An antispyware product of the same quality of CPF and AntiVirus is essential. There are some good antispyware products out there, but very few of the good one’s are free.

Comodo are going to create an antispyware application. This will be incorporated into the anti virus.



That’s great news. Can you give us any idea on when it will be available?

I believe Comodo are already starting to add spyware definitons to the AV database and request any spyware files you may have to be zipped and sent to them.

However, I think it will be a few weeks to months before it is officially released as an antispyware product as well as an AV.



Comodo is working very ■■■■■■■ Virus detection right now, but I am sure Antispyware isn’t to far along, maybe in the next major release such as CAV 2.0, but thats just a guess.




And Justin is doing great work helping catch new Viruses for Comodo (our new Virus Hunter :wink: )! A big thank you from Comodo to Justin for his great efforts! Thru this community effort we cannot be beaten!

Thanks Justin :wink:



Thank you, I really am just trying to repay Comodo for creating such a great product! I will keep hunting down the new viruses for as long as you need! I have already made a friend where I will be trading Virus Samples with. To get new ones. And he said he will submit his samples to Comodo as well! We are doing our best to help Comodo. I would have done this for avast! but they never replied or added them…




Thanks Justin. You are GREAT!



I have been using the comodo firewall ever since version 2 came out and I am loving it. I really like the launchpad. As soon as the antivirus came out, I downloaded it. It is also great. I just have a few questions. I haven’t seen Comodo on any of the virus bulletin tests or the west coast labs tests. Exactly how effective is it? Does it detect 100 percent of the in the wild viruses and how effective is it with unknown viruses, in comparison to other free av. And finally, is there a rough date as to when the antispyware definitions will be added to it? Thanks for these amazing programs and keep up the good work.


Thanks Chris

Well we are busy trying to perfect the CAV. Detection is good but prevention is better. So we are working on both technologies. Those tests are great but bit outdated (eg: wildlist etc) but we will go get these certifications at some stage. We do already have some spyware signatures in the CAV but the full engine will be in sometime in July (don’t hold me to that date :slight_smile: ).

Enjoy the products :slight_smile:


Is it possible to amke a stansalone antispyware, may be in furure so that if some body is using a different AV, he can have the choice of using Comodo Antispyware.

Possible, we are working on that too. But first will be the CAV with spyware catching capability.
if you haven’t noticed, it already does check for spyware in a small scale, we are expanding this ability in July and keep increasing it…


Thanks. I do understand that it should be the prime preference to add the spyware protection in AV first and standalone AS will be planned for later.

IMHO, Comodo are taking the right attitude towards this - build an anti infection platform with a strong slant on prevention, rather than focussing on detecton as the prime objective and differentiating the types of infection.

Ewen :slight_smile:
(WCF3) (WCF3) (WCF3)

I think the best way to go is to make a AV with spyware detection…

Even spyware/adware detection not being like virus/trojan/worm removal, good part of the AV engine can be used in AntiSpyware engine. Making 2 separated products will cause double use of proccess parts, making impact in the resources…

My two cents is that they should add in the AV engine, only the exceptions of the antispayware engine (like for example registry scanning for CLSID’s). This will reduce the overal usage of the resources…

Thanks for your time,


Would be great to have standalone Antispyware not integrated. everything integrated sucks in my experience.


When it comes to combining AV and AS this is right the opposite!
Quick background : The reason why they are different products is beause vendors wanted a new way of charging the customers, so they kept creating these “new” products that checks for specific malware (virus, spyware, trojan, rootkit etc etc).

The basic architecture is pretty much the same, they all need on access scanner, slightly different db but not much, same db will do it, and few additional checks for spyware. Having two different product means, you have to replicate the on access scanner twice and have the same file intercepted by two different on access scanners and scanned etc etc. IMHO its not an efficient system. The reason why we are putting it all in one, is cos we are NOT charging for it, so we don’t need to create a “reason” as such to package it as two different product!

However, what you say would be true if for example two different technologies like AV and Firewall was to be “integrated” together.

Hope this explains the reason.


Melih, I have a question and it requires a little explanation on your part. Hope it would not bug you. I have used Kaspersky AV, Norton AV and McAfee AV. I have noticed that Norton and McAfee scanning engine runs much faster than Kaspersky. In one second, they would be able to scan a few hundred files even with the heaviest scanning options. However, Kaspersky only scan 1 file per second. Why is that so? Does slow scanning means that the AV is doing a better job.

Does the scanning engine affects the quality of a AV software a lot?

Sorry I don’t have CAVS on but will installl it once it is out of beta (can’t risk to have my family desktop having problems :wink: ).

Yours truly,

Well there are many things you should be aware of

1)how does an AV report 1 file: eg: a zipped file, is it one file or many files cos it might have lots of files in it. Some AVs report it as one file some report it as many files depending on how many files are zipped in it etc.
2)how well the scanning algorithm is
3)how well its programmed for efficiency etc

the way you should check it is not by looking at how many files a second it does, but simply let it scan all of your machine and see how long it took. (make sure settings are comparable on all installations). then install the next av and let it do the same etc… then u might have rough idea about which is the fastest


Thanks Melih, but you have not answer my question. Kaspersky took 4 hours to scan my PC but Norton and McAfee did it in less than 1 hour. I have set both under the best scanning settings available. Does this mean that Kaspersky does a better job than the rest?

Yours truly,