He gave the impression he was using this from a computer newbie point of view. That would sort of give some credit to what he did.
Maybe changing some of the defaults (including the popup alerts window) might help make for a more secure system to these newbies?
He is not a newbie, and don’t know how a newbie would react.
Good thing 3.8 got this improved popup functionality for newbies then. But if those reviewers keep focusing on what could be better with CIS it will never get a good review, even if its the best, it wont matter if CIS scores excellent in all firewall tests and has added functionallity such as BO protection, they won’t mention that, instead they see if there is something missing and focus on that. Its sad in a way, comodo could use some deserved publicity once in a while, but those PCmags are F* corrupt.
You can never be the best if the one judging is corrupt.
CIS for one never failed me and wont let spywares in, norton will.
The review did not have to be excellent but some fair arguments for whats good with CIS would be nice and that he mention its strong points too, as he probably would do if he reviewed norton.
I never said he was a newbie. Reread my post.
I simply gave my impressions. (that’s, my opinion on what I read)
TY
Iam not saying that you did 
My point was that he should not review from a newbies point of view since he don’t know how a newbie would react… He is guessing… And is not suited for that kind of testing… 
I can live with that assessment.
How come you deleted the post!
S/he made a very good point in it.
I was also dissapointed with Melih’s last post. It made me wonder if Comodo don’t care about and is not gonna work on the Core Impact issue, which concerned me a lot, as I am a long time and loyal user.
Also, if you know it passes, please You prove that! This is not something that users should prove.
Please don’t take this as criticism. I just want CIS to be a perfect internet security solution!
In the tests which the guy from PCMag ran, he deliberately ignored, or clicked allow to all of the alerts and warnings that CIS raised when he attempted these attacks. Therefore these tests were reasonably meaningless, assuming that the average user will take note of the alerts that CIS raises.
As to what would happen if he had told CIS to block these attacks, well we don’t know since we do not have the software which he tested it with.
The core issue here is whether the Defence+ alerts actually protect the user. Many newbie users will probably not know what a ‘global hook’ for example is, and whether it is safe to allow. This is the point that the guy in the article makes. The issue here is not so much whether CIS protects users, but whether they will be able to decipher and act appropriately on the alerts that it gives them.
CIS is getting better at this with fewer alerts and the inclusion of ThreatCast in version 3.8 (The reviewer reviewed version 3.5). However, CIS still has lots of work to do in this area.
EDIT: In this post I was refering to the malware tests that the reviewer carried out, not the core imapact test which metalforlife was on about. Sorry for any confusion.
I would believe these guys over PCMag or Av-Comparatives any day.
Znix’ post was removed because, unlike your expression of concern and respectful request for an elaborated response, it was more of a flame. The decision was made, after discussion amongst myself and a number of the forum moderators to remove that particular post, but to re-open the thread so that znix or anyone else would be free to continue the discussion, but without the flaming. I am confident that when Melih comes back online he will address your legitimate concerns.
SSUpdater have been proved to be untrustworthy. Their tests should be considered irrelevant information.
See here:
If you accuse a product for something, you should have something to back it up.
Obviously this guy did the HIPS test in a wrongly manner and he is not providing any data about this second test.
Not even how many of those core impact stuff comodo was to miss. I have a strong feeling this guy did this test wrong too in a similar way to how he did the HIPS prevention test wrong.
If comodo was to prove every crazy ■■■ wrong every time it would take a lot of time that could be better spent.
Comodo do care about all these stuff, but its nothing new with someone doing testing wrong and jump to conclusion that CIS fails. I read a lot of threads about that lately, people that don’t understand stuff and yet finds a test, a test they usually don’t understand and do some testing and think CIS fails.
Unless this is backed up by some real data its irrelevant, if norton catches it with its limited functioning, almost no HIPS at all then sure as hell properly configured CIS catches it. All norton can do, CIS do better! :o
And comodo seems to have had contact with core security technologies before, http://www.coresecurity.com/content/Insufficient-firewall about a flaw found in version 2, comodo fixed it since long. And Melih would probably be informed if CIS was bypassed by Core Impact again, thats why he can say for “sure” but he happily asks for data about how to bypass CIS, but none provided in that review. OT thing: bypassing CIS is even harder now, thanks to the fabulous BufferOverflow Protection, that you won’t have in most suites! :■■■■ :■■■■
After reading that review, I ripped up a PC Magazine issue and threw it out. I don’t trust them anymore.
(:WAV)
i didn’t delete the post. i moved it to more appropriate place
https://forums.comodo.com/forum_policy_violation_board/bad_review_by_pcmagcom-t35628.0.html;msg253569#new
Well Duh…!
Of course you like seeing a % that is just about twice what other reviews give.
I love it when people tell me I am a Brad Pitt look-alike.
Feels all nice,and all.
Problem is,it does not make it true.
I am not bedding Angelina,and Comodo is not detecting that high.
How high is it detecting?
Well according to Meliih,
“100 % of what we know about.”
Does this give you a hint how Comodo might be able to ace a certain test?
As far as SSUpdater,if I want racist jokes,hosted cracks and sophomoric antics,
you cant beat them.
Tests?
nope.
Let’s stay on topic, These are responses in regards to PCmags review on CIS.
