AV-C 2011 April report

Thanks for the “advice” , but I’ll repeat - this AV in particular is ■■■■

and most likely you did not read the forum including the aim of this AV repeatedly stated many times (“just for convenience” 88) whatever that means ) & the special threads re: FPs/ undetected malware & others going continuously day after day… forever, which is a proof of a complete disgrace. This AV itself is completely useless

then test this AV (stressing - AV) yourself against real threats/malware.
Well, with your fanboy attitude I am not asking you to respond to that


I’ve some disagreements with cis.fan in the past, but what he wrote replying to you is true
including the fact that other components of SIS as a Suite having big flaws and have to be either redeveloped or just dismissed (except pure Firewall - that one need s just dome fine tuning)

So re: this statement:

I don’t have any doubts that you are wrong

[at] Valentin

You do not see many things Valentin, and you are just posting & posting a lot of useless messages again and again
Unfortunately I have to repeat that without examples, because that would be just OT here (few recent ones though were classic (!!!) that made me laugh to tears) , but as I said before I can post all 2000 & more reports regarding your useless posts - except “warm welcomes” they mean nothing, man - trust me , but you do not worry - you will eventually be a moderator here (I posted that “prediction” long time ago :wink: )

My regards to all participants of this thread

You behave like a troll those FP’s and undetected malware, are normal you can find the same problem in any forum of any av.
Any proof about all the ■■■■ that you are writing? or you are going to keep trolling?

Thanks for calling me a Troll
Well, you cannot find so many FPs & undetected malware in any given security forums how about that?
Relax please, use your beloved Suite and rely on it - that’s your choice & your right

More bla bla bla… any proof?
Comodo has a lot of active user in their forums even more than most of the top security suites, taking into account that the profile of Comodo user is more advanced that the other is normal to find a lot of feedback.

But again, any proof that can show us that CAV is ■■■■ or you are going to continue trolling?

Considering that Siber is a programer/developer I’ll have to consider his opinions.
I’d like to know more about why CAV is “■■■■” and why you put it so strongly.


1st, thanks SG65

Cheers! :wink:

As for


what user? me? yeah I am active sometime hehe :slight_smile:
I’m not going to continue this conversation with lordraiden
He made his mind about me being a troll & he is happy with Comodo Suite , not reading this forum & comparing it to others re: FP’s / undetected malware/ etc.

I have to admit this is a huge forum, therefore many things said in the past not just by trolls like me can be easily missed

anyway , lordraiden as I said above use your beloved Suite; rely on it; enjoy
and again more importantly - relax

Dont worry the next time you will learn to have any proof before to say that something is ■■■■, it’s like I say that you are a troll, without any proof :wink:


In an on demand scanner there is no difference but in the rest …

A short inspection of the provided link and referred test show it is an on demand test.

Yes, you will get another flood of posts here by fan-boys including moderators, saying that it may decrease Pop-ups notifications ... just because :o
I cannot accept that as an argument - that is just bloody BS as blunt & simple as that!


Then various altercations happened between SiberLynx and LordRaiden that were of a polarizing and therefore unnecessary nature.

Hello SiberLynx please treat other forum members respectfully; there is no need to be condescending. Courtesy is not that big an effort and goes a long way.

I know but I asked because I wanted to know how cis.fan sees it.

Valentin N, from the beginning as I turned up on the forum You helped me a few times. You have always been nice and professional. And now I see that You just kept criticizing me and feel that You are always right. No, You do not always have the right and do not always know everything. Understand that sometimes You get confused and You could be wrong. CAV is part of the CIS but it’s not the same. Even if result is going to be the same. Antivirus is not Internet Security. I have a question: do You write so many posts on the forum to have them as much as possible?

I guess You disappointed me. :-TD

[at] SiberLynx : Thank You for a few kind words in my direction. :wink:

[at] lordraiden : Who are You? Are You a wise man, the infallible omnibus or perhaps omniscient guru? Man, have a little humility, have a little humility … :-TD >:( ???

1- it is an AV test
2- Comodo want CIS (and not CAV) to be tested as a single product.

so it is normal that any comodo product didnt appear in those tests.

3- of course, CAV and CIS are not the same. but in a specific context like an on-demand scan, at my knowledge, there is no difference.

i admit i felt really bored with all those flaming posts. if u want fight do it by PM or by a baseball bate and meet in a backyard, im not visiting this forum to see quarrels from angry fan-boys, pseudo self-made technicians, and others flamers. i come for KNOWLEDGE on security products.

or maybe the Mods should make a sub-forum named “Flaming discussion” and move all topics there.


You felt really bored with all those flaming posts? No one is forcing You to be here on Comodo forum. Goodbye. :stuck_out_tongue:

The only difference between CAV and CIS is that CIS has a firewall. Yes, CAV has D+… :slight_smile: But of course, in an on-demand test (where no malware is executed), only the scanner is used.

Yes, this is true, but again Antivirus is not Internet Security. If it were the same then for what other name?

wth. I thought this was going to discuss the report. I didn’t expect to read what I just read. :-\

To Siberlynx, lordraiden, cis.fan: Come on guys. You know better than to argue like that here. Try the personal messaging feature here in the forum…or whatever they call it.

To Valentin N: why direct it to a specific person? That would most certainly start an argument.

To everyone else: Going back to the report, I see that symantec often performs well in these tests. Not always great or the best, but well nonetheless. Now i wonder why so many people complain about it. Avira as always, although it does have a tendency to slow down the system. McAfee did wonderfully well without false positives.

It was mentionned there that PC Tools were using the same signatures as Symantec. It made me wonder that since Symantec performs in these kinds of tests, it’s kinda strange for me why would they buy PC Tools and not develop it as they do with norton. Or maybe fuse them or something. I didn’t think PC Tools were much of a threat to them then. Or was it?

I also wonder why they would grant Avira and AVG their request to not count detection of packers. but wouldn’t the majority of users also call this as a false positive and would of course be affected by it? Or not?

oh yes, but only when this forum will be your personal property and it is not yet to happen Mr would-be-mod :stuck_out_tongue: . plz back on the topic…

generally when a company buy a concurrent, it is for obtain (need i say salvage ^^) some part of their technology or for getting some incomes that they couldn’t get by themselves.

avira is “known” to generate “lot” of FP (personnaly i didn’t had one when i used it ^^), so maybe they dont want take the risk of having too much FP and loose some market part…

And there’s the key - the context of this test - it is purely an on demand test, so the firewall and D+ should not play a part in this - it is purely to see how the AV engine, in isolation to any other parts of the suite, performs.

If the test was of a more dynamic nature, where the malware does not already exist on the test system, then it would be more correct to test the complete CIS suite.

i admit i felt really bored with all those flaming posts. if u want fight do it by PM or by a baseball bate and meet in a backyard, im not visiting this forum to see quarrels from angry fan-boys, pseudo self-made technicians, and others flamers. i come for KNOWLEDGE on security products.

While I don’t necessarily agree with the baseball bat bit, I do agree with the rest. If you want to argue, take it out of the public eye.

or maybe the Mods should make a sub-forum named "Flaming discussion" and move all topics there.

I think UFC have that concept copyrighted. :wink:

Ewen :slight_smile:

yes, on demand tests, they must only use CAV but comodo refuses as far as i know.

agree with you.