Challenge to Symantec from Comodo CEO!

People who use free stuff, lend me your ears! :smiley:

Look, the truth is, Norton and its users know very well that free protection is enough. But having to admit that they are paying $$ for something that you can get for free questions their intellegence. So lets cut them some slack, coz we all know the truth! :stuck_out_tongue:

Heck I have been using Avast for a very long time, and the only problem I ever had was a trojan, whose actions were always blocked by Avast and then removed. Now with Comodo’s technology, I can honestly say that I feel more secure having avast and comodo as opposed to NIS stand alone! :smiley:

Cheers

The Dude 321

Also by the way, Norton did not detect that trojan either
 sad :frowning: and it was not a false positive.

I’m impressed by the way begemot can’t think or understand


There were 2 discussions in this thread:

  • Symantec thinks free software aren’t enough to protect
  • Comodo says it’s better to format a comprised computer (infected by a malware because no security was installed on it)

I won’t talk about the first one, it’s pretty clear why it’s wrong when top AV softwares are free (from av-comparatives).

On the second point, here is a scenario.
Your computer has a virus and you didn’t installed NIS or CIS.
You can have some trouble to install NIS or CIS because the virus won’t let you do it (it corrupts the installer, it changed the hosts file so you won’t be able to connect to the net, etc
), but let say you could install NIS or CIS.
NIS or CIS cleans “one” virus and detect nothing else.
Why would you think your computer is clean now ?
Because NIS or CIS didn’t detect something after the first scan ?
Why if it’s an undetectable 0-day threat or the AV can’t detect it because it couldn’t connect to the net due to another virus (or simply redirect the update server to another address through the host file).

That’s the problem if your computer is already infected and you didn’t install a protection before the infection.

Melih wasn’t even comparing the performance of NIS to clean stuff, it’s just dumb to assume your computer is clean after an infection, and you shouldn’t trust an AV if it was infected in the first place because no AV has 100% detection rate.

That’s why prevention is gold. Install your software before being infected.

Although I’m repeating myself, but

Gizmo criticizes the Matousec’s tests. It’s a technical reading, but seems fair (http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/matousec-personal-firewall-tests-analyzed.htm).
Others point to an interest conflict on Matousec’s tests, reducing their independence (?) (Matousec’s Firewall Challenge wrinkle: conflict of interests? « Smokey's Security Weblog).
We can’t mention a test just because we’re doing bad (or less good) on it.

Leak tests are popular mainly because they are very easy to perform: you simply run a program, and it tells you if it passed or failed the test. However, life is not that simple, unfortunately.

The primary goal of a firewall is to keep hackers out of your system, that is, prevent inbound attacks in the first place. It’s astonishing that many firewaller “testers” only focus on outbound protection, completely ignoring the inbound part (which is absolutely vital). It’s like they assumed it worked flawlessly in case of all the products, which, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be the case, really.

Next, outbound protection is of course also important, but so called leak tests are not everything. There’s a myriad of other things that a decent firewall should do, and which are usually not assesed by these tests. All I’m saying is that testing a firewall is a very complex task and focusing on leak tests is a gross (and inappropriate) simplification.

Souldn’t, ladies and gentlemen moderators, the two threads speaking of Symantec be merged, as basically the same issues are discussed on both, making, assuming it ever has been readable from the start, the all of it now totally unreadable?

But still a basic issue has been talked of, e.g.:

That's why prevention is gold. Install your software before being infected.
but not enough underlined.

As everyone likes to play with words, no one made a definition of a “clean system”.

On a malware basis, it would be a fresh computer installation, with no software whatsoever.

On a spyware basis, it is somewhat less easy: the only fact of running whatever “modern” windows os sells your underwear in Redmond, and it’s even worse with oem installed computers, where this situation extends to pre-installed softwares (“media centers” and soforth).

Strictly speaking, the only way to be quite sure that your virgin system is malware and spyware safe is to install yourself the os to a virgin disk and to run appropriate softwares in order to disable windows spyware services.
Next, you would install your security software before having plugged any permanent fast internet connexion, as they represent a real threat even for a few unprotected minutes.

