Warned for what?! This is the off-topic section of the forums, I have not personally attacked anyone, all my comments have been on (the off) topic. I have been polite and curteous. By your logic, you should warn Melih for posting “I promise that Comodo will have 100% detection” - like you say “hot air and needless noise”, since we haven’t seen it yet.
Which section of the forum rules have I violated, and why did you not point this out straight away?
“Again this is your interpretation, must be a deficiency in your english, or another problem that you hide” - sure, resort to personal attacks. I have been curteous throughout this thread. This is exactly the kind of post warnings should be handed out against.
You are twisting Melih’s words and then you keep on ranting about the twisted words you put in Melih’s mouth. Upon that you fail to come with evidence proving the sandbox can be bypassed.
You are polarising that Melih is not being truthful but you fail to come with proof.
Perhaps you are seeing things differently from me. Melih has said that he promises to deliver world’s best detection rate, guaranteed. This is a practically a quote. Asking for him to honour his guarantee cannot be classified as trolling.
Now to the malware samples: I mentioned them once. Then a user, ie lordraiden, asked further questions - I answered them. If you think I twisted Melih’s words on the way, please show me where. Either way, I’m quite happy not to talk about the samples, if you think that this will “troll” the thread. We can leave it at me thinking I know of some samples, and you being content that they do not exist without further proof - that is after all, fair.
I didn’t come here to provide you with evidence - I came to find out about Comodo’s business plans, how Comodo plans to take on the future and the competition, and Melih’s guarantee. The only reason why the thread has gone on so long about samples is that lordraiden keeps asking questions (which sidetrack the thread).
In my book, this is not very professional moderating - nowhere have you moderated any of the personal attacks (such as “must be a deficiency in your english, or another problem that you hide”) in this thread. Moderators cannot show bias.
@begemot: promise will be delivered, but not when you demand it. It will be delivered when its ready, period.
Now, lets not hijack the thread from more important issue… A multi $Billion company who uses scare tactics and misinformation to get people to buy its product!
I don’t see you going to Symantec and asking them to take down that blog or put out a statement correcting the misinformation.
Can you tell us why Comodo needs Vectored Exception support ?
A better question is why does Virtualbox not support vectored exceptions when VMWare and others do?
With the absence of vectored exception support, Virtualbox does not provide a complete emulation of a system, thereby introducing some doubt over the accuracy of any testing done on a less than complete platform.
If you don’t like unsubstantiated claims, can I ask what your take on David Hall’s post is? I couldn’t see any verifiable facts in there - only opinions.
They wouldn’t “take down the blog” because there’s no reason.
“put out a statement” they already did that.
“correcting the misinformation” I don’t think they worry too much about the interpretation others make.
The point is: they are too big and have too much money.
Oh, I forgot; they bought Verisign.
Oh, I forgot; they have a top notch security suite.
Hey, post in a respectable fashion! The above post was not called for nor is it of a tone that is appreciated.
Consider yourself warned, SG65.
Note - I am not participating in this thread, so I have full ability to moderate as needed.
Also note, any backlash towards me WILL result in a temporary post ban, length to be decided.
Okay, after reading 8 pages of posts (mostly meaningless posturing and bickering), this is what I have surmised:
1)Some people think Norton is better than Comodo.
2)Some people think Comodo is better than Norton.
3)There are a lot of claims that were posted, very few of which have been publically and reliably substantiated.
Each program has its strengths and weaknesses. Both companies have improved their product in recent years, but in my opinion, they both have significant room for improvement. If issuing a challenge or doing a head-to-head comparison will help improve the products, then I am all for it. Perhaps going head-to-head will expose weaknesses in each product that can be improved.
The battle should not be between users who bicker in the forums, the battle should be between the security suites.
unfortunately there is no expiry date for FUD. There was a recent article in the Guardian in the UK which referred to this blog from 2009… the point is, this blog is doing the rounds…
It’s an unfortunate side-effect of marketing, regardless of who’s doing it. My personal opinion is that David Hall’s statement was just too broad and unfairly ■■■■■■ too many very, very good security products (not just Comodo’s).
Ewen
OOPS EDIT : Apologies begemot - I accidentally clicked MODIFY instead of QUOTE. I believe I have deleted a paragraph of your original posting.
I will post my opinion.
BOTH products are ■■■■ good and will manage to keep system clean. Sure, Comodo has sandbox so nothing will get past that, but Norton [Symantec] also has its technologies to keep up.
Comodo sometimes asks for decision to be made by the user and I like that, although new guys might not while sometimes Norton is trigger happy and automatically deletes anything it does not like or know, even if it’s a clean program. Norton has pulse updates but Comodo is equally fast with cloud scanning and analyzing in real time. Both are resistant to modification and tampering. Both are very light and fast.
Now, in test, it may come as Comodo 100 - Norton 99. Ok, fine point, what is the problem?
NO PROBLEM! Both are good products and do their job… :-TU
But…
Calling out free products to be insufficient to protect is an accusation without proof! This test may prove them right or wrong. That is why this test is important. I don’t care for detection rates, as far as I am concerned, comodo can have even 50% detection, but I want 100% prevention and total control of my system! So far, I am using it and will continue to use it because it gives confidence. It gives that sense of security while giving user the chance to do what he thinks he needs to do. Unlike Norton where you have to define a long list of exclusions to keep it from auto-deleting stuff [and I know it has quarantine, I used it].
I think GakunGak summed it all up very nicely. That’s how I feel. The challenge is not about who is better, but just to prove a statement made by someone at Symantec wrong. That is what the whole purpose of the challenge. I don’t know why it caused such a big fight that it did. I still think people at Symantec will ignore it and just pass it off, but that only puts them in negative light, but Norton users will think it shows strength that Norton is so good that it doesn’t need the challenge… so on and so forth. But no, it does show that Symantec is not willing to own up to what they say. In today’s world of high speed internet and media, people need to watch what they say and then back up what they say, and if they are called out on what they have said, then they need to be willing to accept it.
