100% Detection..

General Discussion (off topic) Anything and everyt
61

It is relevant, because if you have free version, and you get infected, you dont have anything to claim from Comodo. Thats the reason why you think there is nothing wrong, because it doesnt include you.

If you have a paid version, and they said 100% malware blocking and you get infected, then the picture changes. You can ask them what happened with the 100% malware blocking.

The same mistake with the Guarantee as other users have posted previously…
There is a big difference between a product defect, and between what a product can or cant do.
Comodo its not giving a Guarantee about defects because this can happen (bad installation, OS not supported, etc), thats other type of Guarantee. Comodo is saying that you will not be infected because they can stop 100% of malware. Comodo is not perfect and there are many infections already using CIS. So now, what is the response from COMODO 100% malware blocking?

Two different guarantees.

62

Guys, it’s much easier to critisise then to do. Comodo is doing and doing very well.

63

am i missing something? what eset is claiming is TRUE. they do have the most consecutive vb100 awards that i know of, and to get a vb100 you must detect 100% of ITW viruses with no FP’s

so whats the problem with what they are stating? it’s true. i dont use eset btw before someone claims that nonsense…

64

Claiming 100% protection against malware is dishonest because it cannot be done. Trying to justify the claim by saying other AV companies do it just proves that Comodo is as dishonest as they are.

Melih recently stated “Comodo got 100% at Matousec”. Although true, this does NOT prove 100% protection - it just means that Comodo passed all 148 tests by Matousec. This is an excellent result, but it is a very long way short of testing against all the millions of malware items present on the internet. It is interesting to note that Melih is strongly against AV-Comparatives testing because they don’t reflect “real world” conditions, but he is very happy to broadcast Matousec results which are totally synthetic (i.e. NOT “real world”).

If Comodo was really smart they could provide the same guarantee without claiming 100% protection. All they have to do is state that because CIS protection is so good they are the only security company prepared to back the quality of their product by giving you $500 if your PC gets infected while running the paid-for version of CIS.

65

Saying “we have 100% protection in some tests” and having malware out there (submitted to you few time) which can bypass Comodo proactive protection (what matousec checks)…Let’s get possible 100%* in real life.

  • at least against known threats, which your users are pointing you.
66

Again…

unlike other companies, we backup our claims with a Warranty.

If you are comparing us against others, pls also compare our statement that we backup our claims with a warranty.

Instead of spending so much time and energy with the “good guys” who are “backing their statements with a warranty” you guys should focus on the guys who make those statements without backing them up.

Melih

67

You dont seem to understand Melih what your customers are trying to tell you, let me simplify:

  1. Guarantee is not available worlwide on any documentation or software installation. Would that still include my country in the mean time this documentation is updated?
    2. 100% blocking malware, with our without guarantee doesnt exist. CIS easily gets bypassed now (many users have been posting about it several times, see other forums for more info).
  2. Again, this is not a campaign against COMODO. WE ALL TRUST COMODO, but we want also to let you know that there as somethings not running as they should. So going to other vendors its really a waste of time. Going to COMODO its actually making the product better for end-users.

thanks

68
  1. Users of free version…I think they should be as important as these with paid and warranty.
    Because you always justify bypassed Comodo with warranty, remember about CIS free.
69

a lot of smartfaces would try to play the “warranty lottery” with free try.
i think, this is not worth it to justify a “not right” number with it. why justify it at all?

70

There is also a benefit for the free CIS users (myself included)…

71

i took a look on both pictures. how the topic started… and changed.

eset said in blue: go with a sure thing: ESET

in a complete different color and own largeness, yellow, it says:
most consecutive VB100 awards
100% detection+
no false alarms

i would say, it deserves the award with that result. while you say, false advertising.

if we now look on comodos box for example, there is one line, in one color, and it says this:
Guaranteed to block 100% of viruses and other malware.

it is definitely ironic. eset was given as bad example here at start. but they just advertised with a test result. even different colors. there is nothing wrong with it. but it was accused.
in contrast to the real happening, it would have been GOOD if(!) comodo had done the “same” as eset. advertising with comodos matousec result. like:
“go with a sure thing: comodo!
most best matousec result,
100% protection+
all level”

ok, as you discredited this version before with eset, i had thought, comodo will not do even that.
BUT then it came even worse from comodo, and it is defended suddenly. while esets advertising picture is way more right, and more transparent, than comodos line has been.

initially i wanted to say, if i had sent some of the statements in this topic to the comodo forum back in time, no one had believed it been real statements. but for that it just needs to mention now the first picture in this topic, and the last picture of the same page, and some replies, to show that something is not like it has been.
maybe its even not the pictures which are the worse thing. how easy to change a print on new boxes.
the worst have been the arguments which defended this changeable print, while “defeating” the own principles with it in the same moment.

