Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • September 24, 2016, 10:47:27 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?  (Read 8521 times)

oblivion

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« on: April 11, 2015, 09:50:04 AM »
This isn't really a cry for help as a story detailing some of my experiences that others may find useful. I posted a version of this on Gizmo's (as I used their security expertise for one of the relevant decisions I made here) but it's a bit in the grey area for them because it's not just freeware I discuss.

I have a Win7SE netbook. It's about five years old now -- an Asus Eee -- and despite the small limitations of having Starter Edition instead of one of the more <cough> expensive versions of Win 7, it's been pretty good and very reliable.

Naturally, being something I carry around with me quite a bit, security's a greater concern than it might be if it was always sitting at home behind my router. It's had various AV packages, paid and free, on it over the years: when I first got it, I used Microsoft Security Essentials, then I discovered that MSE was tying rocks round the ankles of FindAndRunRobot so I extended my desktop's eSet NOD32 license to include it, then after I decided eSet weren't quite the company they used to be, I went to TechSupportAlert's security page looking for the current top two or three picks and, after some thought, went with the free version of Comodo Internet Security.

I've been using it for about a year. It was noisy for a while, as it learnt about its environment, but my main observation of it was that it was a bit demanding for my taste, at update time, in particular: the download of updated signatures takes what it takes but the time to apply them and the CPU usage while it does it (bearing in mind this is an Intel Atom 1.6GHz machine, not exactly a powerhouse) is enough to make me sigh and go and do something else for a while.

There are also occasional onscreen notifications that almost count as advertising. They're not too big of a deal, not frequent, but I'm often slightly grumpy about such things... however, a week or so back, one of these notifications offered me a full license for a year for $5. That's cheap enough that it hardly matters, I thought, and maybe it'll get me a bit more performance and a package that sits quietly in the background more. So I went for it.

I shouldn't have.

First, although it accepted my swiftly-emailed license key, it instantly started reporting problems. With the help of Comodo's support, the (huge!) offline installer for the current product was downloaded, the existing installation uninstalled and reinstalled from the download, configured and installed and everything looked fine again.

Except that I was now using their firewall rather than Windows. It is definitely easier to configure, it looks capable, it's nice and informative, but the performance hit the system has taken since the full Comodo Security Suite was installed and enabled has been noticeable.

This morning, I decided to switch off the Comodo firewall component and go back to Windows firewall.

The product started complaining loudly that I'm at risk, and I can't find a way to tell it to ignore the firewall's "off" status and just focus on the status of the AV engine. Performance instantly improved, at least to pre-upgrade levels, but at the cost of an "at risk" warning in my system tray that, effectively, is a false positive I can't do anything about.

So I chose to remove it all, lock, stock and barrel, and go back to MSE. I might try Comodo on my desktop machine -- Win 8.1 with a much faster dual core cpu -- just so my $5 doesn't go entirely to waste, but I'm not sure right now that I want to...

I've never been completely happy with any sort of software suites: I'd rather choose components that fit my needs rather than hoping that (as in this case) the other bits that get bundled with my antivirus of choice were also fit for purpose. I get the concept of integration, I'm just not sure it ever really delivers on its promises... ;)

My desktop PC is currently "only" protected with Windows' inbuilt security: the firewall and Defender. From what I think I know about Windows 8.1 and the inbuilt security stuff, coupled with the fact that I try to practice what I preach on the subject of sensible web browsing (and I use OpenDNS with their more sensible levels of security chosen and locked into my router) I'm probably okay, and $5 isn't much to lose (to the extent that if I ask for a refund I'll probably just add it to my DC donation for this year!) but I COULD try it on the desktop box...

Anyone got an useful $.02 to chip in?

(This won't be the first time I've wasted cash on security software: I bought a lifetime license for Vipre a while back that was sufficient of a learning experience that I didn't even bother documenting it above :) )
-- bests, Tim

...this space unintentionally left blank.

