There are some comparative tests available at Malware Research Group and virus.gr which pertain only the AV portion of CAVS though CAVS itself indeed incorporate default deny technology.
lets check it out (MRG)
Comodo Detection %
Test 18 = 90.7% (average) (December 2008)
Test 19 = 96.2% (Could not find)
Test 20 = 97.1% (August 2009)
Test 21 = 98.1% (October 2009)
I see nothing but improvement, yes it is only 8% but that is very hard to do in the AV world.
“I’m simply asking if the direction of CAV is to be an integral part of the suite and only a layer of protection or to become the best product at doing what AV’s do, even outside of the whole package of CIS and therefore be rated higher on testing sites that only test traditional AV technologies”
First of all being an integral part does not preclude it from being one of the best if not the best for it does. So we are aiming for one of the top spots as an AV. You can always install CIS in an AV only mode…but wait for some other surprises we got up our sleeves soon…
Melih
That so-call improvement comes from a test that Melih himself would not support since such a test was not reviewed nor approved by the AMTSO review board. You show me progress only with an AMTSO approved test. Melih has to be consistent, he cannot claim that he supports only AMTSO approved test and then turn around to accept the result of a test, that is not AMTSO approved, as a sign of progress.
Peace.
It doesn’t look any AV got a test proven to comply with AMTSO guidelines whenever some tester might have claimed compliance or uses phrasing that implies compliance, such as “following AMTSO principles”.
As David Harley from ESET pointed out claims of compliance are not to be assumed as compliance certifications.
In the meantime, I’d strongly recommend that if you come across claims of "compliance", you take them to be as a declaration of intent to comply: it doesn’t mean that they are proven to comply or have the blessing of AMTSO.
Nor it does look that AMTSO ATM will act as a certification body though it looks AMTSO Review Analysis Board can validate specific tests.
Even then, since AMTSO is not a certification body (not yet, anyway – who knows what will happen further down the line?), it probably won’t mean that any specific test from that tester or organization is compliant. Unless, of course, an analysis from the Review Analysis Board has determined that it is.
Nor being a member of AMTSO would be a sufficient condition to claim compliance…
Even if the tester is a member of AMTSO, that doesn’t mean at all that they have the automatic endorsement of the organization for their testing. Indeed, they’re at least as liable as anyone else to have their adherence to the AMTSO principles scrutinized by the Review Analysis Board.
For what it matters IMHO even an AMTSO certification won’t be enough if the methodology is flawed or incomplete/undisclosed, nor any test can be stretched to assume that the parentage actually represent more than a value relative to the testset (as such only a way to compare different AVs)
Nevertheless at least it looks Malware Research Group and virus.gr tests got similar results even if carried by different testers.
Obviously they never claimed AMTSO compliance so I guess some might be willing to ignore them.
Other AV products that are offered as seperate products do things such as scanning Instant messages, emails, and web pages. CAV, as far as I know, doesn’t do any of those things. That is why many people don’t think it’s any good even though it’s detection rate in on access and manual scanning have increased. In my opinion, to be accepted as a “stand alone” AV, it would have to have those features. When used in conjunction with the rest of CIS, it doesn’t need to do any of those things.
I guess the question I asked will not be answered until we see the new CAV in CIS4. There are promises of a greatly improved and more powerful product. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I do use CAV myself because I think it’s sufficient as part of the package and also because I like being in on it’s evolution. In it’s present state, I would never use it without the rest of the suite however and would never recommend it to anyone who did not want to use the Firewall and D+. I would tell them to use Avast! or MSE. MSE seems to have problems with it’s auto updater though. It doesn’t work a good part of the time.
With all due respect, I really do not know that you can either read properly or understand English. Who was talking about alleged AMTSO compliant tests here, but you. I was only talking about tests that are AMTSO reviewed and approved by the AMTSO review board. Please read attentively before you post.
Whenever it doesn’t looks there is any ATM, obviously I mentioned tests validated by the AMTSO Review Analysis Board as well, whereas ESET representative specifically blogged about testers that might have claimed compliance or used phrasing that implies compliance, such as “following AMTSO principles”, probably for a meaningful reason.
Though you somewhat confirmed that I focused on something else than you, not everything revolves around you and I fail to see any meaningful reason for you to be upset and attack me even if you wrote a post that mention AMTSO.
I would guess any reasonable individual would understand when people are talking about facts or commenting out of personal hate or grudge.
Though if it does relieve you condition you could collate more insults respect in some more posts… :-La
Umbrage I’ve heard that before. Anyway, it is a lost cause talking to you. No further posts from me to your replies.
Pax Romana to you. >:-D
Yep Jaki you are not going on a crusade…
The likes of targeted posts holds no meaning for me anyway, even I do often reply out of politeness.
BTW It is already appreciable to notice you refrain to write allcaps unlike you used to do (Adding to other aspects, all caps does indeed impair reading)… :-TU
Ex multis miseriis atque periculis requiescat in Pace Augusti
Endymion, That was totally Off-topic and personal.
Chill.
!ot! Yep Kyle sir :P0l Thanks for the exemplificative remainder. Anybody would gladly abide by your personal bidding especially if you don’t trigger further OT aspects like Jaki just did. 
Why can’t you just have a normal conversation without resulting to anything personal? I tried to step in and calm the situation down before the mods have to step in and close the thread.
!ot! I recall you did well enough in KNOS topic ( 88) ) but I see you are going to do the same with this one as well whenever you might have the impression that your claims do actually describe what you do.
I didn’t see an ounce of normal conversation in the latest posts directed at me whenever I didn’t ignore them.
You have been obviously personal and OT in focus but I do recall you have the habit to discommend in others something you often delve into and I don’t see any foreseeable conclusion to your ongoing approach.
I will acknowledge any further comment as your intention to continue to drift the focus away from the latest on topic aspects.
Melih made clear in the past CIS would not be adding IM Shield, Web Shield, Email Shield, P2p Shield and whatever shields I may be forgetting. It only adds extra resource usage. It was stated that catching the baddie when it either hits the hard drive or memory was enough protection. Since I have not seen any comments otherwise I don’t think those extra shields will be added in v4.
Do keep in mind that the Free version of AVIRA misses out on shields as well. It lacks when compared to the paid versions: Web Guard, Enhanced email protection for POP3 and SMTP, AntiSpam filters and AntiBot (source: Download Security Software for Windows, Mac, Android & iOS | Avira Antivirus ).
I am not sure how much more of the Comodo philosophy you want. Reading your comments I cannot shake of the impression that more than a question about the basic believes about the AV you want to share your opinion on how the AV should develop.
I’m still amazed and baffled why Melih has not provided a definition of what a standalone AV is actually. Please Melih or any Comdo staff what is a standalone AV? To me, this is the essence of this exchange
I think this thread is becoming repetitive.
Indeed by the above criteria some of the free AVs you previously cited as example would miss some (AVG,Avira) or all (MSE) of the above mentioned additional scanners whereas Avast got them all (and some more)
Would you still deem each of them to be an example of an AV that is able to stand on its own according to the meaning carried by part of your opening post?
I agree, but only Melih can save us from the curse of repetitiveness and finally provides an answer. What is a standalone AV? ;D.
Peace.
Maybe this will answer it
https://forums.comodo.com/general_discussion_off_topic_anything_and_everything/exclusive_interview_with_comodos_ceo_melih_abdulhayoglu-t46812.0.html;msg337221#msg337221