Talk:Comodo Internet Security

Need "neutral point of view" citations

In the Comodo Internet Security section, this assertion does not seem to provide a neutral point of view reference: "CIS uses a different security architecture by deploying Prevention (HIPS) as the first line of defense, whereas many other security systems use Detection (antivirus) as their first line of defense." The reference given seems to be a blog by someone affiliated with the company. ∏∪βiατεch 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is by Comodo's CEO. But it does seem to be true....should I try and find an unaffiliated source? (Note: I didn't post that link) Jeremysbost (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a site: http://www.dedicatedserverdir.com/news/showNews.aspx?ID=30335 Jeremysbost (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is written like an advertisement

I believe that there are many claims and biased points of view cited in this article so as to render it a promotional or advertisement article. Example from Antivirus section:

It has been stated by Comodo's CEO, Melih Abdulhayoglu, that they plan to have one of the best[weasel words], if not the best[weasel words], Antivirus' by a year after its launch. ∏∪βiατεch 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. while CIS good at what it does, there does not have to be so many accolades in the intro, it detracts from the main purpose of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.110.204 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is discusting. It needs to be redone from begining to end. It reaks of being written by the company itself. Very sad. Deepintexas (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remain civil, Deepintexas. Do not offend an article, just state its problem and do not do so in vague terms.

Software articles in Wikipedia have always been a target for accusation of being written like an advertisements, even those that are selected as Good Articles or (most surprisingly) Featured Articles! If you feel an article is written like an advertisement, please highlight the areas which seem boastful, not from a neutral point of view or not verifiable by a reliable secondary source.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

POV flag on "Critical reception

I placed a POV flag on the Crtical reception section" with text "((POV-section|reason=there is criticism that CIS is intrusive and complicated to use, though effective")) which was removed by FleetCommand due to "[not] introducing any evidence or opening a talk page thread". This prompted a discussion on my Talk page between FleetCommand and someone who agreed with the POV flag. I won't myself make any comment on this point (see the discussion), but add the following to justify the POV flag: CIS was roundly criticised for specific failures to detect threats in a review. Also the promise of 60 days free technical support for the free version was not met. I don't want to spend ages on this, I'm not promoting or condemning the review, just reporting the first negative criticism I found, this is a Talk page not an article. I won't go on, just justifying the POV flag - read the review. Pol098 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! That's what we call sound evidence. Yes, let's cover this. Since I already have six real-life articles to translate on my hand right now, I can't promise anything, but maybe I'll cover it in the future.

But actually, someone seems to have deleted almost everything in that section. Well... deleting the problem and the solution together... when problem doesn't exist...? Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

IMHO the photo gallery isn't necessary, and seems to add little to the article. The "Prevention as a first layer of security" needs lots of work as well. Sliso13 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some unnecessary photos. How does the "Prevention as a first layer of security" need work? Jeremysbost (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To me the "Prevention as a first layer of security" reads too informally, and not really like something from an encyclopedia. It could probably be merged into the "Layered Security" section, or maybe outright removed. Sliso13 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nubiatech's Revision as of 01:56, 21 January 2009

"The basic version is available as a free download. There is also a PRO version, which includes [http://www.comodo.com/trustconnect/overview.html TrustConnect] and online support.<ref>http://www.comodointernetsecurity.com/index.html</ref>" The free version of CIS is not basic. It has all the features that the Pro version has. The only difference is that the Pro version has a few different products and services bundled. These products and services are not part of CIS.

Jeremysbost (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording so that it the 'standard' version, not 'basic'. This should make it more clear. Sliso13 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Components

I think the whole components part should be changed, since when using the program, the only real components visible in the interface are the firewall, antivirus, and Defense +. IMHO the other components (memory firewall and threatcast) do not deserve to be designated as such, and should just be listed as features of the suite as a whole. The memory firewall is integrated into defense+. Sliso13 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

License - free for commercial use!

Could someone confirm that Comodo Internet Security (anti virus) software is free, including commercial users. As I understand, only Moon Secure, Spyware Terminator (using ClamAV), PC Tools Anti Virus and Comodo Internet Security (anti virus) is totally free, rather than free for home users. This is quite an important point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for commercial use too. From the Frequent Questions page:

Is it free for business users too?

