I think that in the eyes of PC Mag, Norton is the God of all PC Security 
Whilst the 2009 versions are very good pieces of software, the fact that the previous, resource-hogging versions remained ‘the best of the best’ in their eyes is somewhat unfathomable (:LGH)
They do make me chuckle 
I think this review should be taken as a good piece of constructive criticism. Many of the points it brings up are valid when considering it from a typical user’s point of view.
I think that the main issue is here is that generally speaking CIS is aimed towards more advanced users. Users that know how to deal with D+ alerts, and would generally be able to identify if it is safe to allow or not. Users that do not mind having alerts when an application tries to connect to the internet, or modify the system without their permission. I like this as I like to know what my PC is doing, however many non-tech people would probably be overwhelmed by it.
What the reviewer wants is a security suite which will work in the background, and do everything with no user interaction. I have not used any in a while, but I suppose this is what the other mainstream security suites aim to do.
Yes D+ probably did catch most, if not all of the malware that it was tested against, but as the reviewer rightly points out, your typical user will likely ignore the alerts and just use the default answer (allow). From my experience this is especially true if they ever receive alerts for legitimate applications (I had to click allow for x application to work. If I don’t click allow then one of my applications might stop working).
With the latest updates it looks like CIS is getting smarter about when to alert users, which should make it more useable for more everyday users.
PCMAG is full of… (:WAV)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mrizos&view=videos&query=comodo+internet+security+3.5
Enough said.
I believe the review stated that D+ caught one of the exploits, but quietly failed all the rest.
That means any sites using the methods employed by the Core Impact tools can bypass D+.
I’m not trying to bash Comodo (why would I? I have it installed…) but I DO want it to offer MAX protection. If it fails Core Impact, then it fails - period. Passing Matousec is only partial victory, since there are many other more powerful or different exploits out there.
Please, let’s see Melih buy and test with Core Impact. I’m sure it would be a minor expense for a huge company like Comodo, and it would certainly put many users at ease.
Unless, of course, Comodo relies on users blindly having faith that somehow magically D+ now catches what it failed before, without any kind of official test.
[font=tahoma]However in the end [some] people do instead waste spend their money on software that was just named as number one on some site.
It is possible that they just the simple functions of a product and just slap a stamp on it. Maybe they didn’t even go into detail. Tells us how lazy some people are these days.
Comodo Pro Firewall is in deed very powerful and COMODO is certainly generous in providing users a free security suite. I have to agree with Comodus said PCMag’s reviews are very biased. I’m pretty sure people are biased when it comes with D+ prompts. In another forum one of the mods said that the people who actually spend time and effort confirming prompts and manually choosing rules are sure to have “better” protection than those who just install the security suite (mrizos mentioned that in one video) without looking further into customization and advanced options and just expect the suite to protect them against anything.
I was pretty amazed when D+ could prevent against rootkit attacks. Of course some people are just annoyed by the fact that D+ is trying to ask you something, they just dump Comodo and uninstall it [unfortunately].
Heh, if Norton was indeed the “best”, it would be god. LOL, Conficker=gone. Trojans=Gone. Malware writers=out of business. If Norton was god it would be unbiased. At least not deem other security products “incompatible” (Spybot) just for the sake of marketing shares. Bums.
+1 :-TU
I would be interested anyone using core impact penetration tools to bypass CIS and show us the screenshots and tell us how they did it…
thanks
Melih
Simply the same way that the reviewer used to draw the conclusion that CIS Real-Time Malware Protection Misses Much. By assuming that the user would click allow on everything that unless it states “its a virus”.
:BNC :BNC
Would be interesting to see that pcmag do a fair review once, were norton is not claimed the king based on nothing.
It looks more like something companies would buy to test their network security, I doubt a user here would have it :S
Who cares about Norton? Seriously… quit the fanboyism/bashing and focus on the problem at hand.
Defense+ was accused of not protecting against Core Impact tools. That’s all that matters. Whatever Norton, my grandma and the dog across the street do or don’t has no relevance on Comodo.
Stop using Norton = Lame as an argument that Comodo D+ rules all. Let’s focus on COMODO please.
Some guys here have the incredible ability to distort everything to counter his (and my) beloved program.
Let’s be objective and focus on that needs improving!
Melih, YOU should do this. COMODO the company apparently so focused on providing all manner of super secure products. You have the responsibility to test this. Not your users. I mean, what kind of sham operation depends on customers to do their R&D?
If you truly care about your product, your customers, fanbase AND reputation, you will get this test done ASAP.
He’s not asking us to do R&D.
He is saying he knows it passes, and if you believe it doesn’t, then prove it.
Later
I wonder how much nortan paid to get a positive at PCmag.com The test was designed for nortan The more you pay, the better the review.
I personally think pcmag is just a “paid advertisement website”
Is “Core Impact tools” even a realistic Proof of Concepts FOR real life scenarios.
IMO Nortan has more holes then swiss cheese and is about as deceptive as a politician. (:AGY)
yo what is core impact penetration?
Melih
Good to know someone who shares same feeling as me. As as CIS user, I also hope CIS getting smarter and smarter.
It is frustratingly befuddling for a computer-science-handicap such as me to arrive unto a definite conclusion regarding the product’s capabilities, competence and efficiency when queries regarding Comodo’s supposed vulnerabilities never receive a straightforward answer. It is often run-off into pointless defenses and unrelated matters. In this case - at least - a simple yes or no, will be more substantial for to draw meaning from.
(:m*) topic reopened (:m*)
sorry, but have to move the last post to violation board.
there’s nothing wrong with criticism as long as we keep it in “respectful manner” (i like those words,sounds official ;D )
pls continue
I think Melih’s word about CIS passing this is more worth than this editors word.
This editor are wrong about most other aspects of CIS, why not this one too?
CIS firewall is better than nortons its a fact, not a “fanboy speech”.
The PCmag guy even clicked allow on alerts and later did the conclusion that CIS HIPS is not functioning.
This guy obviously can’t do testing. And he most likely did not bypass CIS with the core impact tool, if he did it was simply by miss-configure CIS or clicking “yes” to any alerts as he did when he did the HIPS prevention test.