72

Again…

Claiming to provide something that is impossible to provide is dishonest. A warranty does NOT make the claim honest.

73

I see a distinction between a company claiming, “Our product blocks 100% of malware infections”, and, “Our product is guaranteed to block 100% of malware from infecting your system.” The first statement is a general statement about the effectiveness of the product while the second one is an assurance to the individual that their computer will not get infected. It’s like any other warranty that product X won’t break down. I can see some don’t agree with that, but I haven’t actually seen a rational explanation for why they are the same.

You changed the subject from what I was talking about. I was asking what was wrong with Comodo posting results to a test done by a third party. I wasn’t talking about the guarantee. That backs up my statement that you’re taking everything that says “100%” and considering them the same. It is irrelevant what version I have because that test had nothing to with the the guarantee. It was a proactive test of Comodo’s defenses.

74

cassette

what is the real difference for you as user between these two statements? run the black day virus, lose (all) your files forever. and then come again and tell us, what would be the difference for you if you had a guarantee for 100%, and not just a general statement, like you described the other variant.
the geek buddy will maybe remove the virus (most of your files became the virus too), your computer might run as before. but your files are gone.
in BOTH cases you did not get 100%.
why should one variant be more true then? … as you asked for a rational explaination. there it is.

i think, its the right moment to bring an example with a car now… :smiley:

75

The difference is if Comodo claimed their product blocked 100% of malware and my computer gets infected, they were obviously wrong. I have no recourse at that point, and yes, my files are gone. If Comodo guarantees 100% protection and I’m infected, I have a way to receive compensation for the failure of the product. Maybe my files are worth more than $500, but that’s the guarantee. As long as they pay up they’ve fulfilled the 100% protection guarantee. Either way no product can protect you 100%, but with a 100% guarantee, you get something if it fails. With a 99% guarantee, maybe they decide you’re the 1% and give you nothing.

76

+1

77

A warranty does not mean a problem may not arise nor does a warranty state that. A warranty says it will fix under given conditions.

Saying that Comodo can block all is simply not feasible.

This debate can go on endlessly. But a warranty is not a guarantee that nothing will happen. It Comodo could guarantee it will block all malware then the warranty was not needed, wasn’t it?

That’s the conflict in a nutshell: Comodo making an unjustified claim it can block all and when confronted with that it points to the warranty and competitors campaigns. The warranty is a very laudable thing showing Comodo’s trust in its product and distinguishes its self from its competitors but it is still a fix.

78

+1
Most remarks are being repeated in a circle.

79

You know what I find more uncomfortable?
You can have your opinion about COMODO ads saying 100% blocking. Thats OK.

You will surely get $500 because CIS CANT stop blackday and other malwares.*
Its easy to say right now, “sure my files worth more than that, but at least I get my $500”. Hopefully you never get infected with blackday OR MANY OTHER MALWARE that its being posted in the forums that are bypassing sandbox. Because then your reaction will be different once you get infected and loose your files.

CIS PREMIUM users, they loose their files and they dont get $500. Now how the GUARANTEED TO BLOCK 100% MALWARE was ever useful to them?

So, my point is, WITH or WITHOUT guarantee, this threats bypassing CIS (sandbox and D+) should be addressed by COMODO. But posts by lots of users are created, and COMODO says nothing.

I even asked Melih directly, and again… no answer from him. All other things he answers.

And this situation makes me uncomfortable. But who cares, right?
I paid for CIS COMPLETE, they have my money already… so, end of story for them.

*Not to mention the whitelisted malware… lots of mods saying only adware is whitelisted. Read the post for malware submission, you will find than more than just adware are whitelisted.

80

at cassette

lol?
you wasnt 100% protected, lost your files, but you get bucks after repair tries. and you still call it 100% combined with the word protection. that totally doesnt fit.

and then you argument about the 100% as if it was describing that the guarantee will come in place for 100% of the covered cases. but thats integrated in the word guarantee allready… the 100% is describing protection. because protection can be low or high. guarantee is guaranteed by definition. your explainings have a lack of stringence. and whats the goal?

yes, thats why we speak here. 100 means 100.
“100% Antivirus Protection From All Malware, Spyware, Viruses and Trojans
Our Antivirus identifies and eliminates viruses, worms, spyware, adware, Trojan Horses, rootkits and all other malware. No exceptions.”
and this was claimed for the free antivirus also.

and dont dare to tell me now, it would mean that the antivirus is protected against malware 100% :smiley: