Talk:Xcitium

This article reads like an advert

Is it standard practice for a Wiki article to list all the various products a company offers? This article seems more like an advert than an encyclopaedic entry (although some improvements were made recently). What does everyone think? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I have removed quite a lot of text from this article now. I don't think it's appropriate to list all Comodo products here (Comodo is not like other companies such as Unilever, for example, that offer several products/brands under different names, so I don't see any encyclopaedic need to have them listed here - it's a blatant advert as far as I can tell). I have also removed other 'adverty' text such as the entire section dedicated to telling the story of someone who reported a bug and Comodo responded quickly with a fix ("Hey, look at our company and see how quick we are to respond to security issues that are reported to us!"). I'm guessing the majority of this article was written by someone with an affiliation to Comodo. Other thoughts on the matter are welcome! LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed more sections as they are not really relevant to an encyclopedia entry on the subject, in my view. In fact, they seem to have been inserted purely for PR. Other thoughts are welcome! LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk Archive Page 1 Created

To make this Talk page easier to understand, I have used H:ARC to move all older discussions except the one above to this archive page: Talk:Comodo_Cybersecurity/Archive_1 - Dyork (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

After acquisitions/changes, page needs to be split into 3 pages

This page appears to be trying to be three different pages in one place:

• Comodo_Cybersecurity - one of the companies
• Comodo Group (redirect) - the overall company owning Comodo Cybersecurity
• Sectigo (redirect) - the separate company that was previously "Commodo CA" and, as mentioned in this article, was sold to investors in 2017 and re-branded to "Sectigo" in 2018.

It seems to me that at the very least Sectigo should be spun out into its own page. Currently Sectigo redirects to THIS page, which is really for a completely different company. I don't have time to work on this today, but would suggest this is something someone should take on at some point in time. - Dyork (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Quizbizet: - I saw your edit to the TLS page to point "Sectigo" to their website instead of tho this page about Comodo Cybersecurity. That change was reverted by @MrOllie: but I understand WHY you were making the change. As I note above, this page about Comodo_Cybersecurity really needs to be split out, and Sectigo needs its own page. Recently @PKIhistory: and I have been trading messages about this and PKIhistory is, I believe, going to work on a draft that would be available for comment. All this is a long way of saying that at some point soon there may in fact be a separate page for Sectigo that could be linked to. - Dyork (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I will update in a few days. I need to work the draft and make sure it is in good shape. I appreciate feedback and will post here when ready.PKIhistory (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Just letting you know I made a draft:Sectigo and it's still waiting for review. 181montreal (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quizbizet:@Dyork:I updated the stub article on Sectigo in my sandbox for your review. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PKIhistory/sandbox I actually think that Sectigo is the only notable part of the Comodo history and the rest of the remaining company is small compared to their SSL business which was sold. Anyway, that is up for debate, but would be good to get Sectigo started with its own page. I look forward to your feedback. The previous article was rejected (I had no connection with it, but it had some valuable content).PKIhistory (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

When you have a chance, can you look at Sectigo draft in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PKIhistory/sandbox. Thanks.PKIhistory (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@PKIhistory: The draft looks good for a stub. One detail is that the "Type" in the Infobox needs to be from the list in List_of_legal_entity_types_by_country. The field is for the type of legal entity that it is, rather than what the main business is. - Dyork (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dyork:Thank you - fixed it. I will submit it soon. Will post on this page once submitted.PKIhistory (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It is submitted, hopefully it is submitted correctly. When you have a chance, please take a look to see if submitted correctly.PKIhistory (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be submitted properly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sectigo_(2)PKIhistory (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ia m looking for help on Sectigo draft. I am trying to get it published. I would appreciate anyone's help editing it with me. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sectigo_(2)PKIhistory (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• @PKIhistory: - Ugh... my apologies. Somehow I never noticed your request for help *two years ago*. I'll blame the pandemic. :-) And I see that your Sectigo draft was deleted because of the lack of any editing. I do think this is still worth separating out, because it is a different company. I guess we now have to request the draft to be restored. - Dyork (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  That would be great for it to be restored. It is a separate company for awhile now and it deserves having its own page. I gave up on editing for some time but may come back. I can work on the draft is it is restored. It was good enough I think for publishing. PKIhistory (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi there - I tried restoring it but fairly new to Wikipedia. Would love help trying to make the case that Sectigo should not be redirected to Xcitium. 181montreal (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi! I made a new draft:sectigo since that one was abandoned. would love some reviews when possible! 181montreal (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

new name?