MilesAhead

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 7,158
    • View Profile
    • Miles Ahead Software
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2015, 10:25:08 AM »
I'm with you on the suites.  I'm not big on AV usage.  It seems like every time I try one i can feel either the performance or stability decrease.  In any case I noticed 360 Total Security for free.  It seemed well thought out.  I tried it and had no complaints for a few days.  Then stuff started to get weird.  In the end I took it off.

It seems as far as AV stuff is concerned, I can use scanners.  But as soon as I try something of the Real Time Shield variety, it doesn't run smoothly.  I keep image backups and do scans.

Even those browsers that have the AV built in don't want to work well for me.  I don't know what it is but it seems like running with any kind of protection as the default setup just won't work for me.

Plus it seems to me like the AV publishers are the worst for providing uninstallers that don't remove everything they should.  I get the feeling the salesman should have a black shirt and white tie with racing tout hat and be telling me "well you know it's really risky to run without protection. Yeah those street punks just might come by and bust up the place if you don't buy protection from us."

I never found an AV shield I ever liked.

Ath

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,751
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2015, 11:07:47 AM »
I have been using Avast Free for the last couple of years on all my systems, and I'm quite happy with that. Combined with the built-in Windows firewall, and a spam-filter on the systems fetching e-mail, I'm quite confident about security.
I can't compare with Comodo, as I've never installed it, ever, but compared to the, once trusty and lightweight, AVG free, the impact on performance from Avast is barely noticable. Though all the systems involved have at least a core-2 Intel cpu...

That's my  :two:

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,078
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2015, 11:13:47 AM »
An AV solution without real time shield is the open source 'ClamWin'. There are options to add real time scanning to it, if you want it. Because of its limited feature set it isn't represented in a lot of (neutral) AV comparison tests.

Here is one though. User satisfaction is on par with AVG users. The link also provides insights into what ClamWin does and doesn't do. This way you can decide if ClamWin is your cup of tea or not.

MilesAhead

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 7,158
    • View Profile
    • Miles Ahead Software
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2015, 02:53:17 PM »
I've tried ClamWin a few times.  Especially for me it's not good because it only seems to turn up false positives for ahk and autoit3 programs.  When my new hosting provider started taking files off my download page citing virus reports I went to the page they used for scanning.  4 of my zi files got bad reports on 2 out of 57 av scanners.  ClamWin was one of the two in all cases.

The whole approach seems like lock the barn door after the barn has burned down.  When I do Windows support on forums if someone is getting something really weird it seems a very high percentage of the time it goes away if they turn the av off.  They are just petrified to run without it though.  I tell them disable internet while you do the test so you cannot get infected etc..

To me it's a cure worse thn the disease in the majority of cases.  It's like giving someone malaria to cure acne.

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,041
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2015, 04:02:59 PM »
So I chose to remove it all, lock, stock and barrel, and go back to MSE.
...
My desktop PC is currently "only" protected with Windows' inbuilt security: the firewall and Defender.

I am guessing your last claim maybe is the actual one; right now you're not using MSE, but Windows Firewall and Defender?  :-\

I am using MSE (and Windows Firewall), and I like it.
Microsoft Security Essentials: http://windows.micro...-essentials-download

2015-04-11_225914.gif


oblivion

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2015, 06:20:34 PM »
So I chose to remove it all, lock, stock and barrel, and go back to MSE.
...
My desktop PC is currently "only" protected with Windows' inbuilt security: the firewall and Defender.

I am guessing your last claim maybe is the actual one; right now you're not using MSE, but Windows Firewall and Defender?  :-\

I am using MSE (and Windows Firewall), and I like it.

No, I was discussing (maybe not as clearly as I might have) two systems: a Win7SE netbook (which is now running MSE and Windows Firewall) and a desktop machine which is using Win8.1 "native" security, which consists of Defender and Windows Firewall.

MSE is okay, and definitely less hard on system resources than Comodo, but it's realtime protection needs some work to get right, particularly where things like FARR are in use. Still, I got it working reasonably well last time I used it and it hasn't changed much recently... ;)

I'm pleased I'm not alone in considering it "good enough" anyway -- I occasionally worry that MSE is a big target and therefore more vulnerable to attack, almost by definition.
-- bests, Tim

...this space unintentionally left blank.

