… are being repeated with handpuppets 
Am I hearing Structuralist philosophy here (an individual voicing an opinion is not speaking his or her self but gets spoken by underlying discourse) or am I reading too much in your statement? 
At w-e-v. Please come down a bit. You make it sound like Comodo is not doing a thing with found malware that could circumvent default settings. You know that that is not true. Comodo is always interested to know about such things and you know it.
Iirc Blackday uses the same way of infecting as Gpcode. Version 6 will bring a structural solution for this. For now the user can already protect his or her self with some simple measure as egemen stated in the weakness of the gpCode topic. CIS is a very versatile tool which can protect more by making sometimes simple changes
May be Melih did not answer but you seem to be involved enough to have done a little bit of homework by doing a forum search. And would have found the post like I provided in the previous paragraph.
That post you are sending its the same “post-answer” given all the time. So, yeah I read it before.
In the meantime, yeah… por users who dont have a forum users (or even know about the existance of this forums) and will never have the chance to read egeman post.
Because of not knowing that, users believe they are protected with default settings, like this poor soul:
https://forums.comodo.com/install-setup-configuration-help-cis/default-config-good-enough-t75642.0.html
Its really bad what I am asking?
- Do not false advertise (opinion only of course, COMODO can do whatever they want. I dont care anymore).
- Please make a FIX for CIS now, instead of waiting for v6? v5.8 its not even out of beta. Egemans answer its not a todays fix for the malware not being stopped by CIS.
If any of you feel insulted about my requests, Im sorry to be requesting something that its my right. :a0
I think that the problem here has more to do with human nature than anything. The debate doesn’t go on forever because the issue is really all that complex; rather people are so married to their own ideas they will not change under any circumstances. The concept of the warranty is pretty simple, but in this case if you throw in the wrong words (100%) it somehow changes things.
It is the continuous repeating of the same things that is becoming the problem not the fact that a right is being denied to you.
In short:
- It has been abundantly discussed during which various counter arguments were opposed by you
- Solutions are on its way but not as fast as you would like. In the meanwhile people can protect themselves with some extra measures.
That pretty much sums it up.
Now let’s stop summing up what has become obvious over six pages…
Agree! ;D
I just noticed that I will not reach anything.
I am just striking the air. Sad, because I paid for a product.
You paid for the product, but not for the ad you disagree. So no need in disappointment. 
well, while we initially didnt speak about the concept of warranty at all (it was inserted). we spoke about the claims of detection and protection (box and page).
for me its very easy to change my idea about comodo, i am not married to the idea i had before.
from now on i will follow the new propagated idea: every producer of a program of which he BELIEVES it could protect better than another one, is free to claim 100% protection, just to get the people to use his “safer” product, to safe the people! i will write to my “long years antivirus product” producer, that he should use 100% terms now too, as that antivirus is better in tests than comodos antivirus. truly he MUST believe his product protects better. premise fullfilled to “acceptable” claim 100% protection. no? he could sell his “free product” for 70 dollars now, and can give a money back guarantee then
it is double in a square bad if comodo uses 100% protection claims (even for the antivirus), while this number is at the moment not right, AFTER they have been throwing stones for years onto the “evil antivirus producers”. and even in this topic at start, stones were thrown on another ones advertising… and after all this posts i can see only one conclusion why:
its not comodo.
for me, this is not justifiying anything.
it doesnt fit, and it is just disappointing.
I actually agree with you on the webpage. I’m just not all that upset about it. I didn’t even care when ESET claimed 100 percent protection. It’s an ad…big deal.
Guys, pay attention to one thing: it’s said 100%, not 100.0%, so if we have 99.6% and round it to integer numbers (what is quite agreeable) then we get 100%. And most people agree that Comodo has at least 99.6%. So rounding up we get 100%.
No contradiction that 100% is a bit less than 100%.
i am not upset about advertising. not upset at all.
actually, i never had a problem with the advertising of antivirus companies, as i read what i see, but i dont believe it. comodo made a problem out of it. “how evil, bad, fraudulent, lie, money gaining the antivirus companies are” by using a sometimes false number/promise.
WHILE comodo is the saviour of the people by using the SAME advertising technic now!? a number which doesnt fit at the moment.
if an acting was heavily declared as wrong once, it will usually not become right just by doing it for a “subjective heroic” goal yourself.
it was allways a bit strange to see how here was made a “front against” antivirus. it went that far, that some people here think bad about the product antivirus itself.
on a side note: i read that antivirus companies support each other on the threat analysis level. and they dont speak bad about each other, but are in competition. they share samples, and reverse.
as comodo saw them as liars, enemies, i guess comodo doesnt sit on that table. and what happened? comodo developed DACS (= users who run others engines to test in comodos name malware from the users). this looks like a boy who lost play mates because he wanted to be the boss, and looked down on them before.
was it your intention to make it even more worse?
i will miss Melihs posts about other companies and their advertising. comodos forum has changed by this event.
Comodo does sit at that table. Melih told us that in the mod board a week ago in a different context (the current discussion had not started then).
Good sense of humor, I like it!
Now, thats not a good joke!
I paid for a product that told me that protects 100% blocking malware.
To be honest I believed that (because Melih has been teaching us why in videos, posts, etc).
Now I see MANY malware bypassing sandbox, D+, etc… and nothing its being done right now. They just said: “wait for v6”.
So, its not only that I disagree with the false advertising.
I disagree and I am disappointed because I found out that COMODO lied to me.
Yes, thats what I meant in previous posts. Its hard to believe COMODO saying things about other companies and their false advertising when they are caught themselves red handed doing the same.
peace is the better constructeur
That pretty much sums it up.
Now let’s try to stop summing up again…
People ask, I just answer. There is not sums, substractions, divisions, or anything.
I wont come here and post the same all over again just because.
If a new member comes and asks me, I will post again. :-*
That’s good advice to all participants of this chatter-thread.
That’s bad advice to start it again.
Anyway 99.6% rounds up to 100% 
Really, we are all sorry for your calamity! 
By the way, a brilliant idea came to me: 99.6% rounds up to 100%!
So no need to be depressed, angry and disappointed - all users have rounded up 100% protection !
Wow, that’s cool! ;D
at Solarlynx
respect other users of the forum. dont troll topics.
I am really sorry.
But still can’t resist to say it again:
99.59% rounds up to 100%!
So no need to be depressed, angry and disappointed - all users have rounded up 100% protection !
sorry again