Yes. However, enterprises looking to implement CIS on large networks of workstations would benefit from the centralized management capabilities of Comodo Endpoint Security Manager (CESM).

LaserWraith (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Test result issue

Hello

Recent edit history shows that the following area of the article is disputed:

"In their March-April 2013 tests of 26 antivirus products, Comodo Internet Security Premium scored 6 for protection, 4 for performance and 2.5 for usability. The tests were conducted on Windows XP."

Apparently, a group of users want it deleted (or partially deleted) while another want it to remain and even expanded. I myself am involved and have gone both ways in an attempt to strike a compromise, but to no avail. It seems a full discussion is inevitable.

• First, what are the reasons to keep this sentence or expand it? The answer of the involved editor seems to be "because it is important" and "because it is the latest results". Because Wikipedia does not allow pure statistics and numbers like this, I previously tried to explain the meaning of these numbers, but my edit was reverted as unsubstantiated claim without a source. Well, that is true, so I made no further attempt to get it back.

• Now, why delete these results? Per WP:IINFO, pure statistics without explanation of what they mean is not allowed. WP:ATA also mentions that not everything that one feels "important" or "latest" is allowed in Wikipedia. That is also true. If we can't find a reliable source that interpret these stats, then deleting them seems one of the options, if not the only option.

Like I said both these opposing stances seem to have proponents and opponents. So, what we need to discuss here is a compromise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Cleanup

I cleaned up a lot of material that was excessively detailed and/or promotional and usually cited to low-quality sources like the company website, but I sort of got stumped at the Reception section. It seems too long, or perhaps it is only long compared to the other sections which merely need to be expanded with better sources.

Anyways, a good starting point of the discussion is the criticisms in the Virus Bulletin section. This looks like original research/original synthesis to me. Although some of the information in this section technically qualifies for WP:CALC, I think the information needs to be interpreted and synthesized by a reliable source before it could be included. CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I think it is important that this section is deleted, per WP:GEVAL. It does not have equal validity with AV-TEST source because the product did not participate in Virus Bulletin test as recurrently as it did in AV-TEST. On the other hand, AV-TEST shows the same record of failure but in the form of protection score instead of yes or no; and then shows its more recent success record as well.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comodo Dragon

I don't understand why Comodo Dragon can't be included? Comodo Dragon is installed during the installation of "Comodo Internet Security". I'm in complete amazement why this can't be include!!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree. I would think all of the Comodo-related articles would include each other in a See Also section. However, there are also a lot of advertorial pages on individual Comodo products of marginal notability, which I am not sure what to do about, as they don't quite warrant an AFD. Maybe advert and COI tags would do the trick for now, but I also dislike tagging. CorporateM (Talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Did read that right? You agree? After deleting virtually the entire description of the contents of CIS? I didn't quite expect this.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think probably what is needed is a single article on "the Comodo Internet Security Suite" that most of the articles can be consolidated into. Our norm is to create a single article on a suite, unless the individual products are really famous like Windows 97. Then, there wouldn't be so many articles to list under See Also. Some articles need an axe taken to them, but the axe is a blunt weapon ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 12:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. I do agree that some articles need an axe taken to them, because I am already taking one to Comodo Antivirus. But an article on one subject must describe that subject and this article is not describing its subject. I support adding the description of CIS back, along with the current subject of talk, Comodo Dragon. We can employ WP:SUMMARY here and link back to Comodo Dragon through {{Main}}.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best is fine by me. I haven't done enough research to see which individual products genuinely warrant a separate article - just have the sense that there are too many WP:ORGVANITY-type pages. I think this article just came up in my routine searches for promotional content at some point - I don't really know much about them. CorporateM (Talk) 20:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If articles exist, then an article should be allowed to wikilink to a related article, period. Just because you think another article should be deleted doesn't mean you should stop ANY wikilink from being linked to it until that article is deleted. Instead of deleting my wikilinks, you should have asked for input on what to do about the other articles, which might in turn cause those articles to be merged or deleted, thus eventually causing my wikilinks to be deleted. Personally, I view your reverts as overly aggressive. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article should list everything that is installed during the installation of "Comodo Internet Security" (CIS), otherwise it is an incomplete article. Comodo Dragon browser is part of the installation, and should be included either in the "Features" section or a wikilink in the "see only" section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I never understood why people think saying "period" automatically make their comments authoritative while in fact, it projects an image of stubborn person of them and eliminates any chance they had with whom they disagree. Per WP:SEEALSO, the links must be relevant. Listing Dragon here is like listing Internet Explorer in Bitdefender's "See also" section. Dragon and CIS are produced by the same company, and Dragon is included with CIS, but that is purely a matter of marketing – similar to CCleaner coming with a copy of Google Chrome – and according to WP:NOTADVERT, Wikipedia does not care for it. If there is anything more to it, you should consider using summary style to explicitly state that fact in the article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Internet Explorer is a bulk install. It isn't created by nor fixed by Bitdefender.
2. Google Chrome is a bulk install. It isn't created by nor fixed by Piriform (maker of Ccleaner).

