CIS does well against NIS

I’m not sure how accurate this test done by Steve Ragan of The Tech Herald may be, but Comodo Internet Security did well against Norton Internet Security 2011. If it is accurate, hopefully it will help in improving Comodo even more. I certainly have no worries using CIS now however, especially after reading this test.

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201039/6199/Review-Comodo-Internet-Security-vs-Norton-Internet-Security-2011?page=1

The same thread exists already, but thanks for notifying us anyway :wink: :-TU

https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anything-and-everything/challenge-to-symantec-from-comodo-ceo-t62041.0.html;msg442009#msg442009

I honestly looked first and when I didn’t see it, I couldn’t believe it wasn’t already posted. lol. Thanks for the info, but I must say that most of the discussion in that thread is more about Comodo verses Symantec, stuff about Melih, and a few other things, than it is about the test. Hopefully people can comment here about the value of the actual testing done.

I find it funny that every test I have seen of comodo they count dropped files at a failure, if even if it totally inert. I guess they don’t know how the automatic sandbox works.

also look at those VT links, they picked malware that symantec specifically hand signatures for them and comodo did not. In my tests I picked malware that neither had signatures for the malware and you saw how well it performed. All they did was an advanced detection test.

It would be nice if the sandbox keeps a trace of created files. If the application creating these files is flagged as untrusted, Comodo could clean these files automatically…

It’s been suggested already by languy99 and a few others that auto sandboxed files which spawn files and processes, should be terminated when flagged as untrusted or malware either automatically or by user choice, without having to reboot the computer. Leaving traces of malware behind, in a temp folder or where ever (even if those files are harmless), confuses users and testers alike.

look at those VT links, they picked malware that symantec specifically hand signatures for them and comodo did not.
So much for trying to keep the test fair :-TD.

Why couldn’t they make the test fair. (Example) Where there either both have hand signatures or neither have them. <-----Seriously how hard or obvious could that be

Was it the only way for symantec to stand a chance against comodo, is to pick infections that were only detected by symantic AND NOT by comodo. Even based on that, the test results were only a 2% difference(And on top of all that, that’s even when the testers didn’t know that restarting the computer will remove all infections in comodo sandbox!! )

It seems that whether the tests are fair or unfair, Comodo always does good :slight_smile:

I am really satisfied with the test! CIS did really well :slight_smile:

+1 :-TU :-TU really good idea. leaving inert traces is not good . they should be removed when the malware is discovered.

And add some marker, which show you that this app running in sadbox, for example green rim/edge as any to call it.

comodo did super job! I am dam proud to be a comodo user and comodo fan and comodo supporter!

Regards,
Valentin

So this test seems to be fair, very different from Donna on-demand detection “test”

Finally there are 2 close good products here :-TU

PS Comodo like not Buzus ???

+1

I don’t understand why every time a program performs slightly better than CIS in a test, people here have to complain about the test not being unfair, the tester is clueless, the samples were hand picked, there is a conspiracy, etc…

This test pretty much mirrors my feelings of these two programs. They are both great and offer top notch protection, but Norton has a slight edge, mostly due to it’s ability to recognize safe programs.

So all their virustotal links showed that they chose samples which were in the Symantec database but not in Comodo"s. Exactly what would be fair about that?

It is simply something for Comodo to improve on.
This was a fair test.

Are you implying that this tester hand picked samples that Norton had signatures for, and not Comodo?

Everyone here clamors for CIS to be tested, but then complains about the results. CIS showed really well in this test, and got edged out by a product that is on top of its game. No drama necessary here.

So any word on how CIS will have best detection yet? any news what it will bring?

Thanks John.

I concur.

I don’t know personally but it was something I noticed. It did not really test norton’s power, all it tested was how good their signatures where, why didn’t they pick malware that both didn’t have signatures for or 5 that comodo has signatures for and 5 that symantec had signatures for.