Talk:Comodo Cybersecurity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion

Full disclosure: Comodo employee speaking. A separate page for Comodo CEO Melih Abdulhayoglu was deemed not significant enough. Since this is the second biggest SSL certificate issuer in the world, we'd like to expand the page beyond stub status. This page hasn't been updated in a long time, and a lot has changed with the company since 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.66.254 (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

misc

Talk:Comodo How do I upload a logo?

Please read the File Upload instructions from this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload) to upload a file.

---

Comodo is not public. It's privately owned and appears on no exchanges anywhere in the world.

Why COI?

The article is tagged for cleanup with the COI tag but there does not appear to be any NPOV etc. violations; WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in^out 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice essay. I agree that people vehemently spew the term around. It was tagged with COI because Katharine908 admitted to working for Comodo Group and was told by her boss to fix the page. When whichever user "adopted" Katherin908, they realized it and immediately tagged the page (and in my opinion they didn't read the article before doing so). I agree that the article doesn't have any NPOV violations. See Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 11#Comodo and User talk:Katharine908#RE:Message if you wanna see the info surrounding it. Killiondude (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly time something was done about the rampant {{COI}} tag abuse - there's 2,500 articles tagged as such and this was one of a random sample I checked. In this instance I think it would be best to move the COI tag to the talk page or remove it altogether. Perhaps this user could be encouraged to contribute in a WP:NPOV fashion to expanding the article? She may even be able to convince her boss to assign some time to the project - Comodo is a more significant company than the article currently gives it credit for. -- samj _in^out 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make it clear to Katherine that she could edit the page as long as it was NPOV... I think she gave up on Wikipedia citing a "steep learning curve" (which I was disappointed in finding out after the fact). I'm down for taking the COI tag off the page. Killiondude (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the changelog of the user, and while I spotted recent edits, none of them applied to this page. Also, I don't see any major COI issues with the current page (and there was a significant change to the article since it was first tagged.) As such, the tage was removed. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I have updated the page, still trying very hard to maintain a neutral POV. I will appreciate your comments and editing. Katharine908 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cites and so on

Hello, apologies for the number of cite requests and the like I've made - I found that a number of the references in this article simply go to mirrors of corporate press releases. Further to that, cites are often in place to back up the presence of an item of software itself, rather than the claims of popularity / efficiency / what have you that are claimed. Hope that makes sense, please contact me if you have any issues. Random name (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

History section

The history section currently reads "Melih Abdulhayoglu founded Comodo in 1998, based on his experience at Bradford University in building new digital security technologies for large enterprises, computer manufacturers and governmental organizations worldwide."

This reads oddly - he obtained experience in building digital security technologies for large enterprises, computer manufacturers and governmental organizations while at university? This claim seems far-fetched. Detail would be very useful. Random name (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Symantec vs. comodo

Comodo ceo openly challenges Symantec in many security forums. Should it be mentioned? http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Challenge-to-Symantec-from-Comodo-CEO/td-p/295270/highlight/false --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Such advertising stuffs have no place in Wikipedia. If you want something encyclopedic, wait until they are challenged; then, cite the result of the challenge. Otherwise, we see a lot of such gimmicks everyday. Words are cheap, really. Fleet Command (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this news enough? Http://pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369524,00.asp --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, no, that's not enough. This article is full of weasel words; it makes us believe that COMODO is orders of magnitude inferior without giving actual numbers. But maybe if you looked at the actual figure, you'd find COMODO to be only slightly inferior. (Besides, PCMag already has bad mark in the field of its analysis of antiviruses. Remember how PCMag review bashed Microsoft Security Essentials before release while a lab test completely discredited that allegation after the release?) In Wikipedia, we need actual figures to be NPOV. If you can get the actual figures however, that would be super; you can then include both figures, the blog post and the news article.

Mind you, that was just my humble opinion. You may get a third opinion anytime you wish...

Of course, I don't want to look like a mindless robot whose job is to stick to Wikipedia policies with superglue. So, here is my POV: I personally found COMODO antivirus a poor thing; it found thousands of false-positives on my clean PC! On the other hand, for more than a decade now, I found Norton Antivirus to be a very powerful antivirus whose one big disadvantage was that it took all my PC's power to run it. But all these are my POV and in Wikipedia, we're not supposed to be POV. So, we need actual figures from those sources. Fleet Command (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, first sign of PCMag POVness: West Coast Labs has not analyzed Norton Antivirus or Norton Internet Security at all; only Symantec Endpoint Protection. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

First person blog posts are not credible references? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a credible source for saying "Melih said such and such". But saying "Melih said such and such" is advertisement. We don't have such contents in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We are straying off topic now but did you upgrade to the latest version of the Norton software? Norton AntiVirus 2011 is pretty light (lighter than previous NAV2008s). Upgrade for free at http://www.norton.com/nuc (legit link). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incident with Reseller Authority

USERTRUST, a Comodo's relleser authority which can also issue valid certificates for most of the browsers suffered for a computer attack on March 23th. They suspect from the Iranian government. The attackers could issue 9 certificates which included Gmail, Yahoo and Skype websites. Comodo's statement confirming it is here.

