Let’s do it 
+1
The very tests that Symantec refers to shows that Free products are not bad at all
talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
So by their admission Symantec accepts that they were misleading with those statements!
Melih
Those tests show only one aspect of their claim - no way does what they have to say constitute as admission of misleading.
They refer to tests as response to my Challange…free AVs in those tests do really good…hence Symantec is Misleading…
+1
Exactly - they “refer” - doesn’t mean they can’t refer to other things and use them in composite. What they say does not imply that the tests they quote are the only thing they can refer to or should be judged by.
They refer to a wide variety of tests, including removal and performance. You have to take everything at aggregate, and not look at a single test. That’s pretty blatantly obvious from their tests.
I really hope CIS will be in those tests when they’ll release it…
LOL
Protection is Protection…you don’t go to your local cleaner and give your Pants and tell them Protect…you say…clean them…Maybe language is an issue here with you Begemot but Protection is NOT Cleaning.
we are beating a dead horse with this
Symantec mislead people by saying free av don’t provide protection… it clearly does…
After this statement from Symantec:
Can you still deny that Begemot? Honestly? Credibly?
Melih
Language isn’t a problem at all for me - I am a poliglot.
How do you protect those already infected? You can’t? That’s why Symantecs comments are not misleading. They can protect more of those who are infected. Your free solution can’t.
I don’t think that’s what he meant.
You can’t be sure an AV removed completely a virus, NIS or CIS can’t be completely sure because of 0-day threat and undetected stuff. If you already have been infected by something and the AV found it and removed it, there’s a chance you’ve got something else. You don’t know because CIS proactive security wasn’t doing its job at this time and you got infected.
It’s not really related to CIS or NIS. If NIS can’t detect a virus because it doesn’t know it, it can’t do anything about it. That’s why you’re left in a uncertain state, even after the removal of the known threats.
If a malware infects a pc and prevents internet access, you can kiss Norton bye bye, it has no sigs and no cloud… CIS has D+ and Sandbox and it does not need to rely on sigs or cloud…
That is, if you install norton or cis on already infected machine…
Yes, but of these two uncertain states, one is more certain and one is less. No product in the world can prevent or remove 100% of viruses. Comodo might prevent more than Norton when already installed, but Norton can remove more than Comodo when installing onto an infected machine. That is the argument Symantec are validly pointing out - you can;t judge a suite based solely on prevention, and once you take everything into account, paid does better than free.
Where?
I read the quote Melih posted, and I don’t read that. They are talking about protection, not threat removal.
Of course - threat removal is part of protection. Melih himself implies that he can’t protect those who are infected - he’d rather they reformat or wait until they buy a new pc. If you can;t remove an infection, you can;t protect the PC - this entire argument is jsut a difference of definitions.
“protect you from today’s online threats”…this does not imply infected computer…it means threats exist online and your computer will be safe…but i am sure you will try to spin it…go ahead…
Symantec is scaremongering with misinformation…this is exactly what Fake AV products do: they too scaremonger using misinformation to get $$
Intelligent people need evidence. You are just reposting the same words over and over again, rather than providing evidence contrary to Symantec’s claims. You need to show how in AVC, free products do better than paid over the wide range of criteria. Untill you do, I won’t be participating in any more bickering.
Until you can show me how based on the AVC reports, over a wide range of criteria, free products do better than paid ones, I’m going to dismiss all your claims of “misleading” and “scaremongering” as misleading and scaremongering.
The same goes for your claims that Comodo will be tested in August by AVC. Until I see evidence, I won’t participate in this thread further and waste your precious time.
It is the job of the CEO to set the company image. I wish you all the best - good luck in proving your claims and in your “fight” against paid products.
If that’s the case, you can run the Norton boot recovery tool. It launches from a cd and can hopefully remove the threats present.
How about a test where the user makes Norton mimicks the behavior of comodo and asks about every program that is trying to access the internet.
Good luck Begemot, and thank you coming here and putting your side forward.
at the end of the day words speaks for themselves…
These are misleading scaremongering against Free AV products.
thank you
Melih
CIS 5 is better than NIS 2011 or any other suite whether installed on a new system or infected system. COZ whether new system or infected system NIS 2011 or any other suite will protect the system only with the detection they have with signatures, heur & behaviour & the rest will be missed but CIS 5 will protect the system with the detection they have with signatures & heur & the rest that are missed by these traditional approach will be protected by the innovative autosandbox.
So CIS 5 is better & best than NIS 2011 or any other suites whether on new or infected system.
Thanxx
Naren