I really fail to see how anything could be more on topic.
As it reflects your entire mindset in dealing with tests.
PCmags=bad,because it gave a poor review.(At least not a fawning, fan-boy review).
SSUpdater=good because it gave a good result.
Ever test you encounter is going to be subject to that same
paradigm.
TThe review’s statements convey completely contrasting views from what you have assumed. As the reviewer hadn’t mentioned anywhere as such. Basing your opinions on “assumptions” won’t, and surely aren’t seeming convincing.
The main question is whether Comodo protects against the method of attack that was specified by the thread starter. It is either a “yes” or a “no” or a “don’t know”. If it is yes, then there isn’t a need for shedding light everywhere, but, in that which is the gist of the concern.
If it is no, then it is either an honest no, or the thread would potray a picture similar to this, i.e., “decievingly pirouetting around - in an attempt - to conceal the truth”. If it is a “don’t know”, then you shouldn’t be participating in this thread to begin with.
The problem with those test at PCMAG is that they will always point out norton as a winner, It been that way since 2000, Possible longer, but I did not have the time to search any more years…
2009:
(and the winner is… NORTON!)
2008:
(a comparison test, Norton got the highest score…)
2007:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2023975,00.asp
(scored 4,5 of 5)
2006:
(scored 3,5 of five the lowest score norton has got from PCmag)
2005:
(scored 4,5 of 5)
2004:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1650548,00.asp
(scored 5 of 5 a excellent review)
2003:
http://shop.pcmag.com/shop/product/Norton+AntiVirus+2003/20574930.aspx
(could not find the review link but it scored 5 of 5 from the editor)
2002:
(scored 5 of 5)
2001:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,85943,00.asp
(scored 5 of 5)
2000:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,97287,00.asp
(named the best product of year 2000)
I can live with that, but the testing he preformed was wrongly preformed when he did the CIS testing.
He bring unfair criticism, he is basically lying when he says CIS has bad prevention against malwares and the firewall is not up to norton. Its the other way around, Norton is not up to CIS.
All other really BIG and fair testing has showed that CIS is top notch when it comes to the firewall and all sorts of leaktests, while norton can’t stop smuck.
And all other testing has showed that D+ prevents against all sorts of spywares and is top notch and outperforms norton’s catch up technology.
Yet we have this minor editor that cant do testing.
Since the tester ovbiously did other tests wrong, he probably did that when he was to run this debated test too… :THNK
Unless someone can confirm this then its not any Idea top debate it anymore, Melih that is in contact with many many people that’s been developing firewalls and understands all sorts of packets and bufferoverflow attacks and penentration test, they really know these stuff and would not lie intentionally. If Melih says it passes then it most certainly does, But if someone can prove the difference then please do, and comodo will come up with a fix.
The tester at PCMagazine seems to have provided a thorough testing of CIS version 3.5. He apparently knew what he was doing. If he didn’t know what he was doing, he probably wouldn’t be writing for a widely-distributed and read magazine. Since reviewers are human beings, personal preference and opinion enter into every review they write. I think that all reviews of CIS are useful and provide feedback on the product. It is up to the reader to analyze the review and take from it the information that he/she finds useful for learning more about CIS strengths and weaknesses. In other words, keep an open mind about what the review has to say, and address concerns via questions in CIS threads, such as this one.
Anyway, whether you believe his test results or not, they were for the previous version of CIS. I think the discussion should point towards whether CIS 3.8, the current version, addresses this particular type of test/threat, and is able to pass the test/stop the threat. That would be much more useful knowledge to people who are using and trusting Comodo to protect them from viruses, trojans, rootkits, and all other kinds of malware that might infect their computers. That is what Comodo’s manifesto elaborates on, promoting a trusted Internet.
I hope that at some point in time, someone like PCMagazine will test CIS version 3.8, to see if it does what the PCMagazine review says that 3.5 doesn’t do. Another simple way for users to determine this would be for a Comodo developer, or even Melih himself, to answer this question concerning CIS 3.8, and perhaps elaborate on this test attack that CIS 3.5 apparently failed to stop. Anyone else commenting on this issue is probably not going to be able to answer the question, unless they have the resources, and also the particular test, to actually put Comodo 3.8 through its paces to see if it stops the particular attack method that CIS 3.5 apparently failed to stop.
One of the things he missed is the whole point of Defense+. If you just allow all Defense+ then you’re relying on the admittedly immature CAV. You’re totally missing Defense in depth. And I do disagree with his conclusion that the user is the worst person to determine if some action is safe. Who else would know?
But he is right, in 3.5 an average user isn’t going to be able to answer the questions. In 3.8 I can’t say, I’ve yet to get any threatcast ratings so . . .
And the ding for offering paid support if the program can’t automatically clean is invalid in my opinion. It’s saying, “Sorry - I just can’t programatically fix this”. Now, most other programs I’ve used stop there and then what does the average user do? Well, they’re either F***ed or they go pay some support provider like Geek Squad. Here, Comodo says, “Here’s another option, but it needs actual human expertise. Would you like to buy that now, instantly over the net?”. It’s not even a hard sell.
Symantec anyway do not offer any sort of home cleaning help so… Comodo’s the only software company that also offers this support that I know of.