Comodo Cloud AV Test Results & Reviews

[yigido]

Please share your findings about Comodo Cloud Antivirus Reviews and Test results under this topic. This will make all things together and easy to find  Let's share them..

Here is what I found today.
AVLab Review of CCAV : https://avlab.pl/przeglad-mozliwosci-najnowszego-comodo-cloud-antivirus

Original website is in Polish. See the Google Translate: https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=tr&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Favlab.pl%2Fprzeglad-mozliwosci-najnowszego-comodo-cloud-antivirus&edit-text=

The video (process kill): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF6VU7u8l00

[Sheepolina]

What, it has ZERO self-protection? You can just kill it using task manager. Well, that's can't be good.

[qmarius]

It is intended behavior. Horrible test.

[Sheepolina]

How is killing a security software using ordinary Task Manager an "intended behavior" ?

[qmarius]

Firstly, it is a trusted application. In some unexpected scenario, you would like to kill the process. Besides that, an unknown application is unable to terminate. More over, tampering is not allowed (eg with GUI).
Secondly, using such restrictions translates as no process monitoring in general. This is common behavior among oher vendors. The user won't be able to report process hangs caused by your graphics driver for example.
and many others.

[costi1977]

Firstly, it is a trusted application. In some unexpected scenario, you would like to kill the process. Besides that, an unknown application is unable to terminate. More over, tampering is not allowed (eg with GUI).
Secondly, using such restrictions translates as no process monitoring in general. This is common behavior among oher vendors. The user won't be able to report process hangs caused by your graphics driver for example.
and many others.

you are right.  I think Cis apply the same policy. if you want to kill, kill-it.

[liosant]

This is one of the risks of practicality or lists of trusted applications.
Fortunately or unfortunately this is not the exclusive problem of COMODO

[Sheepolina]

you are right.  I think Cis apply the same policy. if you want to kill, kill-it.

For GUI maybe, not for scanning service/server.

[qmarius]

For GUI maybe, not for scanning service/server.

Once you grant kernel-mode access, it is not possible to deny termination trough bypass.  Impossible task.

[costi1977]

I believe it was designed this way by the developers, when you want, you can stop processes. in your opinion, a virus (malware) can kill comodo? in 6 years of using comodo i never saw this think happening.

[Sheepolina]

Because CIS cannot be killed. Interface yes (afak), scanning server, no. Just try killing it with a task manager. It won't work.

[wasgij6]

CIS will allow the user to kill its processes but will not allow any application (known or unknown) kill it.

[costi1977]

Actually, i cant kill any off the cis  processes from task manager.
in the ccav case its a bug or its made that way on purpose?

[wasgij6]

Actually, i cant kill any off the cis  processes from task manager.
in the ccav case its a bug or its made that way on purpose?

im honestly not sure how CCAV is designed. I would think it would be different since it doesnt have the HIPS functionality of CIS. The most important thing to test is if CCAV can be killed by a known or unknown application.

[qmarius]

Actually, i cant kill any off the cis  processes from task manager.
in the ccav case its a bug or its made that way on purpose?

It depends on your configuration and if you are using administrator rights. It is possible with 'Internet Security' configuration if I remember correctly.

im honestly not sure how CCAV is designed. I would think it would be different since it doesnt have the HIPS functionality of CIS. The most important thing to test is if CCAV can be killed by a known or unknown application.

It would require a process with high privilege level (eg System). I assume that CCAV does not use such privileges. It's safer (eg prevents privileges escalation), less resources intensive, etc.