Yes it was a good result…but still wasn’t testing the “real protection” capability of CIS “Automatic Sandboxing” with amazing D+!!!
We were a thorn on the side to them because properly testing CIS means they have to change the way they work…instead they chose to keep the status quo and continue spreading misguiding views about AntiVirus products.
The Most ANTI (real ANTI) Virus product is CIS!!! yet these guys who claim to be the “testers” for the Antivirus industry cannot test the latest AntiVirus product!!! I mean, come on…They should not claim the title of testing AntiVirus products if they can’t test them, period!
I’m putting my 2cents into this issue. I’ve used many antiviruses in my day. Stopped using Comodo back in the day when it 1st came out as a firewall due to the pop ups. Now in that time many viruses have hit all of my various antiviruses (Symantec, AVG, Kaspersky, & Avira) every single one of them failed me sooner or later with at least 1 virus getting through.
The point is I bloody trusted companies like AV-Comparatives etc… They always post stellar detection and on-demand scanning for these companies. Problem is in the real world it’s bloated, slows down my internet, boot times take longer etc…
I used to hold companies that do so called testing for the benefit of users in very high regard. Well now I know how they work don’t agree with it at all. You can’t test Comodo 1980’s style as Melih says it has too many bloody layers. Stop disabling features it has then cry about it infecting you and posting detection and on demand failures because you can’t base your tests on new scanning methods.
Listen the best way to show up a product like Comodo in fact any antivirus company is by posting a video like Languy99. You cannot hide the way you tested because we can see what you tried and also the company will replicate it if you try to be funny. I used to take test results based on these testing companies with a pinch of salt now I know it probably needs at least a bloody tablespoon full.
Now when I switched back to Comodo because they worked on the pop ups and also included an antivirus FINALLY I’ve never been infected yet. Listen they still do have pop ups and when I play Left4dead2 it thinks it’s a virus/unsafe which I find bloody funny as the people in the game are infected. I’m waiting for it to be white listed. Also checking my email with Postbox denies connection to the internet which I need to white list. What I’m getting at is Comodo needs alerts and yes it’s annoying but having a product with 0 alerts and the company promoting it is foolish. In the end you get infected and no alerts the irony. Enjoy 0 alerts >:-D
Conclusion this post is long I need to go kill stuff in game for caring for a security company. I must be high 88) I paid for Comodo Internet Security Complete eventhough all I want is free why? Simple I trust a CEO which speaks out right or wrong anytime to one that sits behind his suit and has a software ALL BRIGHT YELLOW. Some may not agree with Melih, Comodo staff & fanboys can’t forget them too but they have the best results in videos and real world testing.
It’s proven & has a great community ;D I really like reading this forum for some odd reason because people actually care to help. Alright I’m heading to the nearest hospital bye!
By the way, anyone who has ever been infected while using Comodo Firewall, or CIS, (without disabling features) ;)) please post below. Let us know how it has failed you, in a realistic, real-world scenario.
Then let’s compare that to the other well known products. ;D
Then, perhaps, we can compare these results to the results obtained by any AV testing organization. :o
PS:
I have nothing against the testing organizations, I just don’t believe that their tests accurately reflect the protection that an end-user actually gets. By the way, that doesn’t just go for Comodo. I also believe that other products are under-appreciated because of these testing procedures as well.
We have told Comodo in the past that testing Comodo Internet Security showed it to be very noisy (very many user-dependent pop-ups and lot of false alarms) and that we could not see it working well enough to test it with the automation we had at that time. This was a nice way to say that their software needed improvements. We even suggested how they could word it on their website, without saying that it was due to their scores; they didn't do that at the time, but kept quiet.
“This was a nice way to say that their software needed improvements.”
Am I am missing something?
People using other vendors software for “protection” its getting infected.
People using COMODO, just a very minimum for small reasons, rarely gets infected.
How can they say that COMODO software need improvements?
Isnt it their Testing Methodology that should be improved?
What I really think they wanted to say its:
“This was a nice way to say that our testing procedures need improvements. We are not ready for COMODO protection architecture.”
Thats what i’ve been thinking for a heck of a long time, I wonder if they too don’t test Kasperky or any other product because they have so called “sandbox”…
Whatever else may or may not be wrong with their methodology, he is at least right about the Automatic Sandbox. They can’t test it for the same reason I can’t deploy it. Too many legit programs don’t work ‘partially limited’.
They run legitimate applications as part of their testing? I didn’t know that.
edit: Hang on… they don’t mention this at all in their Methodology. My question was serious, no sarcasm was intended. Were you making a point badly there pc_pete?
for AV-comparatives, its ok to have zero pop up and lots of infection…this is what they call as “user friendly”.
times have changed, end users are sick and tired of infections and don’t mind answering some questions in return for security!
AVcomparatives is disconnected from reality that end users face everyday, their reality of allowing infection as long as they don’t see a pop up alert is totally outdated.
AV-Comparatives, tries to muzzle the AntiVirus vendors by getting them to sign an agreement that forces them to keep quite about the agreement! Basically they force the AntiVirus companies to deny existence of any contracts with them.
No. I’m serious too. If this is an accurate quote, Peter Stelzhammer’s comment does seem to be a not-too-thickly-veiled criticism of Comodo’s Defaut Deny approach (with which I would agree).
However, I don’t understand why this would stop them testing CIS. What he seems to be saying is that their automated testing can’t record the non-functioning of ‘clean applications’ as FPs? ’
Some apps might have problem with sandboxing…but a huge majority don’t and whitelisted. Of course we continue to grow the whitelist.
however, in this day and age the paradigm of “allowing infection as long as you don’t show any alert” is outdated to say the least. The hassle of being infected totally outweighs the pop ups or some issues with sandboxing (which could easily be solved by not sandboxing them again).
