I use CPF and am reasonably happy with it. Even allowing for its heavy resource useage.
I currently use Avast Home which is relatively light on install file size and does a credible job.
I hear lots about Comodo Anti Virus, much which appears to conflict. Its not up to speed yet on virus definitions (or antispyware) its heavy on resource useage, and its a whopping 24MB install file (Twice the size of AVG) so what I am puzzled about is, just what does CAVS offer over and above AVG/Avast that gets people excited or blinds them to reality.
Before people jump on me from a great height, I am not being provocative, I am asking a genuine and serious question. Its a really competitive market out there and I just cannot see yet what Comodo is offering that will be a knockout ■■■■ in the A/V market (except for bloat)
Please can someone explain what I appear to be missing?
Just curious but how much of your resources is CPF using ? The latest beta uses very little resources on my pc. I am holding off on CAV until it is more refined and beefed up with more virus definitions.
Currently I would recommend only avast! for an antivirus but as soon as the new CAVS is released that may change, it is true Comodo lacks detection, and uses a lot of resource, but it is being worked on as we speak and is only getting better.
I think i understand your question better now…
What you are saying is: Whats the innovation in CAVS to make one to choose over the other.
Well, we will build the first HIPS enabled AV
This functionality will be used to help prevent Viruses/malware!
This way CAVS will be the first and only AV that has both HIPS based Prevention and detection (like any old AV).
CAVS will be about stopping malware thru “active prevention”, rather than “reactive detection”!
(wow, that sounded bloody cool :-))
The combination of proactive perimeter protection and reactive interior detection is, IMHO, the ideal combination. A balanced approach to virus/spyware/malware is needed because of the multitude of invasion vectors available, and this is where CAVS is heading.
Joining this forum really help me gained plenty of knowledge. Okay, I have a simple question, isn’t HIPS now widely employed by other softwares? Melih, are you trying to say that AV softwares now do not have HIPS? I thought AV softwares out there have active monitoring and isn’t that considered as HIPS?
I just learned what HIPS is and would appreciate if anyone could provide an explantion.
Thanks, your reply goes part way to answering the question, but it still leaves me and and a lot of other people ( I suspect) wondering what the game plan is for CAVS.
I read a lot of things in the wish list, which if you let it, would grow twenty miles long. This is not the same as having a clear cut strategy to produce something different to or better than the competition.
You may think I am playing semantics. I am not. What I want is a simple low resource useage product. Others want different things. If they win you have bloat. I migrated from Look n Stop to Comodo PF (for example) not because its a poor product, but because its permanently in beta and development is very slow. On top of that you pay for it. BUT the product is relatively simple to set up, incredibly low on resources and does not consume much HDD space.
I just get the impression that either there is no clear game plan for CAVs or one has lost sight of it because of the intensive consultation/wish list. At the moment senior forum members (all credit due to them) are advising me to stick with Avast Home until at least the new version.
What I am saying in part is, don’t make the mistake that look n Stop is making you desparately need a final product that the “cognoscenti” can comment favourably on, and that CAVS can establish a rated niche in the market. THEN most of us would like a bit of signposting as to the direction CAVS is going in the future.
HIPS is an acronym for Host Intruder Protection system (also known as HIDS - Host Intruder Detection System). A HIPS monitors those areas of a system that are prone to infection / misuse by maleware, badly behaved apps etc. A HIPS will generally neither know nor care about what is attempting to make a change to a protected area, just that something is.
I think that Comodo’s idea is to continue to build CAVS as an AV product, but add HIPS-style monitoring of critical areas. Prevent proactively, rather than have to actively detect. Better to prevent something happening in the first place than to try anbd clean up the mess after if has happened.
So the current AV softwares out there actually have active detection, meaning that it will detect an infection once a file is infected. However, it does not prevent the file from being infected. Is this what most of the AVs out there are doing now?
They look for recognisable code or recognisable behaviour, but both of these depend on the bad code existing on your PC in the first place. Preventing them getting in reduces the need for removal - doesn’t eliminate it - but reduces it (providing sufficient trust can be placed in the preventative layer, of course).
This two pronged approach is, AFAIK, unique in the current crop of AV apps. I don’t expect it to stay this way once this approach is adopted by CAVS.
Please understand that having our user’s wishes listed in our wishlist is very important and its one of many inputs we take for the development efforts. It is not the only development requirement spec.