Comodo anti virus

[Guest]

[djh22]

I,ve tried and regret to inform i didn't like it . It slowed my PC down and browsing was also slow, I spent most of my time allowing various  apps. several times over. there was also a few times where my laptop almost failed to load Windows.
Comodo AV  , v 2.oo beta.
PC = Dell Laptop Expiron 1200, celleron M, windows Xp home sp2.

having said that, I also have Comodo Firewall which is fantastic,totally secures my PC no problems to report.

DJH22.

[Júštiñ™]

Hello,

Thank you very much for your feedback on Comodo Antivirus 2 beta. As you understand this is a beta product and the Comodo developers are currently making huge changes to Comodo antivirus which will improve both detection and the actual application which includes memory, prevention, scanning, etc...

I have heard that the current version which is under development will be released sometime next year, but this information is an estimation, it could change at anytime.

Justin

[djh22]

Thanks, It's good to hear it will be amended,I'll certainly try it again. I hope the developers can make it as good as the firewall.
Cheers

[aladinonl]

Not only the firewall but i as well as lots of other users looking fwd to hav as much comodo products as possible ( coz we  trust in Comodo certainly).

But somehow at this time Comodo put more efforts in firewall so the progress of CAVS seems slow ( i feel dat as i regularly chek out CAVS but got no news)...

But i definitely wait..

[Info-Sec]

Well I wont lie.  I love the firewall, but I wouldnt trust COMODO for my anti malware needs. 

Comodo got a 27% detection rating on Av comparatives http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/2ndgrouptest.pdf

Now I know its only one results page, and I know results vary, but 27%?  Thats pretty bad.

[Little Mac]

Info-Sec,

The first thing to realize is that those results were for CAVS 1.1, not the current product.  Also, as they pointed out, they only test the on-demand scanner against certain samples.  Every testing organization has different methodology; this is part of the problem with such things, as there's not a universal standard.  Some members here are involved in virus testing, and have posted regarding very different results.

These tests often involve antiquated virus samples that are no longer valid in today's market, but still won't be detected if you don't have years of backfill on your definitions.  I do not know whether this applies to those tests or not, as they did not say what viruses they tested with.

CAVS 2.0 also has HIPS which raises its security levels considerably, along with increased file detection capabilities.  This is not to say that CAVS 2.0 is complete and on level with other file scanning AV products.  However, it's detection is undergoing a radical makeover at present, and elements of BOC's 10+ years of malware research are being incorporated.  I think the next version will be much improved. 

LM

[andyman35]

I agree there!

These antivirus tests are a guide,but nothing more and sometimes wildly inaccurate.They can be flawed for a number of reasons,such as not utilising heuristics/behavioural monitors,also the infections aren't introduced as they would be in a real-world scenario which can cloud the results.

The most accurate tests involve surfing known malware sites and monitoring the infections caught,(definitely not recommended on your home pc )

[Info-Sec]

LM I realize what your saying and I completly understand.  I was simply stating their findings to any one that was interested.

[Tags:]