can anybody make testes with cis 5.12 with its database updated and using actual malwares?
I want to know if CIS 5.12 can do the job still these days. Im considering rolling back to v5. Im not happy with cis 8.2…
With the danger of going off topic. V5.8 and later use the same database as v6, v7 and v8. So I expect no difference in detection rate.
Great results :-TU
The keylogger test fails because he was using sandbox as “run virtually” unknow apps. Like that CIS lets the app run, but everything is confined in the sandbox, so I think no information can be sent out of it.
I personally prefer to set the sandbox as “run restricted → Untrusted”. Like this CIS can pass every keylogger test.
https://forums.comodo.com/defense-sandbox-help-cis/spyshelter-test-t109758.0.html
thanks.
ill create a new topic about it so peoplpe can discuss it in a proper place.
Does Anti-Virus software slow down your computer? AV-Test tested this out and Comodo came out “middle of the road”
Room for improvement
can you tell me why CIS made a mess in my test by letting in malware into important areas of windows that you need to boot to windows and comodo gets killed by the malware at the same time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbkofZiGnN4
I watched the test.
The test was done in Feb.
One of the initial version 8 had some bug so this could be the reason for infection.
In the test KillSwitch showed Virtualization “disabled” for the malware processess running.
So I guess your malware archives/folder was present in the system before CIS install. This could be the reason for infection.
Starting version 8, all the stuffs present in the system before CIS install is treated as safe.
To test CIS, you should install it & then bring the malware archives/folder on the system.
they should had it fixed before they release it not my troubles it was theirs
Anyone know how often Matousec does their proactive security challenges? I would really like to see how CIS 8.x does in proactive security compared to their current result for v7.x.
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge-64/results.php
Proud to see that CIS has the highest score 
Hi all
Comodo Internet Security Test
Comodo Firewall 8.2 vs Malware Encryptors
Comodo Internet Security Review (Antrivirus Tester)
Comodo Firewall vs Rombertik
Hi all
Comodo Firewall 8.2.0.4508 Setup and Brief Test- Part 1
Comodo Internet Security Test
Comodo Internet Security 8 2 review
Comodo Firewall vs Scriptors
Comodo Internet Security 8.2 BETA Review (Languy99)
Comodo Firewall 8 2 0 4508 Setup and Test Part 2
To be clear, Comodo got 4 out of 5 stars which the site calls “Very Good”. Your assertion is wrong.
That review says:
[i]"We expected better results concerning malware detection ratio. During our tests, we asked the app to scan 1,145 files with known virus samples and it managed to clean only 723 files, leaving behind 422 infections (they weren’t even zero-day threats).
On top of that, the real-time guard was not very prompt. It didn’t have any reactions when we extracted the files from the encrypted archives, as it did this only when we made file selections, and it started to slowly remove them one at a time. However, after a short time, it seemed to have “forgotten” about the task, as the virus removal suddenly stopped, and we had to “remind” it by making a file selection again. Multiple manual scans had to be run for COMODO to be able to flag the 723 files as infected"[/i].
What you have quoted there, vincentmax, is from “The Bad” section of the review and only from “The Bad” section of the review. If that were truly representative of CIS as a whole, it would not have gotten 4 out of 5. That is plain and simple dishonesty.
Comodo should drop their AV and buy another engine.
Don’t tell me they can’t afford it.
In all honesty, I think way to much emphasis is put on test results.
We don’t all live in a yellow submarine, we do however live in the real world. 
how will that secure you more in an automatic sandbox mode?
AV engines increase the number of vulnerabilities with a varying degree of performance penalty. The engine is vulnerable to zero-day attacks similarly to applications that mitigate such attacks. Often, having one antivirus engine makes things worse than not having one since most do not offer special self-protection mechanisms and rely only on the operating system features such as ASLR, DEP, etc.
Multiple engines are added and multiple 3rd party bugs appear. Most of the time, these engines are not even audited by the beneficiary. Ironically, these are the “high standards of security”.