Symantec says you should pay for your security! and I say....

[Guest]

[Anathaen]

Word up m8.

[3xist]

Symantec are being hurt by the free security that is out there today. These guys are being threatened by outstanding security products from any vendor (Since they mention AV more, I will say the following take alot of market share from Symantec):
Avast! Antivirus FREE
Avira Antivirus FREE
AVG Antivirus FREE

And let's not forget... Microsoft Security Essentials is in beta and will be released later in the year, The amount of people who will be using it will be HUGE, And won't think twice paying for security! Now, Talking about "full paid security suites" How they mention Free Antivirus can't keep up with full-paid suites, We do have Security Suite, only difference is that it's free and provides world-leading protection where prevention comes first (COMODO Internet Security).

Symnatec are hurt by the Free AV's taking Market Share from them, Including CIS doing even more damage, and wait till Microsoft Security Essentials is out. And and as soon as Comodo's AV component is one of the best in detection, it will cause further damage to Symnatec, Along with the other COMODO free products.

Cheers,
Josh

[sebatbg]

Hi there

I think that the protection software should be always free for non-commercial users.

Melih-You and other guys from Comodo are doing great job.

Let's together make the world better...

Best regards

[Melih]

Hi there

I think that the protection software should be always free for non-commercial users.

Melih-You and other guys from Comodo are doing great job.

Let's together make the world better...

Best regards

Thank you sebatbg.

You see some people say, we have to charge for security for consumers cos we have to eat. Well of course we all have to eat ... of course we should all make money. But the assumption of : "the only way to make money while securing consumers is to directly charge them" is too 80s..is outdated...is yesterday...

Responsible people should make as much money as possible because they will do responsible things with it. As long as a company follows a responsible business model then they should make as much money as possible as they will do responsible things with it. The only way to provide security to end users is to give it for free. Making it a luxury only few can afford or charge them 50% or more of the total cost the PC just to secure them (over the lifetime of the PC) is NOT the way to secure them as only few can afford. So a new business model is required.. A business model where consumers can have access to top notch security for free.

That is what Comodo brings to table. A business model where consumers have access to top notch security for free, while still Comodo makes money from online businesses and enterprises as well as providing other additional services to its users if they need them. This is the business model that we all need to have a secure computing platform!

Charging a lot of money for Anti Virus products that doesn't detect the latest viruses and allowing them to infect us does not work anymore!

Thank you for your support! Please spread the good word, COMODO is here to secure you for FREE!

Melih

[Fransb]

No offence but i think Symantec is better then Comodo,

CAV is bad without Defense +


http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/f68362c873adbee8cab34becc12edb680522891877a7608650dd966edf7b3324-1246170287


The response of comodo isnt too good.

Avast and Avira are good Free AV .

Comodo has a great Firewall

but that is my opinion.

[Melih]

Better at what?

Protecting you from malware

or

Detecting malware?


Two very different things!

Here is a question: How many Symantec users were infected by Confiker?
and here is another question: How many Comodo users were infected by Confiker?

(you can check the forums for that)...

You will see that protecting users require a new technology... Prevention based technology...not the 1980's detection based technology!

Once you answer yourself as to whats more important to you (Protecting you or Detecting malware) will realise who can protect you better Because you don't need to detect to Prevent!

Melih

[languy99]

The only problem that I have the the protection that D+ offers is that it is very user dependent. Yes it can protect you but if you don't get a threatcast popup, as in it's a zero-day malware most people (99%) of them will not know what to do and allow it. If I popped my dad in front of the computer he would have no idea how to respond to the pop-ups and would allow them all thinking that it is all normal.

[Dch48]

The only problem that I have the the protection that D+ offers is that it is very user dependent. Yes it can protect you but if you don't get a threatcast popup, as in it's a zero-day malware most people (99%) of them will not know what to do and allow it. If I popped my dad in front of the computer he would have no idea how to respond to the pop-ups and would allow them all thinking that it is all normal.

I totally agree. As I have said before, CIS provides top notch protection but is not suitable for the masses yet. I would recommend Symantec over Comodo to novice users. (If they were willing to pay for it)

[languy99]

remember if security software just like in anything else has to depend on a human making decisions, it will fail. Humans will introduce too many variables and we are not beings that think with reason. Comodo needs to be made into a program that almost takes everything out of the hands of the user. No pop ups or anything. The only time it should make a sound is when something bad is happening and even then it should just tell you it blocked something, not ask you to make a decision.

EDIT: the best way to do this in my opinion is to use something that comodo already has. It should use threatcast ratings to automatically make the decision for you. So if let's say 70% and above have allowed this action it should automatically allow it without making any noise. But if lots have denied this action it should block it. It is a very simple solution and it would make the program tons more usable.

[Dch48]

I would not rely strictly on threatcast because just as there are novices that will allow something they should block, there are also the paranoid who will do exactly the opposite. In my threatcast ratings I see people blocking a lot of harmless things.

[languy99]

Well it would have to show a trend of a couple of hundred of users. Not the first one I know but after a few thousand users have clicked allow or deny it should show a fairly accurate portrait of how safe or unsafe the file it.

[Quill]

It would be useful if Threatcast had a rating system, other that just user input, which is notoriously unreliable. There are lots of 'alert' sites out there, maybe it could pull data from them...

[languy99]

it really does not matter how they do it but something that works like that would easily make comodo the most user friendly and secure HIPS/Firewall out there.

[Endymion]

I guess it is still uncertain if those who install many new unknown application on a weekly basis are average users  whenever their habits could likely make them vulnerable to infections.

Though I wonder how advanced have to be those CIS users who ATM leverage on the color-coded severity level of alerts or if there would be someone who will fail to notice when alerts explicitly mention malware.

Hopefully the masses will know at least how to update their systems (including the AV) because it would not be possible to lower the baseline further...

Not sure what they would supposed to do with scam and phishing attempts either but hopefully with the increase of computational power and progress in Artificial Intelligence they could have their PC address such threats, and before long also delegate all sorts of tasks to their PC until they wouldn't have to take the effort to decide either.

Indeed in years to come it is likely there would be no need for driving licenses too as unmanned cars will handle from route planning to refueling operations, carrying passengers around...

[Cocktail]

Symantec is really crapping there pants IMO. I think they ordered a lot of reviews of Norton 2010 BETA and now internet magazines are littered with Nortons "awesomness"

[Tags:]