I said, If you want to compare only the AV component, since you can install Comodo AV without the sandbox, D+… am I wrong? Maybe ;D
So if you see a video in youtube all the files that are not detected by CAV could be consider an infection if you dont consider the rest of CIS, D+, Sandbox,Fw.
That’s all, is nothing special
Norton 2011 VS Comodo AV 2011 = Norton wins
Norton IS 2011 VS Comodo IS 2011 = Comodo wins
Althought I think that there is no difference btw Norton IS and Norton AV in the detection field.
so a fight between norton and comodo??so my system is using NAV 2011 + comodo FW + D+, does that mean i should uninstall one? i guess if they conflict, i will go with KAV + comodo
Actually i don’t see any legal reasons why Comodo couldn’t have the FULL Comodo v Symantec/Norton tests independently done, and publish them.
Comodo does not need Norton permision to do it, Melih you can call to AVTest.org and pay for their services. Like Symantec did
Norton sits up high and mighty in their Ivory tower, so I don’t think they are even phased by this challenge. That’s how arrogant people are. They just don’t listen, and think they are right.
I think lordraiden said it. Comodo should just do the independent test and then contact the article writer and have him publish it on that site. If that site was willing to quote Norton, why not tests from an independent tester and Melih.
Since Norton has landed one of the most highly paid security contracts in personal computing by being offered free to all Comcast customers they have everything to lose by being compared to Comodo 2011 and being found to have inferior protection and thus risking being replaced by Comodo just as they replaced McAfee as Comcast’s preferred personal computer security provider for their customers which would be a true “How do you like Comodo now?” moment for Melih!
Of course this would be an option. However, here is what i have done with this challange:
The issue is “to keep them honest”, if someone makes a claim you challange them. Symantec makes a claim that we all know is misleading. Press has no means to challange this claim. Now with this challange, the press can say, if you are so sure mr Norton, why not take up the challange from Comodo and prove your statement?. Its easy enough for any provider to come up with their own paid for test results, but challanging them into an independent test is yet another matter, that has credibility compared to self sponsored tests.
With this challange, I am hoping that we have shamed Norton to either stop making these absurd claims or risk being called on their statements by the press, by showing this challange. This was a way to arm the press against Norton’s unfounded statements.
We have taken away 16Million paying customers from our competitors (40% of our users come from paid AV products and we now have around 40M users). This at $40 a year equates to $640M worth of revenue someone did not have! We have our mothers, sisters, brothers or kids using CIS. There simply are no 40M geeks out there to use CIS I wish there were, they would all be using CIS cos its the power house that they know and like. And you know what, there is nothing better to be promoted than these knowledgable geeks who have been the early adopters of Comodo technologies. Afterall it is those geeks, knowledgable techies are the ones who recommend CIS to their friends and families.
Anyway…this challange was a way to arm the press so that they can challange the people who are misleading the public.
I am outspoken because I care for end user’s security. I am outspoken and put my money where my mouth is. One thing i have no time for is people who mislead the end users for profit!
It’s surprising read that Comodo has so many users paid and free, but since I’m almost sure that Symantec will ignore this you will always have the other option.
I trust that you will know how to invest part of this money to improve CIS usability the achilles heel of Comodo and protection.
On the second forum posted on a Norton user posted one of those ‘‘use big words to disguise the fact that you are saying nothing nor giving a straight answer’’ replies. Symantec’s sole purpose is buying out smaller, reputable companies and running them straight into the ground. At this they are VERY good. 88)
Just to clarify: of the 40M users were paying for AV. They don’t pay Comodo. What this means is that some competitor who used to charge for AV is now losing that revenue. We have around 40M users and growing…and all are enjoying a top notch security product for free!
Just like Symantec, some of their users are also good at spreading FUD!!
Look at this statement from one of their user (drshlomo):
[i]"In this life, as opposed to the Garden of Eden, nothing is for free, certainly not COMODO and, in fact, it’s use could prove to be a very costly mistake indeed.
Fortunately, I don’t believe that any of us Norton users would ever be foolish enough to even consider making that error."
[/i]
I mean come on…how can anyone make such statement? One minute I am trying to stop Symantec making such foolish statements, the next minute their user’s start to do the same!
I must admit, we do have a very sophisticated user base, who are knowledgeable and very intellectual.
Here’s my analysis of my own independent studies–real life, over several years. Score: One [1] Comodo protected computer was found full of malware [user confessed to not keeping Comodo updated for about a year, and to knowingly allowing malicious software onto the computer]; at least Twenty [20][you have to stop counting at some point] Symantec protected computers have been found by me to be highly infected. Not just a few pieces of malware, but hundreds on each machine.
When security scans were finally run on the single Comodo machine Comodo software alerted [they did initially also, but the user ignored all]. When the infected Symantec machines were “scanned” by the AV Symantec reported that everything was a-okay.
When someone tells me they have Norton/Symantec I tell them to get some other security solution [such as Comodo]. An AV product that reports things are fine, when they are not, is about as bad as nothing at all.
And Symantec wants How Much for something that does not work well?
They just don’t listen, and think they are right.