CAVS 3.O Beta - Chocolate Fireguard?

Not being funny as I think Comdo’s D+ is excellent but really everyone is all singing, whooping and dancing about this new AV offering from Comodo.

Does it actually provide any protection yet and if so based on what because form what I’ve seen and read on this forum it would appear not.

There’s talk of asking for malware lists, there’s 0% detection scores been listed and no independant testing been carried out.

If the concept/engine/software is in place then why not have it tested indepedantly, unless of course you know that at present it is indeed a ‘chocolate fireguard’?

Can a Comodo rep honestly answer this for me please?
I know lots will answer on behlf of Comodo with smilies, whoop whoops and ‘this is the best thing since sliced bread’ but not being funny, these guys would probably be sold on a fancy GUI not strength/detections etc.

Over to you guys…

First, this is a BETA product and of course it is still under development. Now, I’ve been testing with malware samples downloaded and I can tell you the detection rate goes from 25% up to 70% in my case. D+ is a great tool. I downloaded a file from the net and it was malware. COMODO did not detect the file neither did Kaspersky. When I ran the file, D+ popped up screaming about the files and reg keys that the file was going to create or modify. I noticed it was a virus and blocked the attempts and deleted the files (after sending them to COMODO for analysis).

So, if your plans are installing an AV on your PC, go to a different direction (just for now). Give COMODO a few months and you will see how good it will become. Personally I use COMODO AV and Persnal Firewal and no other software and I am doing great! Go ahead and give it a try!

The scanner speed is OK. Memory consumption is perfect!! Definitions are updated daily!

I am giving you my testimony. Wait for an answer from a COMODO rep.

The reason because comodo has not participated in tests such as “Av-Comparitives” is because it must meet the minimum requirements such as 85%+ detection etc…

Right now I havn’t seen anyone raging about how good the detections are - I do know it catches a fair amount of the “commonly found” malware. Mainly right now all we can judge is how the program functions, the speed etc.

If you are refering to;;msg203543#msg203543

There has been many questions been thrown around and very little answered from this testor. In my personal opinion I would not rely on this persons results, Simply because there has been so much discussion on these tests and very little answers… It’s almost SPAM :smiley:

In time more tests will be done and will give you an overall look at CAVS3 detections, Cavs 3 is just a baby and If you don’t feel comfortable for the time being - there are plenty of alternatives.

Melih, the ceo - Has said that he exspects the detections to be up with the top in a years time.

We detect all the malware we know that exists! (why wouldn’t we :slight_smile: )

We have around 400,000 Unique samples (not including variants) and this number is growing very rapidly. (if you include variants this number goes to over a million)

We have a good source of malware samples coming in from many volunteers and we are grateful to every single one of them! Thank you guys!!

We also have relationships in place with many AV vendors and other orgs who have malware samples that we share.

As to how many % of the malware we detect… now I don’t know how anyone can report that as I don’t think anyone will have a full list of all the malware out there. One can only test how many % of the malware they have that we detect. New malware is usually missed by AVs in general, cos the first thing that a decent malware author does is to test their creations against mainstream AVs before they unleash it, making sure they are not detected! That is why we believe “prevention” should be your first line of defense.

Of course our AV infrastructure is new and will take some time to tune it to get it humming along nicely. But one thing for sure, we are on it!

In the meanwhile keep sending the samples pls.


Oh my god… mouth drops open

Thanks for taking the time to reply to this thread.
I will watch as this product moves through Beta and RC stages.

I for one will have no problem moving to this once it is fully established as I think honestly that HIPS is the way forward instead of whitelists etc.

I envisage that eventually most AV’s will be superceded by a HIPS type package anyway as they do not require a virus database or whitelist.



Prevention is your FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE! Just FYI… Malware came of my P2P, the AV in CIS didn’t catch it, But D+ Alerted me and I blocked it. :slight_smile:


Actually Defense+ does use a whitelist in " safe mode ", how ever you can choose not to by putting it into “Paranoid mode”

I guess this is the first and the best way.


Currently for computer techies, D+ is much more valuable (or at least for me. You could even not have a AV but just use D+, but for normal users I would not recommend this).

But just in case, I have Avast! for an antivirus. I really like it, but it may have some unneeded shields (there is/was and argument about if you really need these shields, but I can’t find it).

Ahh my thread (R) You should pay attention to Melih’s statements on page 3,4

Layered Security is the way forward.

IMO you can’t leave anything out.


:-TU :-TU
It is being adopted by many AV vendors. It is definitely the way to go! (:CLP)

Since we launched our strategy we have many AV vendors following on our footstep, whether they acknowledge publicly (which I don’t expect them to :slight_smile: )or not…



Yep Melih, you have disturbed a hornets nest. They would be aware of the firewall and how good it is, some of them probably follow some of the forums and are seeing your ideas and wetting their pants.