Avast Free and CIS


I am interested in installing CIS and using it in tandem with Avast.
Any suggestions? issues to be careful about?

Thank you

So you are gonna use Comodo Internet Security with Avast free antivirus along side? I hope you mean CFW because I tried this once and got bad results.

I have been using Avast Free AV ( also past versions )
with Comodo CIS without Comodo AV ( or all predecessors )
for very long time,

AFAIKN Since Windows 2000 and Comodo PFW 2.4.

I do not remember any issues.

In the times when Comodo AV was immature CFW + Avast was very popular combo.

I am not really sure about the past time yet…
Independent tests of Comodo AV are not much impressive.

The detection rate of the Comodo AV has surely matured and it seems to be in the mid range.

The protection that CIS brings is done by the sandbox/HIPS rather than the AV. I prefer to have a one stop shop solution so I use the Comodo suite. Detection is secondary in protection.

I have been using the complete suite ever since the beginning with v3.5. It was lightest then (which was important because I ran Vista on older hardware) and CIS never failed to protect me even though detection rates were not near mid range back then.

The AV is not that important when using HIPS/sandboxed creates like CIS.

I dare not to agree.

Malicious code can pass the HIPS/SB with user help.
Users often grant high privileges to avoid/bypass sideeffects of HIPS limitations on program functionality.
Or they grant them because application is supposed to need them.

You can reduce avast to a minimum (good setting depth) while using comodo without antivirus.
I never found a lower footprint in resource usage than this.

You should read about avast web shield in connection with windows 7 and comodo. But also you might rethink if you actually need most of the shields apart from data system protection, as addition to a hips like comodo.

I would not rely on HIPS so much,
as it contains a weak chain element - a user ( including myself ).

It is easy even for experienced user to mis-configure HIPS,
if one has “not very bright mind” moment.

Also, HIPS can be useless, if trusted application
is abused within its normal mode of operation.

That can be typical for browsers,
where AV web/script shields,
with FF NoScript with ABE serves IMHO better.

Many attacks targeted to web technology can by missed by HIPS.

But I will try to find the article about web shield…

With HIPS various executable types are protected from being modified by unknown programs. HIPS is very safe.

That can be typical for browsers, where AV web/script shields, with FF NoScript with ABE serves IMHO better.

Many attacks targeted to web technology can by missed by HIPS.

But I will try to find the article about web shield…

That’s why CIS provide fully virtualised sandbox and Kiosk. They are very much meant to be used with browsers.

Comodo does not believe in other shields than the ones that protect hard drive and memory. Other shields are just overdoing it is the official stance… :wink: Don’t expect a web shield, IM shield, p2p shield etc in the near or not so near future.

When i download the eicar file, avast finds it.
Just system data protection installed!

This replaces very well what i used to have as an antivirus.

Then i have comodo.

And for browsing i use sandboxie.

Dont know what should be missing. In contrast to you, i dont see a point in adding several layers which depend on detection. As detection is somewhat sometimes not actual enough.
When something hits the drive, it should be scanned.

If you choose though to have all shields enabled, make sure that on windows 7 the traffic is filtered by comodo. Web shield might lead to a “hole”. You can not see it, if you dont have comodo firewall set to ask and custom mode!

Why? Inert malware sitting on your hard drive is no threat. It must be accessed in order to do any damage, and this is when it is scanned by CAV.

The point is many threats are not related to executables being modified.

They are often related to web technologies within normal scope of browser operations.
XSS, CSRF, clickjackings abusing scripting or browser plugin vulnerabilies are common.

The shields at higher level than file/memory access still make sense.
Either at level of AV,
either in e.g. Firefox NoScript
( far more sofistificated than the name suppose )
with ABE ( Application boundary enforcer, serving like web application firewall. )

Note that I have made quick test with my PaleMoon32 ( FF flovour ), Avast Free 8.0 on Vista64 Home premium SP2.
Setting PM in CIS FW as isolated application denied PM access to internet, even with web shield active.
It looked first as bypassing FW, until I forced it to reload with bypassing the cache. ( UDU mouse gesture by fireGestures)

Note that Avast Free 8.0 web shield setting has an option to limit testing to known browsers only.
But it is OFF by default.

I like it clean on my hard drive :slight_smile:

Yes, Avast free works only with Comodo Firewall - you’d have 2 antiviruses Avast Free and CIS and even people will always tell you, ONLY ONE Antivirus!!

Note that I have always used CIS without AV, so only one AV…

why do you want use avast ??? use Comodo Firewall and Comodo AV and say hello to virus-free years :SML:

I prefer my virus-free years, so I use Avast AV + CIS FW/HIPS ;D

why do you choose less detection ;D

Until now, I have not noticed reviews where Comodo AV is better than Avast.

And, I am used to Avast, while I hate some of CIS setting windows…
Especiallly I hate HIPS/FW lists of applications, anytime when I want to find anything.

And, I am a patriot.
Avast is Czech product ( … and AVG headquarters resides even in my city ).