Oh yes, this is one point that has to been seen into…
Bcoz even When I recommend ppl, i always tell them start few days its gonna annoy you a lot later all will be fine…
or else best idea I do is use TeamViewer Swap in their PC, config everything for them…
its ok for me bcoz I am aware of wat all processes are running in my PC but then not for those who have little or no knowledge abt the OS…
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php
Here, Comodo outperforms everyone. The firewall is superb. But sometimes user error circumvents that, so we actually need an antivirus. This holds true even in Comodo Internet security’s case.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index
Though this month’s results are for ubuntu 10.04, the chart is for the last 6 months - dealing with Windows AVs.
How often does it stop a virus in the wild, without a virus image? That’s the proactive axis. With a virus image? That’s reactive. Both are aggregate over every virus specimen. Here, Comodo doesn’t measure up.
How is this related to testing methods skewed towards “last-generation” AVs? Comodo has been a company of firewall experts from the beginning, and it shows in the stats and features list. Their AV is a new thing - what are they doing to improve?
I look forward to only installing one, free security package on systems. No other free group comes close to Comodo’s firewall while offering an AV that isn’t completely worthless. No other group produces a worthy AV for Comodo’s firewall, unless their own firewall is worse than nothing (Remember when stealth ports were a firewall’s big-ticket feature, and what set Comodo and a couple others apart from everyone?)
Meanwhile, integrating both firewall and AV can really tax a processor less. I’m convinced Comodo is the group to do this right, and I want to hear what they’re doing to get there. If Comodo AV is truly next generation and under-measured, tell me why - that is, unless common user error means that Comodo’s Next Generation AV status is forthcoming.
Welcome to our boards Zazzman.
Please read about “default deny with Auto-sandboxing” to show that you can stop malware using this technique without needing blacklisting. Black or white listing becomes a usability tool and not security tool. There is no user involvement. Anything unknown goes into Sandbox…
the CEO should allow the test of CIS in the most famous INDEPENDENT test organizations.
before i used mostly Avira coz i saw the test on AV-C, i never heard about Comodo before unless i checked Matousec for the Avira IS and KIS test. i saw CIS at 1st position. that made me perplex coz CIS was not on AV-C test. after browsing the internet for informations, i read a lot of good comments. So i decide to install it and test it (it was CIS 3). and until now i was never disappointed.
most of my customers (the advanced ones) never heard of CIS and still rely on KIS, NIS, or Avast. when i talk about CIS they said " i dont see it on AV-C , it shouldn’t be so good…" until i said to them: “test it and let see in 1 month.”
after that they generally adopt it. most people (advanced users or beginners) dont have time to collect infos, they just heard by others “this or that security suit is good, i never had troubles” so they use it too.
Comodo is a company, a company need cash incomes to survive, to get incomes you need customers, to get customers , you must advertise correctly, what is the best advertisement for an AV company than a renowned and trusted testing organization?
that is my point of view.
likely this is !ot! however being a newbie here,is it possible to get a download link for geekbuddy to use on another machine?yes licensed.plese PM if possible as I do not know when I will or be able to get back here.
Thank You
Is this what you mean?
Thank you for expressing my point of view more succinctly.
Yes, this is a wonderful feature incorporated into your firewall.
However, when a user wishes to actually install something, it needs to come out of the sandbox. If the virus scanner does not detect such things in the sandbox, either from incompatibility with scanning the sandbox or from the AV’s inability to detect a given virus, we have a problem. The VB100 listing appears to point to the latter problem for Comodo AV.
If I understand the premise of this thread correctly, my point about Comodo AV may be flawed. If this is the case, how so? Otherwise, what is Comodo doing to remedy this?
Discussion here.
I do understand your point.
If a user makes a bad decision with the popups then they can be infected.
The difference between CIS, and most other security products, is that with other products the user never even gets the chance to stop the installer from infecting them. It just goes straight through if it isn’t already detected.
CIS has that extra protection layer to give the user a chance to realize that perhaps they shouldn’t be installing that program if Comodo doesn’t recognize it as safe.
Does that make sense?
Well… yes and no.
Other free antivirus products do contain something that stops the program, and checks to see if it is listed as “safe” with the AV maintainer, to allow the user to reconsider. Windows Security center in Vista is infamous for their own redundancy of this. Windows 7 may continue this, but I’m not certain.
And you might notice in the chart, CIS and ComodoAV are listed distinctly, but on the same point: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index
And there is this matter:
December 2010 - Comodo Internet Security Status: FAIL Failure reason: 5 wildlist misses, 1 false positive Product name: Comodo Internet Security More: December 2010 in full Review: Comodo Internet Security on Windows 7 Details: Only available to subscribers.October 2010 - Comodo Internet Security
Status: FAIL
Failure reason: 7 wildlist misses
Product name: Comodo Internet Security
More: October 2010 in full
Review: Comodo Internet Security on Windows Server 2003
Details: Only available to subscribers.
At least we’re due for another round in April on Windows XP.