Innuendo

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,255
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2015, 12:03:49 PM »
Coming into this thread late, but hopefully I can contribute something.

To address the problem you had with Comodo towards the end, oblivion, I believe Microsoft provided a way inside Action Center to change the way notifications are presented regarding what Windows thinks is and and isn't installed on your system in the way of security software. That would be an acceptable temporary solution until you can report the problem and Comodo can fix it. It's their responsibility to report the abilities of their software to Windows so Windows can accurately report the abilities to you.

Comodo probably introduced a bug in the way things are reported. Of course, Comodo just may think a person is always going to use their full suite and didn't even consider someone may not want to use everything they provide. Another thing you may try is see if there's a way to reinstall the suite with just the security component(s) you'd like.

As for MSE, there is no way on God's green Earth that MSE could be described as "good enough" by any stretch of the word by modern standards. Microsoft cut funding to MSE years ago and it has really started to show in the last year or so. I have seen, with my own eyes, systems get infected in real-time while the MSE system tray icon stayed green the entire time. Proceeding to then do an in-depth scan turning up *nothing* unusual all while browser windows are popping up on your screen stating your computer *may* be infected, dialogs for bogus Adobe Flash updates, etc.

Use MSE only if you are solely concerned with finding cracks and keygens on your system as that seems to be the only thing Microsoft is issuing signature updates to protect users from these days.

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,041
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2015, 03:31:10 AM »
I have seen, with my own eyes, systems get infected in real-time while the MSE system tray icon stayed green the entire time. Proceeding to then do an in-depth scan turning up *nothing* unusual all while browser windows are popping up on your screen stating your computer *may* be infected, dialogs for bogus Adobe Flash updates, etc.

-terrible!  :o  Thanks for warning.

-----------

Here I am not recommending or warning, just informing, and using the situation to tell about a giveaway from sharewareonsale and Webroot:
"Sale ends in 1 day 22½ hrs or until sold out": http://sharewareonsa...where-antivirus-sale

Is the program working via some virtual cloud? I don't know yet, I was so far just drawn by the timing and how lite it seems to be.


Quote from: sharewareonsale
Terms and Conditions

    This is a 1-computer 1-year license, for home use
        Note: This is for new users of Webroot. You may or may not get the full year if you've used Webroot in the past.
    You get free updates for one year
    No free tech support
    You must download and install before this offer has ended

Read more at http://sharewareonsa...where-antivirus-sale

When I was quite younger than today, webroot was a respected name. I don't know how it is today.
http://www.webroot.com

1a.gif1b.gif

2a.gif2b.gif

3a.gif3b.gif


The left column of a "Compare versions", the two more expensive versions not shown here:

4.gif
5.gif
6.gif
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 04:00:03 AM by Curt »

oblivion

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2015, 06:05:38 AM »
To address the problem you had with Comodo towards the end, oblivion, I believe Microsoft provided a way inside Action Center to change the way notifications are presented regarding what Windows thinks is and and isn't installed on your system in the way of security software.

I probably didn't explain myself very well on that front.

The problem here was not that Windows was telling me I was at risk. Windows was happy the moment I switched Windows Firewall back on, having disabled the Comodo one.

Comodo's tray icon, in the Pro version, only has one state when there's a security issue from its viewpoint, and IT doesn't look to see if there's an alternate firewall running, it just panics because the Comodo firewall isn't. Windows, by contrast, knows that there's a firewall running, even if it's not the Windows firewall, and only bothers to mention it at all if you go and look at the Windows firewall settings. Although it goes against the grain for me to praise Microsoft for anything, that's exactly the behaviour I'd hope for.
 
Quote
That would be an acceptable temporary solution until you can report the problem and Comodo can fix it.
Comodo's view seems to be that if I didn't want all the abilities of the paid version, I shouldn't have updated it.

Which I guess I can sympathise with. I assumed the paid version would be an improvement over the free version within the facilities I was actually using, not just a way to get access to components I didn't actually expect to have to use, or particularly need.

Quote
Another thing you may try is see if there's a way to reinstall the suite with just the security component(s) you'd like.

If I decide to switch away from MSE again -- and I may, I change my mind about the best security choices based on what I read and experience -- then I'll look at other possibilities too. The increase in performance of my poor little netbook since removing Comodo has been such that I'm actually thinking that I made a poor choice initially, despite the positive reviews.

Quote
As for MSE, there is no way on God's green Earth that MSE could be described as "good enough" by any stretch of the word by modern standards.

Nevertheless, might it be "good enough" given that I use Firefox with Noscript, rarely if ever connect to the net anywhere except behind a router that I've told to use OpenDNS with all the "filter out the bad guys" setting enabled and rarely if ever download stuff from places I'm not confident of?

For the time being, anyway. ;)

Just out of interest, although I've got a license for MBAM and can therefore use its realtime stuff if I want, I never have. Does anyone have a view on whether ditching MSE and turning on realtime protection in MBAM would be a step forward or back, given my other (hopefully fairly safe) practices?

Quote
Use MSE only if you are solely concerned with finding cracks and keygens on your system as that seems to be the only thing Microsoft is issuing signature updates to protect users from these days.
Does that include Defender?

My favourite realtime AV was NOD32 -- I switched away from it only really because I lost confidence in Eset's support for it compared to the fullblown security suite, and as (at the time) I was using either Windows firewall or my lifetime license for Outpost (I must check if that still exists!) depending on which machine/OS I was using, I really didn't see the point of buying into components I didn't need (where have we heard that before?!) But I'm pretty agnostic, really: I'll consider anything that's not going to cripple the machine's performance and has at least some credibility (so let's forget about Norton and McAfee!)

I've never seriously considered ClamWin (except its portable version lives on a thumbdrive in case of dire need) -- last I looked I think it was still missing disinfection facilities -- but from what you say I might be as well served by it and MBAM as I am by MSE...

Food for thought. :)
 
-- bests, Tim

...this space unintentionally left blank.

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,041
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2015, 12:06:52 PM »
... using the situation to tell about a giveaway from sharewareonsale and Webroot:
"Sale ends in 1 day 22½ hrs or until sold out": http://sharewareonsa...where-antivirus-sale

Is the program working via some virtual cloud? I don't know yet, I was so far just drawn by the timing and how lite it seems to be.

I am amazed. I had a strange feeling that it was not necessary to uninstall or even stop my antivirus, before installing WebRoot. Flashes from the past, security related programs freezing the computer when fighting to be the boss. But I took a d e e p breath, and installed the 798KB program. And I was right!! WebRoot is running at the same time as Microsoft Security Essentials, and they are not fighting each other (yet)! Maybe this shows that WebRoot not really is "here" (on my PC), but is working via some virtual cloud?

And Yes, it only took 5 minutes to install and set up.

2015-04-13_184802.gif

2015-04-13_184954.gif

------------------
Modified:
In order to register and get a free license, one must follow the "My Account" -button, and be both humble and patient. I am not, so I have not registered for a key. Example: After creating a password with AT LEAST NINE (9) characters, you are next ordered to:>Enter a memorable word or number, using a minimum of 6 characters (excluding < >). Choose a code that is easy to remember, because you'll be asked to enter two characters of it every time you log in. For example, the system might ask you to enter the first and fifth characters of this code.< And then you are told to also create a security question!!

Of course I did not accept all this, and have now removed the thing

2015-04-13_192144.gif
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 12:47:30 PM by Curt »

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,548
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2015, 01:53:25 PM »
But I took a d e e p breath, and installed the 798KB program. ...Maybe this shows that WebRoot not really is "here" (on my PC), but is working via some virtual cloud?

I'm as much a fan of ultra-tight code as anyone, but how can 798k of a "full suite" security program do anything thorough enough to be legitimately productive? And how would that even begin to operate via the cloud?

Anyone have some high grade technical feedback on this?


x16wda

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 671
  • what am I doing in this handbasket?
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2015, 08:15:20 PM »
- Checksum everything
- Send it to the cloud like a DNS RBL lookup
- If your PC doesn't report back in, blacklist that checksum for the next poor fellow that tries to run it  :P
vi vi vi - editor of the beast

oblivion

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2015, 10:40:20 AM »
This has presented me with such a lot of things to think about that I've done some proper research. Well, I've relied on others to do proper testing, I guess...

Anyway, the upshot seems to be that Webroot's offering above is generally considered pretty good, but I debated the subject with myself for long enough that I lost out on the free offering.  :-[ Oh well... I've removed MSE, anyway. The general view seems to be that it's not really fit for purpose any more -- ditto Defender in Win8.

I haven't settled on a final answer yet -- I'm keeping updated versions of Clamwin and MBAM handy but my current best hope is Panda Free Antivirus, which appears to be a similarly lightweight product to Webroot and seems quite well thought of. (I tried Panda AV many, many years ago and wasn't over-impressed but that would've been on a Win98 machine and the world's quite a different place now!)

One thing, though: my goodness, but my netbook runs well without a resident AV product.  :D

Oh, and eSet's AV Remover tool is a dead useful bit of kit :)
-- bests, Tim

...this space unintentionally left blank.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 10:41:59 AM by oblivion, Reason: new last line :) »

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2015, 01:19:31 PM »
Anyone got an useful $.02 to chip in?
First, don't bother with any product that includes a firewall. There's really no good reason to use anything but the built-in Windows stuff... unless you're one of those paranoid enterprisey corporations, and then you'd run fascist outgoing firewalls at your internet edge, not individual machines.

Second, I haven't seen any good reasons to use anything but MSE for anti-malware for several years. The 3rd-party offerings are bloated, resource-intensive, buggy (to the point of sometimes borking your system, like Panda recently did), and try to legitimize themselves through fear-mongering.

Just stick with MSE, keep MalwareBytes/whatever if you accidentally miss a double-negative checkbox for installing browser toolbars from shareware, and browse responsibly.

Use a decent ad-blocker (the really nice µblock is available for firefox now as well!), add in Ghostery, and do not use the Java and Flash plugins for your browser - if you need flash, use Chrome's built-in flash support, even if your primary browser is firefox.

EDIT: changed µblock link to gorhill "origin" instead of chrisaljoudi because of ongoing controversy.
- carpe noctem
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 01:24:53 PM by f0dder »

oblivion

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2015, 09:48:00 AM »
Panda's interface is very metro-y. (You may like this. I don't.) And although the install and initial scan went smoothly, it eventually put a "select Panda account" dialog onscreen and wouldn't let me fill it in, or even close it. Flickering pointers and no response to anything. Not a great start.  :down:

The upshot: Panda properly panda'd my netbook.  :o So much for lightweight, cloud-based security... it tried quite hard to stop me unloading it so I could take control back and uninstall -- which might be a point in its favour, I guess, sort of -- but whatever it thought it was doing around the "select Panda account" dialog didn't actually achieve anything except an awful lot of disk thrashing and an all-but-unresponsive system. It has therefore been consigned to the bit bucket.

(In the process of cleaning up after Panda I discovered that a couple of Comodo addons -- a version of Chrome called Chromodo, and a remote support tool called GeekBuddy -- weren't removed when Comodo went. So they've gone too, now. Scrubbed with Revo. ;) )

f0dder's advice notwithstanding, I've managed to get quite paranoid about the "good enoughness" of MSE and so I'm giving Avast a go, based on Ath's suggestion.

Looking good so far.  Not counting chickens, though.

I get that everyone's mileage varies, but a word to the wise (and an underlining of f0dder's warning above) my experience with Panda was bad enough that I actually wondered for a while if the disk thrashing was ransomware and I'd been taken in by some sort of diverted download that was only apparently from their site.

Another failed experiment, while I think of it, and only because they (a) offered me a good price if I ran the trial and liked it, (b) use two AV engines and (c) claim great speed and performance was  :nono2: Ashampoo. The only good thing I can say about it is that the uninstallation process was straightforward and uncomplicated. (Everything in between only served to demonstrate that people occasionally make inflated and unverified assertions about their software.)
-- bests, Tim

...this space unintentionally left blank.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,548
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2015, 05:07:48 PM »
Use a decent ad-blocker (the really nice µblock is available for firefox now as well!)...