We would therefore face two situations:
-the new cis user has, offline, not only the os cd, but also the needed security softwares: the question is, now, and if not formerly having another computer, a good friend, or having meanwhile formatted the only computer, how this user would have such downloads under hand.
-the new cis user was previously using some other security software; he might have taken all precautions for not running malware or spyware that he cannot definitely be sure of it, having two consequences: if he’s sure of that, he doesn’t need cis, and if he is not, cis cannot pretend anymore to its prevention action since the damage is already done.

Symantec (i don’t like neither advocate for), at least makes one point: the new user is able to be protected either from having bought the software previous to installation, either from running a (lousy) oem system bundled with Symantec.

In order to pretend that no malware/spyware can hit the system (including cis ones?) and that cis relies on prevention, cis must be able to provide to new users whatever means of offline installation, like a iso or a exe in a cd coming with a computing magazine.

As long as it shall not be done, Symantec and others will be able to pretend, no one cares if it’s true or false (repeating myself, it’s only a business issue), that maybe cis would succeed in post-installation protection, but definitely not in pre-installation prevention and disinfection.

He must think like this
(let me put it in another way if I may)

A Man/Woman picks up a bug of some kind and they go to Doctor Norton to see if he has a cure to help them get rid of this nasty virus. He will either say I can or cannot help you


But people who see Doctor Comodo don’t need to see him much as they are not likely to get sick as much.

Prevention is better than the cure, the vaccine (solution not signature!) is the way to not get the bloody thing in the first place


Sorry if this sounds stupid the way I put it, but thought would add a new perspective/take on how to word it.

watch what happened!

Video 1 Comodo vs Norton 2011 Editions Test 2 Video 1 - YouTube

Video 2 Comodo vs. Norton 2011 Editions Test 2 Video 2 - YouTube

Yes I watched them, which shows what CIS delivers! Now, all we need is for them to take on the Challenge
 if not, then after a certain period of time try and get as many testing sites to put CIS vs Norton head-to-head.

I hate to point this out, but he used CIS premium, not the free version. I saw it in a pop-up


Languy99, can you please clarify this?

CIS Preium is THE free version.
Paid ones are PRO and COMPLETE


https://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/differences-cis-2011-premium-plus-pro-and-complete-t57273.0.html

Hey you guys! :smiley:

I got rid of Norton, and now I have Comodo Internet Security. :smiley:

At the beginning it was really annoying, but later on, there were less problems. I think Comodo gets to know the system better, and relies of personalised information to cater to a user’s need. So far, I’m lovin it! :smiley:

But, I think it has a lot of fake positive to be honest
 :-\

On Virus total, there were a lot of viruses that were not viruses that it caught, just programmes that did not have digital certs. But still, better safe than sorry.

After I got rid of norton, I did a scan with Hitman Pro and malware bytes, and boy Norton missed out atlease 5 registry keys and more than 10 trojans and a hell of a lot of rootkits


I am beginning to question the validity of the tests carried out by different testing organisations
 :-\

Great to have you with us Dude 321. We will do our best to continue to protect you. We are contiuonly working on making our product, but without sacrificing security. With every release you will see you will get the top notch security but with better usability and performance.

thanks
Melih

I like the photo
wonder which one of them is Comodo :slight_smile:

IMO no test can totally replicate real life. Real life browsing etc is the best test of all. Kind regards

Agree.
And in those circumstances WOT and Sandboxie are my favorite apps. !ot!

Good luck with the false positives and constant alerts. Hopefully you have more patience than the average user. Oh btw
 if you are using VirusTotal to guage the efficacy of an AV product, I think you are smoking ■■■■■.

Wouldn’t expect anything different form “languy99” the self-proclaimed “Global Moderator
Comodo’s Hero”. I mean if your propaganda minister creates a video of Commode vs Product B, I think thats a little biased to say the least, dont you think.

The AV enthusiast users like are still waiting fro Comodo to appears in recognized tests like AV Comparatives, AV-Test etc.

Do you think AV-C detection test will show how CIS can secure you?

thanks

Melih

Please moderate your tone here.

Stop trolling.

The AV enthusiast users like are still waiting fro Comodo to appears in recognized tests like AV Comparatives, AV-Test etc.
Last posts before these two were 5 days ago. Seemed like you missed something: