The FP at least tells you it may be malicious, hence the option of submission to have it tested for absolute certainty.
Absolute? Well, you don't even have with virus total on demand scanners... You will have to trust everything in virus lab analysis... and it can always fail.
All security program claims it protects more and better than any other. No exceptions
http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.phpBut...
Would you buy software that advertises itself as letting viruses through or that there is a possibility that you'll be hacked?
I don't think so.
Anyway the web is plenty of AV's better than CAV
I won't discuss which is better or best. I think this is not my point of discussion.
I do not use any Symantec product. I don't trust in the company, in the software development, in the sales/marketing policy, in the feedback and support, etc.
You are around long enough to know that sandbox, av and bb are very much there to lessen the amount of alerts from D+'s default deny strategy.
Lessen is always necessary. Popups are an annoying thing for common users. It the amount is huge, it's annoying even to advanced users.
Users make mistakes; so there is a potential source of getting infected.
That's the major point and the one I wish to discuss.
Seems that the advantage of a combined approach is necessary.
You can't rely only in "deny all" or in the popup of Defense+... Users will allow, sooner or later,
and won't wait for the answer of the Comodo labs...
Luckily CTM brings a solution to go back in time to get rid off an infection.
CTM is one of the most interesting software technology I've saw in the last time. You can really test software with security and I, myself, disabled other security programs resident (ThreatFire, Winpatrol, etc.) and improve my performance.
Do you belive what are you saying? so if I execute any malware in the world D+ is going to stop it the 100% of the times... Taking into account that D+ is going to ask me about to execute any file we could say yes, but them UAC is also 100% efficient.
I agree. This is the major point of discussion in the "default deny" / "default allow" policies.
That's exactly right! And this is the reason why a default-deny approach is the best.
I think the opposite. When we come to users errors, the default deny has a lot of weakness...
therefore, the user doesn't need to make a decision of whether a file is bad or not
That's the "default allow" policy. The decision is made by the antimalware team/software.
Even if is true (is not true) who wants to make 50 click only to open and application, or 500 to install something, is not a real solution, and also you can get infected anyway if you dont make the right choice.
+1
More in a second post...