It's written Xcitium is the new name, but both Comodo and Xcitium websites function. Not sure if it's legit to rename the page. KyoNa at N (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sectigo and Comodo, past or present?

The article seems a bit unclear in some points regarding the certificates.

It says at the intro "Under the brand Sectigo, the company acts as a web Certificate authority (CA) and issues SSL/TLS certificates.", which sounds like that Comodo currently operates Sectigo and is basically just a brand name,

on the other hand below it states: "In October 2017, Francisco Partners acquired Comodo Certification Authority (Comodo CA) from Comodo Security Solutions, Inc. Francisco Partners rebranded Comodo CA in November 2018 to Sectigo.", which instead sounds like Sectigo is no longer connected to Comodo and just operated by Francisco Partners.

arent these contradictory?

My1 19:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. Comodo CA no longer exists. Therefor there should be no redirect from Sectigo to Xcitium. Comodo CA rebranded as Sectigo and operates independently from Xcitium in every single way. 181montreal (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect from Sectigo to Xcitium

Hi all — I’ve nominated the redirect from Sectigo to Xcitium for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Sectigo is a distinct company from Xcitium, formerly known as Comodo CA, and has operated independently since 2018 under separate ownership and branding. The current redirect is misleading and conflates two unrelated entities. Please feel free to participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Thank you!

I think you forgot to actually open the discussion (also you forgot to sign XD

My1 19:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh man, how embarassing. Let me see if I can figure that out! 181montreal (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok it's fixed! :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#Remove_redirect_of_Sectigo_to_Xcitium

181montreal (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: The redirect from Sectigo to Xcitium should be cancelled.
• Why it should be changed: Sectigo is a distinct company from Xcitium, formerly known as Comodo CA, and has operated independently since 2018 under separate ownership and branding. The current redirect is misleading and conflates two unrelated entities.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): See below for multiple sources that show Sectigo is an independant company from Xcitium and are not related in any way.

Primary source:

Secondary sources that have part of the rebrand/change of name story highlighted:

181montreal (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

References

 Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 02:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a request to delete a redirect. They can't do that, as they are not an admin - and it shouldn't be done anyway since their draft was declined. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Valorrr, thanks for agreeing that the page should not redirect to Xcitium. Since the Sectigo draft got declined even though it was written with secondary sources and inherent facts, it would make more sense for the Sectigo redirect to go to something more NEUTRAL like certificate authority. Can you help me with that? Or tell me who could? There is absolutely no reason Sectigo should redirect to Xcitium still after myself, and countless others above and on the Xcitium talk page hae discussed this. Please help if you can! Thanks 181montreal (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure what Sectigo was, so please explain then I can give an opinion... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sectigo is a certificate authority (a type of company that is an approved provider of digital certificiates for the world's internet) - they are an approved vendor given only to select company's from the CA/Browser Forum (https://cabforum.org/about/membership/members/). Xcitium is not that this at all and has absolutely no connection to what Sectigo does. Sectigo was previously Comodo CA which was a spin off from Xcitium, but has run as it's own indepedant company, with independant leadership, financials, innovation since it was acquired by Francisco Partners in 2017 and rebranded as Sectigo in 2018 to avoid confusion with its former parent company. IT has been operating as an independent company since Francisco Partners acquisition. Xcitium is a different company and now currently getting all Sectigo redirects which is factually incorrect.

If you look at the Xcitium talk page, you can see many different users that agree the Sectigo page should NOT redirect to Xcitium.

Can you help redirect Sectigo to an approved, neutral page such as certificate authority for the time being? Thanks! 181montreal (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You should not do a copy and paste of a declined draft into a redirect. The draft ought to be revised and approved first. MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)