CIS Certifications, Test Results & Reviews

[Guest]

[minegroasprilla]

VIRUSBULLETIN:

New test on Windows XP SP3: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Oct11-Apr12-large.jpg

Comodo got bad results.

[naren]

Comodo got bad results.

Comodo is not that bad.

And Comodo is in red. Red entries means tested only once during the covered period. I guess that makes some difference in the position of Comodo in the chart.

[EricJH]

I don't know care that much about detection tests as the sandbox will stop almost every malware without signatures. That is real proactive protection. And this protection is not reflected in that test.

[minegroasprilla]

Other Test (for Windows and Linux):

- DAILY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats

- WEEKLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusWeeklyStats

- MONTHLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusMonthlyStats


Again, bad

[Cassette]

How are those results "bad"? Comodo does as well as many other top anti-virus programs. Those are zero day viruses. You need to put that into perspective. Even the best programs listed typically get results in the low 70's.

[Solarlynx]

'bad' only for detection-based avs. That's not  COMODO's case.

[spywar]

Comodo is very good at zero day detection and this is the most important thing that an AV has to do.

[JamesFrance]

Bad results?

I don't think so.   Comodo AV performed better than many well respected anti virus applications which have been around for decades, in spite of being tested as a standalone AV which seems to be common practice with testers.   You have to remember that the AV is only a minor part of the CIS defense mechanism and does not need to block any new malware, as that is taken care of by Defense+ and the sandbox.

Maybe this would be a good reason to now drop CIS which allows seperate installation of components and combine all the elements into a new Comodo Antivirus which cannot be split, thus requiring testers to test the full capability of Comodo to prevent infection.

[Valentin N]

Other Test (for Windows and Linux):

- DAILY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats

- WEEKLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusWeeklyStats

- MONTHLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusMonthlyStats


Again, bad

From the look of it, this is a sort of detection-test which in my eyes are not important; any av application will protection if the malware is caught by the AV's signature. The philosophy behind CIS,CAV & CFW is to protect a clean pc. With that said it will protection the user from the freshest 0day-malware (I am thinking of 1h or <1h)  in most cases.

[Melih]

Other Test (for Windows and Linux):

- DAILY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats

- WEEKLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusWeeklyStats

- MONTHLY: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusMonthlyStats


Again, bad

Comodo is listed as top 5 AV for detection for windows...

And Comodo prevents the ones that are detected anyway....

[MartiusD]

I want to know why CIS is not included in AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Real World Protection Test which in my view is the best "real world protection" comparison test currently being published.

Many of the tests shown in this thread only measure detection which as many have pointed out is NOT a realistic indication of protection which is the only statistic that really matters.

There are many users on this forum including Melih who claim that CIS provides the best protection. How about providing some real evidence to support this claim.

[John Buchanan]

CIS only allows known software to function. Anything unknown is prevented from causing damage to your system.

[Siketa]

CIS only allows known software to function. Anything unknown is prevented from causing damage to your system.

The only problem is that we have situations when malware is declared to be safe.
It takes few days for Comodo team to correct the problem but during that period of time your system is vulnerable.
 

[NSG001]

The only problem is that we have situations when malware is declared to be safe.
It takes few days for Comodo team to correct the problem but during that period of time your system is vulnerable.
 

Hopefully the 'behaviour blocker' rumoured for CIS6 will aid with this 

[Melih]

I want to know why CIS is not included in AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Real World Protection Test which in my view is the best "real world protection" comparison test currently being published.

Many of the tests shown in this thread only measure detection which as many have pointed out is NOT a realistic indication of protection which is the only statistic that really matters.

There are many users on this forum including Melih who claim that CIS provides the best protection. How about providing some real evidence to support this claim.

CIS is included in ISO certified testing like ICSA.

Testing organisations like AV-comparatives are NOT ISO certified!

Practically there is no difference between a user doing a test releasing it vs av-comparatives imo and I trust end users' because they are not getting paid unlike AV-Comparatives which charges a lot of money. (oh they also try to bully the vendors). So any educated user will know to trust ISO certified proper testing organisations, I believe Symantec also pulled out of Av-comparatives.

Melih

[Tags:]