Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 11, 2008, 02:46:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length

199341 Posts
22897 Topics
54959 Members

Latest Member: fkjsdflkj

Search:     Advanced search | Tag Cloud
+  Welcome to the Comodo Forum
|-+  Desktop Security Products
| |-+  Comodo Anti-Viruspyware (CAVS)
| | |-+  Feedback/Comments/Announcements/News about CAVS
| | | |-+  Should We Be Using This
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Should We Be Using This  (Read 5312 times)
imagine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« on: January 05, 2008, 01:10:43 AM »

I have been using V2 for a month now with only minor problems however this website http://virus.gr/portal/en/node/28 rates V 2.0.12.47  at #34 with only a little over 50% detection. I have never had a virus in over 8 years of computing so cannot say if Comodo is working well or not. 
Logged
MJ1988
Comodo Loves me
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2008, 03:36:38 AM »

CAVS is just a beta right now. Of course the definitions aren't that great.

But when the official release comes out, I expect good things. Look at their firewall for example, you know they mean business when it comes to security.
Logged

Call me Matt. =P
Josh123
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2008, 01:43:32 AM »

I have been using V2 for a month now with only minor problems however this website http://virus.gr/portal/en/node/28 rates V 2.0.12.47  at #34 with only a little over 50% detection. I have never had a virus in over 8 years of computing so cannot say if Comodo is working well or not. 

Hello!

CAVS 3 BETA is planned for release soon... then shortly after final. CAVS 3 is expected to be outstanding, with HIPS and I believe it is using BOCLEAN DataBase signature as well to make it even more powerful Wink

Josh.
Logged
Burillo
Computer Security Testing Group
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


Bunghole


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2008, 03:29:46 AM »

it is in development - it's good. it is not ready for everyday use - it's bad. HIPS is cool but it definitely needs to improve detection rates...
Logged

Some people are dumb... (c) Butt-head

Remember! CIA is watching you!
imagine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2008, 07:44:28 PM »

OK - I am now holding my breath for Version 3.  Hope I don't get oxygen starvation. Tongue
Logged
giraffe
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 365



« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2008, 11:37:26 AM »

OK - I am now holding my breath for Version 3.  Hope I don't get oxygen starvation. Tongue

Well, unlike CFP, you'll change colour according to your status.
Logged

XP Pro SP3
CFP
Avast!
Opera
SAS
lundberg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2008, 04:14:37 PM »

ISTM "beta" is wrong.  This is "alpha" software, at best.  If version 3 works as well as version 2, it should report itself as a known and confirmed denial-of-service attack.

For my people I'm rating ...

Comodo firewall: marginally acceptable alternative to Sunbelt/KPF (with reservations), switch if you feel you must.  The out-of-the-box configuration is far too verbose and will intimidate most users.  The interface is too obsure.

Comodo anti-spam: completely unacceptable, use Popfile.  QED.  I won't annoy my users with this kind of anti-spam filter and I refuse to deal with anyone who uses it.

Comodo anti-malware: completely unacceptable, use Spybot.  Too slow, too obsure.  My remaining Windows 98 user hates Spybot, but noone else is complaining.

Comodo website authentication: acceptable (with reservations), use direct dial for sercure ordering.  I found the program annoying and was glad to uninstall it.  Perhaps if it had some more options and was less jarring on-screen, I'd like it .. maybe even like it a lot.

Comodo anti-virus: utterly unacceptable, use AVGFree or Avast. 

Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested.  It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

Baring media attention, in the meantime, I'll check back in a couple years to see if things have improved.
Logged
LeoniAquila
Über Minimalist™ Defender of Resources Bloatware Fighter
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3596


Leone & Aquila


« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2008, 04:24:37 PM »

Comodo firewall: marginally acceptable alternative to Sunbelt/KPF (with reservations), switch if you feel you must.  The out-of-the-box configuration is far too verbose and will intimidate most users.  The interface is too obsure.

There is a wishlist if you're missing something in CFP.

Comodo anti-malware: completely unacceptable, use Spybot.  Too slow, too obsure.  My remaining Windows 98 user hates Spybot, but noone else is complaining.

"Completely unacceptable" are very strong words. Slow, obsure? (obscure?) I'd like to hear more details...

