpected).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/WLMessenger.png/250px-WLMessenger.png
As an example please have a look at Microsoft Live Messenger and its bottom part that continually cycle though different Advertising banners…
Whenever you could be willing to “misinterpret” the Anti-Spyware Coalition Definitions there would be no way to raise an issue (as apparently you are willing to) without forging some “exception” for Firefox like you are seemingly intentioned to do.
If you wish to reinterpret those criteria you should class Firefox as “adware” too.
But it is not that you can extend what an installer is entitled to do without providing any checkbox because it is “Firefox installer” and restrict what another installer could provide with a checkbox, at you leisure.
Whenever you could be willing to “ignore” the inconsistencies of your own criteria, if you don’t like a component provided with CIS you can choose to not install it.
And this is more than other cases that did not raise you “interest” (or your eyebrow at least).
Now If you say that ALL search engines should not provide sponsored links (or maybe that you wish to have them provide a related check-box, optin or optout at your own preference) and you are willing to start a crusade against them, it would be interesting to know you reasons in another topic.
Apparently my head wasn’t in sync either. 
Mea culpa everyone.
Panic
There’s a post on Wilders that reads:
“I must however add that I am somewhat disheartened to read some of the later responses by Melih and his followers in this thread which you reference.
There appears to be an active cultivation, and nurturing, of a “us against them” mentality.
Is this the right way for an organisation, dedicated to security?
I was under the impression that security professionals belong to a “band of brothers”?”
Seriously, some people need to relax and enjoy life a bit. This isn’t about World War 2, this is about money making and software security programs. These are just words. There are people dying out there in Africa, and we argue about little things like this. The Earth could be destroyed tomorrow, and the whole universe wouldn’t know.
Anyway, some people need to take things easy and look out for problems that actually matter in their lives. Maybe it would be wise for these people to spend more time with loved ones. Life doesn’t last forever.
It is interesting, this obfuscation which you promote.
The Comodo users are not promoting that atmosphere, it is the spreaders of false information about Comodo who are the guilty ones.
Agreed, but, in fairness, our fanboyz shout just as loud as the anti-fanboyz! If everyone dropped the emotional side of their respective arguments and focussed on the real issues, there wouldn’t be much of an issue left.
Just my thoughts,
Ewen
It’s not interesting at all. It’s very very simple.
The reasoning in this matter is becoming ridiculous. Even pathetic.
I’ll try to resume the basics.
It’s a question of more users/less users.
Uncheck the boxes.
I can hardly see SoftPedia as being the sort of major player which would necessitate any change in policy.
Their site, their awards, their criteria.
If they don’t want to join the Antyspyware Coalition along with numerous anti-spyware software companies, academics, and consumer groups this doesn’t automatically make their choices reliable and authoritative.
Sure Google pack got a full award but who cares
https://forums.comodo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42012.0;attach=36786
Obviously users can choose what they want regardless of default optins whereas the google pack installer provide a blank page with a Get more software… linked to
https://forums.comodo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42012.0;attach=36784
BTW too bad that after google started to develop chrome, firefox is not the default anymore…
[attachment deleted by admin]
I think that security and search toolbars don’t mix. That’s my opinion. If I were to say ok not all toolbars could be bad. Then of all the search engines why choose Ask? Why not choose something else?
I never understood what all the uproar about ASK was anyway. How bad is it really?
Strangely, I have never read a definitive explanation about why Ask is so bad, even from some security “professionals” who are among its most vocal detractors.
I would be surprised if anyone can come up with a valid reason as to why it is so vigorously maligned.
What’s the ‘proof’ behind that ? Because 3 companies have decided to count it as malware? Other (much bigger) companies like Norton, adobe and even ccleaner have in their package ?
So what’s wrong or right ?
I know that ask toolbar was a bad company before, but it seems they changed their ideas so…
eXPerience
That post, made by some guy on another forum is based on an erroneous (False Positive) detection to put forward misleading claims of malware (unrelated even to the detection if it was not a FP).
It looks a good example of misinformation that leverage on readers’ naivety. Thanks for pointing it out.
Let’s get real here. False positives…it works the same way as MyWay search. Both are proven adware. Although Ask Toolbar is not malicious, the service it runs behind the toolbar is. You see, Ask toolbar works much like Crawler toolbar. Although it is safe as a software program, the service behind it is not good.
Tallemu owner and hpHosts cannot be wrong. Bundling Ask Toolbar with software is not worth the risk, and is rather disgusting to do such things. Getting $1 each download for Ask Toolbar is a nice price, but due to the ad tracking and irresponsible nameservers, it is simply not worth the risk.
Most malware companies seem to ignore Ask Toolbar, because it is not a direct threat. But, because it is a threat, it is considered to be bad. The same opinion goes for MyWay and Crawler.
Oh, and that detection was made back in 2005. Has not been removed since then.
If Ask Toolbar changed their activities, then why are they still on HOSTS? Only to get oneself off of the HOSTS is to change your methods. All the nameservers and reporting vehicles are the same as three years ago. There is no doubt in what malware experts say. That is why, in the security community, we still ask users to uninstall Ask Toolbar.
Lastly, take a look at Limewire. Limewire has been presumed OKAY for many years. All along people thought it was safe, and became the most popular CNET download for at least two years. However, it is SPYWARE.
I rest knowing that malware experts are correct on this issue.
I can clarify, that HopSurf is completely safe, no matter what MSMVP Donna says.
Melih,
I fully understand about Hopsurf and secure DNS, speaking about secure DNS option on/off pick could you please refer to this post about IP Blocklist because not very many people around the world may or may not have heard of secure DNS and Open DNS. I know most people would not perfer to included a DNS option turn on see my post and you’ll understand what I am trying to explain about IP Blocklist.
https://forums.comodo.com/firewall_wishlist/ip_blocklist_option_for_cis-t43393.0.html
This is still a great idea to include this security tool into Comodo CIS software I like to hear your feedback about IP Blocklist for most people never heard or used secure DNS or Open DNS feature.
SpeedyPC