In this day and age, you simply can’t provide adequate protection with zero alert! That is the reality that AV-Comparatives doesn’t want to live in.
Because they don’t accept that, they choose not to build their infrastructure to “test” CIS’s capabilities including Automatic Sandboxing. But that they still claim that only good AVs are tested. That is a disservice to end users by misleading the end users.
Also they muzzle Antivirus vendors from revealing the “existence” of a financial relationship with them, never mind the details of it!
They have to change their ways and be honest and transparent, if they are to be trusted by end users!
This is what i would expect to be still “hardcoded” per default in comodo. But when i install the product, there are scenarios of default settings which give:
a) an “allow all outgoing” rule for any applications in application rules (correct me if this is removed)
b) a checked box for “allowing all without pop ups”, a box for each, firewall or defense+.
Thats why i wonder about some new “features” of comodo, when i read those statements. And the features are introduced as “userfriendlyness”.
We live in a new security/threat era.
Threats are not only to turn up-side-down your screen just for fun, or any similar “fun” that was consider a threat before. Now threats want to still your ID, bank account information, steal money from us.
Will you trust your security only because it doesnt pop-up alerts?
Or will you trust your security because its hard to brake and askes just a couple of questions that need to be addressed in order to make the right choice to protect you?
Im always on the side of any STRONG security, even if it askes me sometimes what to do.
Because I know it only makes it to protect me.
Your security shouldnt be left to any peace of software by itself.
Your security also rest on you, your choices, your decisions…
Or will you just walk into a dark and dangerous valley just because you are wearing a bullet-proof vest.
Wouldnt you think before entering the valley, and MAKE A DECISION by yourself of not entering?
Thats security today, prevention and about making decisions.
COMODO Internet Security its doing the job, isnt it?
And its doing it right and better than others!
REAL PROTECTION!
Wholeheartedly agree with what w-e-v had to say. Sad to say but to evolve Internet Security it has to have user interaction. The day a machine is self aware like Skynet we users have to manually trust, whitelist, allow application rights etc…
Malware is getting sophisticated to the point if a security company creates a way to stop it they already find another loop hole to engineer their way into your machine. So what is your doctors advice when you see him. Prevention is better then cure! The same applies here. To apply the following rule needs user interaction.
Now I don’t get why Emsisoft doesn’t get the same abuse. Maybe they have better marketing I decided to test their product and by god the amount of pop ups don’t get me bloody started. I go to web sites that are deemed dangerous don’t tell me I need to whitelist those too (should ban untrusted sites/unsafe sites not sites that are pirates because it’s easy). Half the time I’m on a site surf protection needs me to whitelist it. My issue here is I never use product updates always uninstall reinstall an application has been my way. Less issues and it works seamlessly better. So I either keep saving backups of the whitelist or keep doing it again and again. Also they have pop ups for their firewall the same as Comodo Firewall. So I don’t get this how they sit very high on testing services. Probably they have a good signature base already (Ikarus if I’m not mistaken is an engine they also use) but Comodo is getting there.
Hence why Defense+ is the main culprit for many testers because it doesn’t depend on signature base but users who are not novices. Yes Comodo Internet Security is not for the complete novice as you will not understand why to enable or disable hence they have a great forum community here to ask whether to do so. Listen it’s easy replies are fast you don’t trust it sandbox ask then trust. Simple right.
Well Wilder Security Forum is having their own debate on this. Makes fun reading.
If their so into signature based scanning and I’m unsure if Valkyrie (I haven’t read in detail what it does so don’t quote me) will soon push you to scan even better I hope they eat their words when the time comes.
People feel security software should be silent as a mouse. It doesn’t help that Magazines, Reviewers, Testers etc… uphold that claim so when you have new Internet Security Software’s that as they say is noisy they upright fail it because it annoys them.
So when you get an alert your falling sick it is annoying. You should just outright die of a sudden heart attack. People NEED TO ENGAGE THEIR BRAIN when writing or testing Internet Security software’s.
If you want to just use signature based protection then you can use our AV:
This is what Andreas from AV-Comparatives said about it: “Furthermore, your ~90% is higher than what some few other products scored and similar to what other well-known products reached.”
AMEN to that Melih!
True words that never have been spoken!
The strong, vast and huge architecture that CIS has… converts CIS into a user-friendly security software with the few pop-ups showed.
Lets not forget that OF COURSE CIS MUST show more popups than any other program.
Its the only product thats really stoppoing UNKNOWN threats (through Defense+), which is the most difficult part of prevention. What other security products do? They really dont show any popups, so your machine gets infected. Simple as that.
And now, we discovered another flaw in AV-COMPARATIVE and other similar organizations when make test to security products. Because of the new era we are living in, they should see better if the pop-ups are really HELPFUL or not in improving the protection of the end-user.
They just really need to update their methodology. 88)
“Automatic Sandboxing” with amazing D+!!!
I’ve never been infected yet. Listen they still do have pop ups and when I play Left4dead2 it thinks it’s a virus/unsafe which I find bloody funny as the people in the game are infected. I’m waiting for it to be white listed. Also checking my email with Postbox denies connection to the internet which I need to white list. What I’m getting at is Comodo needs alerts and yes it’s annoying but having a product with 0 alerts and the company promoting it is foolish. In the end you get infected and no alerts the irony. Enjoy 0 alerts >:-D