I haven't heard anyone talking good about Spybot in a long time!

LA
Logged

» Windows XP Home Edition SP3 nLite
» COMODO Firewall Pro
gibran
Forum Member
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3813


Sometimes words are meaningless indeed...


« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2008, 08:34:14 PM »

"Completely unacceptable" are very strong words. Slow, obsure? (obscure?) I'd like to hear more details...

At least it was specified that the content of that post was a rant. Grin
A rant every two years would be something I hope for Love

Maybe meanwhile we are going to see lundberg detiled review on an external site where he is going to describe his rating standards  coupling them with explicative examples.

I have an high opinion of Matousec reviews and test methods so when something scores poorly you know exactly why

The most obscure statement was this

Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested.  It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.
I guess I would be more concerned if Thunderbird email client was not supported.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 08:36:54 PM by gibran » Logged

panic
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5471


... and I say to myself, "What a wonderful world"


« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2008, 12:45:20 AM »

Thank you for your opinion. Sorry to hear that Comodo products (apparently any of them) haven't worked out for you and that they are apparently never going to work out for any of your clients.

If I can point out one tiny error in your post ...

Quote
Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested.  It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

You're absolutely correct in saying they don't work in Firefox. It might just be me, but I think they fail because Firefox is a browser, not an email package and probably hasn't got a clue what to do with an email certificate.

Thunderbird (the mozilla.org open source email application) on the other hand, just loves them to bits.

I look forward to your biennial opinions.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)
Logged

As your mums would say, "If you can't play nice with all the other kiddies, go home".
All users are asked to please read and abide by the  Comodo Forum Policy.
If you don't like it, don't use the forum.
panic
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5471


... and I say to myself, "What a wonderful world"


« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2008, 12:54:37 AM »

Quote
For my people I'm rating ...

TYPO ALERT - missing an "n"

 Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh

Sorry. It was too good to pass up.

Logged

As your mums would say, "If you can't play nice with all the other kiddies, go home".
All users are asked to please read and abide by the  Comodo Forum Policy.
If you don't like it, don't use the forum.
oOeagleOo
Comodo Loves me
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2008, 07:42:46 PM »

Comodo firewall: marginally acceptable alternative to Sunbelt/KPF (with reservations), switch if you feel you must.  The out-of-the-box configuration is far too verbose and will intimidate most users.  The interface is too obsure.
WTF are you talking about comodo firewall is the best firewall ever..
Comodo anti-malware: completely unacceptable, use Spybot.  Too slow, too obsure.  My remaining Windows 98 user hates Spybot, but noone else is complaining.

Spybot, are you serius.??  theres a bigger chance to find a bone-needle in a haystack with a metal-detector, then all your malware gets removed with spybot.. (and same with adaware)
Logged

Firewall : Comodo Firewall Pro V3. (With hips)
Anti Virus : Avira Antivir.
Anti Spyware: SUPERAntiSpyware Pro V4.0
MJ1988
Comodo Loves me
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2008, 11:33:33 PM »

WTF are you talking about comodo firewall is the best firewall ever..
Spybot, are you serius.??  theres a bigger chance to find a bone-needle in a haystack with a metal-detector, then all your malware gets removed with spybot.. (and same with adaware)


Its free isn't it?

Spybot is very reliable if you ask me. I use that, Adaware, Superantispyware, and Spyware blaster. I never have any problems with spyware.
Logged

Call me Matt. =P
itman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2008, 09:18:04 AM »

hi all,

just using this product a couple of month... Now, I was courious if it does it's job well and started a online-scan from panda-security. So far there where 37 Spywares plus 1 Virus on my win2k-box - and CAVS didn't hickup *one* time. It keeps tellin me "all well"

cheers itman
Logged
Blas
Computer Security Testing Group
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 364


« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2008, 11:12:05 AM »

Well Panda as far as I know is infamous of producing a lot of false positives...
Btw as already stated above, CAVS is beta, its not yet a mature product. If you are going after high detection rates then go and get Avira.

Quote
Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested.  It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

Ewen,
I think here he meant you need IE to install the certificate. ActiveX thingy...
What a big annoyance regarding usability of the certificate..lol
Logged
Tags:
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SSL Firewall
Page created in 0.38 seconds with 20 queries.
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks
Design by 7dana.com