[merged]Comodo vs. Avast vs. Avira vs. 10 000 malware(On-demand scan test)

[clockwork]

.... and i wanted to mention that you should look allways on the result and on the test-technic.
when comodo fails in a test, the test will be looked at for mistakes.
so it should be looked at also when comodo is good.
thats consequent.

[cocopara]

its no bug. its the cloud that decided while these hour (1 try [plus 2 others]) what is a virus and what not.
while avira was strong enough on its own.

Wrong. Comodo did 2 runs and found malware, the third run was only to make sure Comodo wouldn't detect anything else and it didnt.

Why do you care about the scan time? Just because Avira, considered the best AV of all got beat by Comodo which is considered the Worst (After IObit360) doesn't mean you and the other haters should just say "doesn't matter and scan time is all"

[cocopara]

.... and i wanted to mention that you should look allways on the result and on the test-technic.
when comodo fails in a test, the test will be looked at for mistakes.
so it should be looked at also when comodo seems to be good.
thats consequent.


who knows what a company "reads" in the cloud? would comodo develop new products on a computer that loads their data into the panda cloud?
its just a cloud, isnt it?

True. I do agree if it were ran 1 scan Comodo would have lost but this was a thorough test. Remmember, when Melih gets some devs to fix this issue and gives the AV a little boost in performance, then there is nothing people can say about COmodo AV? is it?.

[Melih]

thanks for these..

I guess one more test would have been to execute all these and see which AV lets thru the infection

Then we can see how many malware will bypass other AVs vs CIS.. and that is the real test...

Melih

[clockwork]

i am not a hater.
i just dont like it, when people getting blind when "their favorite product" is number one in the test. keep your eyes open, i said.

i had spoken for comodo in the case that there had been mistakes which caused comodo to be the bad. you see?
and you cocopara, comodo didnt beat avira. comodo needed just over an hour to have a little part of a percent better result after 3 tries. in reallity you dont know how many tries you should do. so a program wins when its good in the first try. and when it doesnt take an hour.

look, when in a discussion about facts suddenly the personal level is spoken, someone can not find fact arguments no more. so he says "hater" to avoid to see any facts that where spoken. stay blind and happy.

i just said: this test doesnt show that comodo beats. and you can read why.

avira together with comodo (apart from the antivirus) is the best prevention combination

[cocopara]

i am not a hater.
i just dont like it, when people getting blind when "their favorite product" is number one in the test. keep your eyes open, i said.

i had spoken for comodo in the case that there had been mistakes which caused comodo to be the bad. you see?
and you cocopara, comodo didnt beat avira. comodo needed just over an hour to have a little part of a percent better result after 3 tries. in reallity you dont know how many tries you should do. so a program wins when its good in the first try. and when it doesnt take an hour.

look, when in a discussion about facts suddenly the personal level is spoken, someone can not find fact arguments no more. so he says "hater" to avoid to see any facts that where spoken. stay blind and happy.

i just said: this test doesnt show that comodo beats. and you can read why.

avira together with comodo (apart from the antivirus) is the best prevention combination

True. But the fact here is that Comodo is considered a crappy AV and Avira is considered the best AV which might or might not be true (I considered G-data to have a higher detection rate but Avira to be overall faster).

Of course if Comodo won someone would have looked for an explanation, I would just stick to the "Comodo isn't all about the AV" but this is different because Comodo actually beat Avira and Avast which is both considered a lot better anti viruses. Even though Comodo had that small bug I expect Melih to be working on at this point comodo still reached higher then the product considered the best.

[cocopara]

thanks for these..

I guess one more test would have been to execute all these and see which AV lets thru the infection

Then we can see how many malware will bypass other AVs vs CIS.. and that is the real test...

Melih

I believe highly off comodo and hope that you are using just as strong Real time scanner as you have done with the on-demand scanner. For comodo to not be bashed I do hope you fix the "re-scan" bug because that seemed like a terrible bug to me. However, ending up  beating Avira and Avast is awesome. Nomatter how you look at it, Comodo the considered a crappy AV beating those considered the best

[eugen]

Comodo Internet Security 5,with all his components active,is the best Internet Security i ever use.I don't care what people say's,Comodo give me the best protection,i ever need.Thank's Melih for create this wonderfull protection software.MEERY CHRISTMAS,to all.

[Jacob]

Merged Both Similar Topics

Jake

[clockwork]

at cocopara

i dont know who tells you that comodo has a crappy antivirus. but that you "heard someone telling this" doesnt make it better to be angry about other antivirus products (and opinions) per default. you are the same as these people then!
comodos antivirus is a good "third line of defense". its another philosophy than to make a standalone antivirus. i prefer to use a combination of standalone products. thats all.

i spoke about the details and results of this test. and you called me hater. i had been able to make the text without any name of company... the result is the same: the test wasnt good to make final conclusions about "someone beat someone".
(example: keep in mind that avira wasnt set to scan everything. it was set to scan "smart extensions". we dont know what it had found when the setting had been like it should for an on demand scan.)

you speak as if avira deserves it to be beaten because their antivirus is mostly "better" in tests. one day maybe comodos antivirus is better.... should it been beaten then?
dont change your attitude and opinion in front of a brand. if no one tells the problems, the problems will never been solved. each critic is a chance to make it better.

this comodo forum is a nice one! have you been in the zone alarm forum? they ~~snip~~ other companies names LOL.
but a company that has no need to avoid the competition doesnt censor out opinions. and the comodo people know that their product can stand in many competitions... so, isnt it nice that we can discuss here about security?
this has nothing to do with "haters".... free discussions make things better! but to ~~snip~~ (and saying "hater") is no progress... it is losing in the long term.
since i saw that ~~snip~~, i am sure that i will never use a prodcut of zone-alarm

