Sandbox

[Guest]

[solo]

This is sounding better all the time...roll on version3 

Yes, CPF V3 is sounding AWESOME.  I will certainly download it as soon as it is out of beta.  Until then, you could run CPF with System Saftey Monitor and Sanboxie to get that kind of protection. 

[Júštiñ™]

Yes, CPF V3 is sounding AWESOME.  I will certainly download it as soon as it is out of beta.  Until then, you could run CPF with System Saftey Monitor and Sanboxie to get that kind of protection. 

With those apps you should be fine, but when CPF 3 and CAVS2 is released I believe you will have a greater protection with them.

Some of the features for CPF3: Buffer Overflow Protection, Vista/64 bit compatibly, and much more

[solo]

Question:  how will we know how good CAVS2 is?  With a firewall, you can go to all the firewall leak test sites and see for yourself.  With an antivirus program, it's not that simple.

[Júštiñ™]

Question:  how will we know how good CAVS2 is?  With a firewall, you can go to all the firewall leak test sites and see for yourself.  With an antivirus program, it's not that simple.

When Comodo enters CAVS2 in the Antivirus tests such as Virus Bulletin.

[solo]

When Comodo enters CAVS2 in the Antivirus tests such as Virus Bulletin.

I am glad to hear that Comodo plans to do that.  Virus Bulletin is the site I use to evaluate the quality of an AV.  But when I mentioned this earlier this year, I was met with a little resistance. 

[andyman35]

I am glad to hear that Comodo plans to do that.  Virus Bulletin is the site I use to evaluate the quality of an AV.  But when I mentioned this earlier this year, I was met with a little resistance. 

The Virus Bulletin tests serve as a good guideline,however for a more extensive test AV-Comparitives is the one.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

[solo]

The Virus Bulletin tests serve as a good guideline,however for a more extensive test AV-Comparitives is the one.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Oh yeah, that's an excellent site.  For some reason I thought that VB and AV comparitives were one in the same, but they aren't.  AV comparitives has some very detailed, excellent information. 

[panic]

Hey all,

One thing to bear in mind about these two AV sites - their tests and results are based on current AV technology which is detection/removal focussed. It remains to be seen how they will test and report on CAVS2 which will have a strong prevention layer, along with a strong detection/removal layer. If the prevention layer is strong enough, there doesn't need to be as strong a focus on detection/removal.

If it can't get in, it's not there to be detected or removed.

It'll be interesting to see how these two sites react to CAVS2.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[andyman35]

Hey all,

One thing to bear in mind about these two AV sites - their tests and results are based on current AV technology which is detection/removal focussed. It remains to be seen how they will test and report on CAVS2 which will have a strong prevention layer, along with a strong detection/removal layer. If the prevention layer is strong enough, there doesn't need to be as strong a focus on detection/removal.

If it can't get in, it's not there to be detected or removed.

It'll be interesting to see how these two sites react to CAVS2.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

Yes,you've made a valid point there and of course prevention is better than detection.For the average user though,they tend to go by percentages so hopefully CAVS2 will get the recognition it deserves 

[solo]

Hey all,

One thing to bear in mind about these two AV sites - their tests and results are based on current AV technology which is detection/removal focussed. It remains to be seen how they will test and report on CAVS2 which will have a strong prevention layer, along with a strong detection/removal layer. If the prevention layer is strong enough, there doesn't need to be as strong a focus on detection/removal.

If it can't get in, it's not there to be detected or removed.

It'll be interesting to see how these two sites react to CAVS2.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

I agree to an extent.  But the assumption this makes is that CAVS2 is being isntalled on a clean machine.  What if the machine is infected when CAVS is installed?  It will need to be able to detect and remove what is already on the machine. 

Prevention is definitely the answer.  But when you have a breach, and no AV system will stop them all, removal and detection becomes critical. 

[panic]

I agree to an extent.  But the assumption this makes is that CAVS2 is being isntalled on a clean machine.  What if the machine is infected when CAVS is installed?  It will need to be able to detect and remove what is already on the machine. 

Prevention is definitely the answer.  But when you have a breach, and no AV system will stop them all, removal and detection becomes critical. 

Agreed - categorically. Detection and removal must remain a key component (for the reason you state, if nothing else) and I'm certain Comodo are designing CAVS2 to be as good as it can possibly be.

I guess we must all still wait with baited breath.

Cheers,
Ewen :-)

[andyman35]

One point worth noting is that in the latest 'pro active' test on the AV Comparitives site (May 2006) NOD32 and Kaspersky AV,which are recognised as the best of the current AV technology,score only 58% and 24% respectively.Whilst they both achieve nearly 100% detection rate 'on demand' this does show the inherent flaws in the current signature/heuristic based detection methodology.

CAVS2 should achieve a far higher hit ratio in a real world setting,so this is a fact that needs to be shown to the ordinary user in some form or another. 

[Tags:]