Should I Be Worried? Because I AM...

[Guest]

[jay2007tech]

By no means the results presented in the reports or on the project's website should be interpreted as overall measure of the tested products quality or security."

I agree with this and this goes for the same as with any other tests out there

That's the whole point of testing by well known organizations like Virus Bulletin

They can only compare based on their samples that they acquired and test on that, then they give a score on how much of there samples can be detected.  What about the other malware that they don't have, but the AV companys do have.  AV companys can detect more then what "VB100" has by alot.  That's why I wrote

http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge-64/results.php?track=1716

About the their testing (They DON'T test for known malware, unlike virtually all others)

There's only a very few organizations that do.
I like matousec.com because I like their methods of testing of Internet security products.  But that's just me

[BTJustice]

I know this review is for an older version of CIS, but OUCH!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/170640/comodo_internet_security_free_antivirus_software.html

And there is also the mixed reviews on Wikipedia article on CIS...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comodo_Firewall_Pro#Critical_reception

Hopefully CIS will continue to get better and better.

[EricJH]

I know this review is for an older version of CIS, but OUCH!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/170640/comodo_internet_security_free_antivirus_software.html

That's two and half years old. Detection has definitely improved and so did heuristics.

And there is also the mixed reviews on Wikipedia article on CIS...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comodo_Firewall_Pro#Critical_reception

Hopefully CIS will continue to get better and better.

The av tests are older there too and less relevant given the rapid development of Comodo's detection rate. (Time for the article to be updated... )

[BTJustice]

I came across this...

http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/wildList/

Does COMODO not add Wildlist Organisation's current in the Wild List?

It seems there hasn't been a certification since COMODO AntiVirus v4.0...

http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/productList/?vendorID=120

[jay2007tech]

Does COMODO not add Wildlist Organisation's current in the Wild List?

It seems there hasn't been a certification since COMODO AntiVirus v4.0...

Propably because comodo doesn't want to pay for a piece of paper that says "Your Certified". (I don't blame them.)  I personally don't care if comodo is certified or not.  I know comodo is the best out there(paid or not), I don't a piece of paper to tell me that, but I'm sure some people would like to see that. 

[EricJH]

The true power of CIS is in the fact that with default deny and the sandbox it is very hard to get infected. And that is without anti virus.

During the testing of v5 egemen briefed us on the developments when we got a mod preview and told us they tested the firewall against 15,000 malware (with no AV running)  and none of them was able to infect the system.

That's why I am not worried whether the AV gets certified or not. An AV is nice addition but nothing more than that.

[Seany007]

I'm back to full Comodo protection after Avast problem with ver 7 and firewall leaking due to web shield... No don't worry... As far as I know Comodo not good at cleaning viruses (that's why it fails to get paper) but it's very good at protecting clean system... I don't care about cleaning as Comodo will protect your system before and even if I do get infected I will use Malwarebytes anyway... And yes many security firms will 'pay' to get paper! That's wrong!

And Comodo Antivirus beats Avast in detection fact...

[NSG001]

And Comodo Antivirus beats Avast in detection fact...

Gettin' better each day
Wise words, yet some people still want to use avast and comodo fw.

[Seany007]

Gettin' better each day
Wise words, yet some people still want to use avast and comodo fw.

Indeed... Plus Avast is not good itself at cleaning infected system... So yeah... But I did see Comodo cleaning viruses it's as good as many others... Don't be fooled...

[andyman35]

The true power of CIS is in the fact that with default deny and the sandbox it is very hard to get infected. And that is without anti virus.



That's why I am not worried whether the AV gets certified or not. An AV is nice addition but nothing more than that.

Unfortunately,for many,testing is still seen as the final word on the efficacy of a security product,therefore vendors need to "play the game" to a degree.

For me a lot of the tests are of limited use when determining how good a product is.Most just put out a flat percentage of  "detection",which can be misleading.

For example Product A scores 95%,Product B 90%...A must be better right? Not necessarily.

If the 5% missed by "A" are the most prevalent and/or the most damaging malware;whereas "B" misses relatively uncommon/less damaging threats;then in the real World Product B actually offers better protection.

This is before we even take into account how each product deals with the stuff it doesn't detect,in terms of mitigation such as sandboxing,etc.

[BTJustice]

Unfortunately,for many,testing is still seen as the final word on the efficacy of a security product,therefore vendors need to "play the game" to a degree.

For me a lot of the tests are of limited use when determining how good a product is.Most just put out a flat percentage of  "detection",which can be misleading.

For example Product A scores 95%,Product B 90%...A must be better right? Not necessarily.

If the 5% missed by "A" are the most prevalent and/or the most damaging malware;whereas "B" misses relatively uncommon/less damaging threats;then in the real World Product B actually offers better protection.

This is before we even take into account how each product deals with the stuff it doesn't detect,in terms of mitigation such as sandboxing,etc.

I agree somewhat with what has been said about the tests in this thread.  Maybe the answer would be to create a computer malware testing organization which tested products using their default settings upon being freshly installed if such a test is not being done now.  Perhaps using groups such as you mentioned.

Maybe a test of a clean computer then install anti-malware and then infect it (or try to).

Maybe another with an infected computer then install anti-mailware (if it can be normally) and using the default install settings see how well the program cleans the computer.

Now if the current organizations I have mentioned are bad-testing then the lid needs to be blown off them.  That is not happening.

Definitely a test of how few system resources each uses and degradation of speed on a computer.

In my opinion, THE TEST most sought after, is the VB100.

[Maxxwire]

I have been testing the competency of the Comodo Firewall with Defense+ HIPS alone without using the Sandbox nor the Antivirus component at protecting my Vista and Win 7 computers from Malware for the last 2 1/2 years and there has been absolutely no Malware detected on either computer. Neither VB100 nor any other AV certification lab can quantify that kind of excellent protection which has made using antivirus software on my computers a thing of the past.

~Maxx~

[clockwork]

I would rather use an antivirus that gets 80% or less, than to use a system hook!
Comodo needs to solve the resource hunger of the antivirus.
At least if you switch it off

[Seany007]

I don't know how many of you seen this... But Comodo AV beats Panda AV, AVG AV and somewhere I seen Avast and Norton losing to Comodo AV... Now what do you have to say about that? AV Certificate my ass LOL!

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oBr64fJGKc

[kinemitor]

what is the point in virusBB test? as i have readed is not protection

[Tags:]