[cocopara]

at cocopara

i dont know who tells you that comodo has a crappy antivirus. but that you "heard someone telling this" doesnt make it better to be angry about other antivirus products (and opinions) per default. you are the same as these people then!
comodos antivirus is a good "third line of defense". its another philosophy than to make a standalone antivirus. i prefer to use a combination of standalone products. thats all.

i spoke about the details and results of this test. and you called me hater. i had been able to make the text without any name of company... the result is the same: the test wasnt good to make final conclusions about "someone beat someone".
(example: keep in mind that avira wasnt set to scan everything. it was set to scan "smart extensions". we dont know what it had found when the setting had been like it should for an on demand scan.)

you speak as if avira deserves it to be beaten because their antivirus is mostly "better" in tests. one day maybe comodos antivirus is better.... should it been beaten then?
dont change your attitude and opinion in front of a brand. if no one tells the problems, the problems will never been solved. each critic is a chance to make it better.

this comodo forum is a nice one! have you been in the zone alarm forum? they ~~snip~~ other companies names LOL.
but a company that has no need to avoid the competition doesnt censor out opinions. and the comodo people know that their product can stand in many competitions... so, isnt it nice that we can discuss here about security?
this has nothing to do with "haters".... free discussions make things better! but to ~~snip~~ (and saying "hater") is no progress... it is losing in the long term.
since i saw that ~~snip~~, i am sure that i will never use a prodcut of zone-alarm

I am not angry on other peoples opinions about anti viruses unless it is AVG or IObit360 Of course.

However, people at hackforums, Youtube and WIldessecurity claim Comodo AV as a stand alone fails, everyone whos not going to www.google.com ---> best anti virus? says Comodo's AV suck but it rather impressive .

If avira actually fails so hard they actually only have scanning minor parts of the folder rather then scanning it as a whole then that is avira's problem. Most people will understand heuristics but not that.

HOWEVER, how do you know it would detect anymore?

[clockwork]

quote cocopara
"If avira actually fails so hard they actually only have scanning minor parts of the folder rather then scanning it as a whole then that is avira's problem. Most people will understand heuristics but not that.

HOWEVER, how do you know it would detect anymore?"
-----------------
what? the tester made this setting. dont you look on the pictures in the video? every person is able to understand "scan all" (what is heuristic? lol? just a joke, but.... "all" is a usuall word even for a kid). and why should someone set his SCANNER (not the guard, but even the guard doesnt has an impact on performance with "scan all") to do exceptional scanning? first of all if he wants to test?
btw, having 0,08 percent less scan effectivity (by one(!) try with exceptions(!)) than another product has while running several times and having to use "a cloud" (which had time to react for an hour, because the first scan lasts so long in comodo).... isnt anything like failing. look at the test results without seeing the useless company names. or change the names lol.

even a blind chicken would find one day a corn, when you let it run often enough . thats not real testing. you see?

and who "fails actually so hard"? dude, comodo found after more than one try less than 0,08 percent more stuff. and why is it so important for you that someone wins? i dont care who wins. because i am not a fan boy, and i dont be part of a compnay. so who cares?
dont mix "reading a test result" with "having an opinion about a companies product".

i dont know if it would detect more with that setting. but i know that it WOULD scan all at least. what do you try to convince me on? THE TEST wasnt consequent. read again: THE TEST.

comodo and avira should do everything to protect their customers. they shouldnt concentrate on to win competitions! its no sport, its security. its no difference if comodo or anyone else says: YOUR program is not good.... it is allways the same: marketing. nothing else. dont care, but look on the test-results and interpretate them objective.

guess what, i would choose avira after this test


 

[Chiron]

I think what this test shows is that Comodo AV and Avira both did very well when scanning these samples.

Another thing that should be considered is where these samples came from. If for some reason both were analyzed by Comodo (let's say through the MRG) and Avira, but not Avast, then the test does not accurately show detection against ordinary malware you may run into.

Now I don't know where the malware came from, as he didn't show, but just take each test with a grain of salt.

[pc_pete]

Weirdest thing is why hundreds of alleged "malware" were not detected by CIS the first time. Were all the extra definitions coincidentally analyzed and added to the Comodo cloud in between scans?

[clockwork]

i guess, the cloud had the time to make an online examination until the first long scan was finished.
BUT we cant know how short single examples of them needed to be detected. we only know that they were detected with the second run.
unluckily it wasnt able to detect all virus activities inside the uploaded data while "simulating" it online.

if its the case that the online lookup caused the better result from second running of the scan, then the scanner without enabled cloud feature would maybe had not gotten the good end result by itself.


i want to give an example, why one can not say easily "default deny helps allways against weak antivirus".

imagine this test would be virus data which is hidden in a program of choice. the user scans it with his antivirus, it says ok. maybe he uses a cloud, and would trust the "Ok" much more. then he launches the program. at first it runs in the automatic sandbox. but it doesnt work out in there. as this is a program of choice, and the antivirus said "ok", he starts the program outside the sandbox. defense+ is asking questions. to let the program run (which was said "clean", and which is choice), one has to answer these questions.
how could a "default deny" help against a weak antivirus detection in this case?


default deny is very usefull against automatic starter things. but for any situations where the users intentions signalize "i want to start that", an antivirus will stay very important for a normal user. the antivirus should not be "third line of defense", because it is not allways the case.