I think the one-level protection which is at the NIS never surpass a real multi-level, which is built CIS. It does not depend on a paid product or free - is just the probability theory. 90%(SONAR) + 90%(signature) + 90%(norton insight) not equal 270% prevention, but still 90% and no matter how many shield to add (figures for example). CIS exceeds the NIS in this assessment, the rest of implementation issues.
Alex
+1
The only “backlash” I see here are the words (and tone) on your post. Including the bold and the capital letters.
Avoid the use of all CAPITAL LETTERS in posts. ALL CAPS is considered "shouting" and causes readability issues.That's from Forum Policy. Of course we could go on and on with quotes from here and there, and arguments and etc...; but I woud stick with respect from other's opinions, wich, with understanding from your position (and I [i]do [/i]understand you), is something you could learn from John.
Here is a review that shows if an AV product is built to prevent or rely on detection as the first line of defense…
Melih
The misinformation continues…
Here is what Symantec said in USA Today, (2010-09-22) (thats, today )
Symantec, when will you stop scare mongering end users to make them pay money to you? This strategy you follow is no different than what FAKE AV products do. They too scare the users to get them fork out, and you do that too! Shame on you!
This is not the first time we are hearing this type of scare mongering from Symantec, so I can only assume this is the company policy being executed by its employees!
Melih
Actually Symantec is right because there are many freeware with limited features ( Comodo is not because it is a full product so Comodo is out of discussion i believe ). And the free software companies say that this is basic security and buy our paid product to be fully protected.
Those guys like to intimidate…
:-X
Either you’re with us, or you’re against us… :-TD
Edit: Animal abuse too! 
"Freeware vendors have created a false perception that [b]free, basic security[/b] is enough to protect you from today's online threats," says Janice Chaffin
I used the bold because I think they are referring to the likes of Avira free, Avast free and MSE.
They are not referring to suites like CIS or FW/HIPS like OA free.
And from that point of view they are right.
we also have free AV.
how will readers know that they dont mean Comodo?
Also pls read what Symantec said:
They are calling Freeware vendors…Comodo is a freeware vendor!
What Symantec does is no different than what Fake AVs do…they both scare customers with misinformation to extract $$ from users.
Melih
Yes, of course. The meaning is so very clear (not that I’d personally call Avira, Avast or MS freeware vendors). There must be nothing quite like creating a false perception whilst actually using the phrase “false perception”. Genius level marketing.
Guess how Fake AV products work?
Melih
Much ado about nothing.
Of course, Symantec is not in a hurry to see people run a free security software, and lose market share: if you and me were Symantec executives, you would exactly, not mattering if it’s true or not, do like them:
the issue is to avoid losing money, and everything else is nothing but words.
On the other side, we are happy to run a free security software and we would guess that Melih’s philanthropy would stop there (they can say what they want, i don’t care, i don’t get a penny for it):
but that is not true either, cis is only offered to us maybe not anymore for direct income (toolbars), but to lead people to use paid Comodo products and, outside of the freeware world (cis is not strictly speaking one), it’s normal, no one lives, as we say in France, from “love and chilled water”.
No one really cares whether in some challenge (assuming there would be some normalized technique to run it, and it’s another story) one of the contenders shall win or not.
The only issue is, as usual, money, and while i understand that Melih himself defends his company and its incomes, i am not sure that bringing such a polemic to a partial media (Comodo forum itself, i am sorry to say it cannot have whatever objective judgement) makes any point.
If some fight has to occur, it should in independant media, not in Comodo or Symantec forum, or why not from some court if it has to, but i don’t understand Melih submitting this issue to his own forum, and still less anyone taking part in the said issue.
In the meantime, i am still using cis, i am far from being the only one, and i don’t care of what Symantec says or not.
What Symantec said is Marketing.
To sell your products
Say you are good
Or
Say others are bad
Thats Marketing.
Thanxx
Naren
So you are ok with Fake AV products doing what they do? Use misinformation to extract money from people?
Melih
Fake AV or Real AV they are into the business for money. They will adverstise the product the way they think they willl earn more.
Like a Fairness Cream advertise say it will make you fair in 4 weeks, do they?? Offcoz not.
So whether an AV or Fairness Cream or any other thing, all will try to persuade you by making true/false claims, its on the users how much to believe or to believe or not.
Thanxx
Naren
They are afraid of loosing their costumers! therefore they need to talk shit about free security suits.
for me comodo is my security suit!
Regards,
Valentin
I am sorry Naren, I do not subscribe to the notion of “false claims” are ok to make money notion.
I think its unethical to spread misinformation to make $$… And just because someone does it does not make it ethical.
Melih
If they made that claim in their advertising they would certainly be in trouble with the standards authority in the UK.
I didn’t said its ethical, offcoz its unethical. But what further. Is there any law regarding this?? Like there are laws for crimes, is there any law for false claims?? No.
Ok like a good citizen & in good interest of people you are challenging them, a big hand of applause. But will they accept it?? No.
Do you expect the people who make false claims to come in open & face the challenge to their false claims?? They will never & it ends here.
But yes atleast people learn something from this type of discussions & announcements.
Thanxx
Naren
By having themselves published in print where many readers of said newspaper read that article, and thus get the wrong impression and may not choose CIS, aren’t they guilty of Libel or defamation and can be sued for that? They are putting out false impressions of many companies (not just Comodo), thus they are defaming them. So, Comodo should bring up a suite against Symantec. Melih, if you are really serious about this and you feel if you have been hurt, like loss of users due to non-verified statements, then you have a legal obligation to bring suite. A company cannot just say something about other companies unless they have proof. That is the key. The article provided no proof. These hurtful and damaging statements can only be stopped one way … through the courts. This is a sad situation. But it may be needed to poke the executives at Symantec to only release truthful statements with verified facts, thus the only way to do that is with this challenge of yours. If you do take them to court, then you would need the results of this challenge as proof that you can match or even surpass paid protections, like the Norton product line. Thus it proves their statement false, and thus they loose the defamation suite.
So, take them to court. 