I haven't heard of uBlock before. I just installed it.

Heh is there any problem running both uBlock and AdBlock at the same time?


tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,237
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2015, 07:55:10 PM »
^ FWIW I disabled Adblock (Edge) -
it didnt seem like a good idea to have both working.

I'm very happy with uBlock so far :up:
Tom

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2015, 03:25:58 AM »
Use a decent ad-blocker (the really nice µblock is available for firefox now as well!)...
I haven't heard of uBlock before. I just installed it.
Heh is there any problem running both uBlock and AdBlock at the same time?
They both use the same filter lists, so at best the blocker that runs last will do nothing.

µblock simply has a better engine than the adblock core, and uses less memory and CPU - so disable adblock and see if you run into any issues, you can always uninstall (or reenable) later :). Btw, for FireFox it's important to install µblock from the GitHub link I posted, it's not updated anywhere near regularly from the official addon repository.
- carpe noctem

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,041
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2015, 06:56:00 AM »
Btw, for FireFox it's important to install µblock from the GitHub link I posted, it's not updated anywhere near regularly from the official addon repository.

-does this mean, f0dder, that you are recommending the beta versions?

Pardon my French, I think uBlock is youBlock, not microBlock.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2015, 07:40:26 AM »
Btw, for FireFox it's important to install µblock from the GitHub link I posted, it's not updated anywhere near regularly from the official addon repository.
-does this mean, f0dder, that you are recommending the beta versions?
Perhaps not beta versions, but definitely from GitHub rather than the Mozilla repository - I'm on 0.9.3.0 for my FireFox install.

Pardon my French, I think uBlock is youBlock, not microBlock.
Hm, it seems you are right - it's "uBlock" in both Chrome and FireFox and now. Definitely used to be µblock.
- carpe noctem

x16wda

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 671
  • what am I doing in this handbasket?
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2015, 08:04:25 AM »
It appears to be uBlock Origin in Chrome now after some sort of kerfuffle (as reported here by ghacks), fwiw.
vi vi vi - editor of the beast

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2015, 01:17:44 PM »
It appears to be uBlock Origin in Chrome now after some sort of kerfuffle (as reported here by ghacks), fwiw.
Ugh, Google.

Also, the split between "uBlock Origin" and "uBlock" is a bit ho-humm. As I understand, the original author (gorhill) got overwhelmed by all the requests demands from users - which can indeed be overwhelming when you're doing something as a hobby project. Seems like the new maintainer (chrisaljoudi) might not have handled his responsibilities super well ("made with love and care by Chris." + donate button, not even mentioning gorhill on his site), so... meh.

This drama and uncertainty is disheartening, since the ublock engine has substantial advantages compared to the older adblock.
- carpe noctem

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,548
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2015, 01:21:56 PM »
...
I haven't heard of uBlock before. I just installed it.
Heh is there any problem running both uBlock and AdBlock at the same time?
They both use the same filter lists, so at best the blocker that runs last will do nothing.

µblock simply has a better engine than the adblock core, and uses less memory and CPU - so disable adblock and see if you run into any issues, you can always uninstall (or reenable) later :). ...

Well, here's a wrinkle: In ublock, I can't get it to block Chessbase's embedded live-blitz frame, but it's blocked on Adblock Latitude. (I am really sensitive to moving things on a page!)

And since I visit that page all the time, that's a showstopper, different from just one time reading an article on a news site with explosive javascript abuse.


f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Comodo Internet Security -- a cautionary tale?
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2015, 01:28:06 PM »
Well, here's a wrinkle: In ublock, I can't get it to block Chessbase's embedded live-blitz frame, but it's blocked on Adblock Latitude. (I am really sensitive to moving things on a page!)
chessbase dot com, the live chessboard in the top right column?

Was pick-and-blockable with uBlock Origin 0.9.4.2 in Chrome... my FireFox has enough panzer that I'd have to disable some of it to even see the board :)
- carpe noctem