I never understand why anyone says "best regards", especially when they don't mean it. It's obviously a fake shallow statement.... right after you threw rocks at me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, when I say "best regards" I perfectly mean it. That I disagree with you on some point does not mean I have to hate you too. And even if it was fake, I'd still use it because it projects a collegial image and therefore helps toward collegial conduct. But if you take every instance of disagreement as a act of rock being thrown at you, believe me, you'd be metaphorically buried alive.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Test

Moving here for storage as inappropirately using ext links and being promotional:

Comodo Internet Security Premium | AV-TEST

Test period		Report number	Program version	Platform		Protection	Repair	Usability
						(out of 6 points)
2010	Q4	104836	5	Windows Vista	32 bit	3	3.5	3
2011	Q1	110987	5.0 & 5.3	Windows 7	32 bit	4	3	3.5
2011	Q2	112298	5.3 & 5.4	Windows XP	32 bit	3.5	1.5	3
						Protection	Performance	Usability
2013	Jan-Feb	130519	6.3	Windows 8.1	64 bit	3.5	3.5	3
2013	Mar-Apr	131497	6	Windows XP	32 bit	6	4	2.5
2013	May-Jun	132351	6.1	Windows 7	32 bit	6	5.5	3.5
2013	Jul-Aug	133133	6.2	Windows 7	64 bit	6	5	4
2013	Sep-Oct	134087	6.2 & 6.3	Windows XP	32 bit	6	3.5	4.5
2013	Nov-Dec	134991	6.3	Windows 8.1	64 bit	5.5	3.5	4
2014	Jan-Feb	140621	6.3	Windows 7	64 bit	5.5	4	4
2014	Mar-Apr	141490	6.3 & 7	Windows 8.1	64 bit	3	4	4.5
2014	May-Jun	142321	7	Windows XP	32 bit	4	4	4
2014	Jul-Aug	143190	7	Windows 7	32 bit	5.5	3.5	5
2014	Sep-Oct	144090	7	Windows 8.1	64 bit	6	5	5
2014	Nov-Dec	144955	7 & 8	Windows 7	64 bit	4	5	4

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Location of version number

For those who don't know, the version number is located at Template:Latest stable software release/Comodo Internet Security. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: You are the only one. Also you didn't come here looking for this info, so nobody else will.

By the way, you might want to learn the difference between "slander" and "libel".

And remember, this will forever remain in your record. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to other readers... in 2018, users "FleetCommand" and "Codename Lisa" accounts were blocked indefinitely by admins, FleetCommand block reason was "blatant harassment".

The location of the template is no longer important, because it was deleted on April 1st 2019. The version number is now contained in the infobox of this article, instead of another silly location. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Obsolete Linux antivirus

The Linux Comodo Internet Security is obsolete; it was developed 8 years ago, and depends on obsolete libssl dependency, last updated 4 years ago . As of Debian-based Linux distributions, I confirm that there is no simple way to make it fully functional. You may look at the relevant Comodo forum. I do not know how should it update the article, but things have to be changed. 1אברהם1 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@User:1אברהם1 I copy-edited your post a bit. 85.193.211.12 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Link to free version

Now this article has the following link (with a lot of SPAM): www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php

But the free version could be downloaded only from this page: antivirus.comodo.com

Should we change or add the second link to the article? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done - seems like reasonable request. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)