--PabloCastellano (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The treatment of this incident in the article by Smallman12q is totally PoV. Complete with editorial call out PoV pieces. Revise or be reverted. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.129.20.245 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PoV??? I have re-read the section and sounds good and unbiased to me. Links to external references are also provided. Exactly, which sentence do you think is PoV? --PabloCastellano (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it is a POV problem, but it could be undue weight. Killiondude (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

the comodo hacker has attacked also many other CA http://pastebin.com/GkKUhu35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.1.1 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rants by an anonymous individual is not verifiable evidence. Hence, does not belong in an encyclopedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Comodo logo.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Comodo logo.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comodo EasyVPN

Comodo EasyVPN is now called Comodo Unite. Source here: http://www.comodo.com/home/email-security/vpn-access.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.10 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Good call. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead reference for Breach_of_security from Public-key_infrastructure

Dead link on Comodo breach from Public-key_infrastructure security Was the section removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.100 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

About Comodo Group and the type of products they develop

I see someone has recently removed the statement about Comodo Group's product line being "focused primarily on computer and internet security", with some lame excuse about "blah, blah, blah, but they do other utilities!". First of all, I kindly suggest looking at the definition of the word "primarily". Second of all, I kindly suggest looking at the Comodo Group's official "products" page. What do we see here? Sentences such as "All Products - Secure your family, business and yourself with the most trusted security brand on the market". What else do we see here? Subgroups such as "Home Users", with descriptions like "Enjoy maximum security for your PC" and "Secure your PCs from all online threats with the choices range from desktop software to online cloud-base service" (Comodo considers their Cloud-based storage services AND their browser products as a "security products") or "Business Users" subgroup with descriptions like "Secure both your sites and business" and "Secure all transactions on your website and protect both the site and your business at the same time". Need I say more? Just because Comodo also happens to make "System Utilites" suites does NOT make such statement as "focused primarily on computer and internet security" a "factually incorrect" one, at least not according to an official product page. Rndomuser (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Please cite a reliable secondary source. Personal interpretation of what you see in one source is not valid for Wikipedia.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me... reliable source? An official page is not "reliable" enough? You want secondary sources? How about LinkedIn page here - look at the "Specialties" section (you have to click on "more" link to see it) - all of which are directly related to "computer and internet security", here is the exact wording from it: "Digital Certificates & PKI Management Solutions, Vulnerability Scanning, PCI Compliance, Content and Identity Authentication, Endpoint Security Software and Support services including Comodo's Firewall, AV and Disk Encryption products". How else would anyone interpret such data? How about an article in NY Times here, which reads "The Comodo Group, an Internet security company, has been attacked in the last month by a talkative and professed patriotic Iranian hacker who infiltrated several of the company’s partners and used them to threaten the security of myriad big-name Web sites." Or is it also not a reliable enough secondary source? It took me 5 minutes to find such sources (and I'm sure I could find even more of them where it says that Comodo Group's primary focus is on "security" products") - surely it is worth to spend 5 minutes for the good of other people rather than simply placing "citation needed" tag or blindly removing the supposedly "uncited" and "unsupported" text?... Rndomuser (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, forget everything I said. I'm not interested in improving this article (even though I can find plenty of evidence to support my edit) anymore. If you want to turn it into another "Windows 8" article (figuratively speaking) and be a total deletionist - so be it, you won. I am really tired of fighting against bureaucratic nonsense when actually trying to help other readers...

B.t.w, I also left a comment at Windows 8's "Talk" page... Also with plenty of supporting references. Though I believe my wording there will also fall on deaf ears. Rndomuser (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

The New York Times article fits the bill for our requirements. The statement may now be added to the article. Thanks for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Article degrading

It looks like I already gave this article a cleanup in June 2013 to remove the dedicated controversy section that was cited primarily to primary sources, cleanup excessive product details, reduce excessive sub-sections and avoid excessive use of primary sources, etc.. Over-time, it has returned back to its original poor state due mostly to edits by user:UKAmerican. For example, I noticed user:Codename Lisa and I have both removed the dedicated controversy section per WP:CRITICISM and UKAmerican has re-incorporated it persistently anyway. UKAmerican seems to be mostly focused on editing Comodo-related articles. In most cases this is an indication of a conflict of interest, though it may also be due to a narrow area of interest. In any case, I suggest that if UKAmerican keeps contributing to these articles they discuss changes on the Talk page in the future.

Also a lot of the articles listed here need a PROD, AfD, or cleanup if anyone has the time/interest to sort through them. Although it is just my personal advice, there is some guidance on how to assess whether a sub-article is warranted here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comodo SSL

Note that Comodo SSL has been redirected here.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comodo Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728114851/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/021413-council-digital-certificate-266728.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/021413-council-digital-certificate-266728.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comodo Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412125418/http://www.domainersmagazine.com/Jul-Aug-Issue-22/DNS.com-The-Next-Geo-Targeting-Solution.html to http://www.domainersmagazine.com/Jul-Aug-Issue-22/DNS.com-The-Next-Geo-Targeting-Solution.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130410174711/http://www.darkreading.com/authentication/167901072/security/news/240148546/major-certificate-authorities-unite-in-the-name-of-ssl-security.html to http://www.darkreading.com/authentication/167901072/security/news/240148546/major-certificate-authorities-unite-in-the-name-of-ssl-security.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)