CIS is one of the "System Protection Award Winners"

Comodo Internet Security - CIS News / Announcements / Feedback - CIS
#1

Go to

and read the complete test results on the next page.

CONGRATULATIONS COMODO.

Keep up the extremely good work

Mueller

#2

Comodos catching up real fast in the malware department :-TU

I bet other AV companys are going to get defensive (like trying to explain why free isn’t as good as paid) I already see the smear campain going on at the wilders forums.

I feel the wilders forums are based in 3 sections of people there
1)Offical AV companys that run there section of the forum with some paid emplyees there trying to “woo” people to use there product
2)fanboys that are dedicated to a certian Brand of software and anything else is basicly second rated or in a few cases bad mouth other products other then their personall favorite
3)people that like to play with different software or basicly never stick to one brand

#3

The link seems not working anymore. Just direct to a page of “terms and conditions of use”. ???

#4

Hi,

try this one : http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=102

best regards,
eXPerience

#5

Doesn’t work It’s redirect to terms and conditions of use again.

Did my IP blocked from this site ???

#6

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

#7

Maybe I do not understand but Comodo missed a lot! 6 of the 22 thats almost 25% ???

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47

COMODO Internet Security (Defense+ turned off) failed to block the flowing malware samples:
Trojan-Dropper.gen
Backdoor.Win32.Bifrose.belf
Trojan.Win32.Agent.cllv
Backdoor.Win32.Bifrose.baor
Backdoor.Win32.UltimateDefender.hux
Backdoor.Win32.Bifrose.bksm

#8

Hi Eljo,
That is exactly the point, Defence + was turned off. What I cant understand is why to these companies test software turned off when in reality it is a package. Then have them say that it would be unfair to other AV’s, is in my opinion complete BS. If other AV’s cant get it right then they shouldnt be in the game.

I believe that all av testers should test each software as a package eg if it is just an av then test it as just an av but if it is a suite like CIS or any other suite then test them as a suite and not cripple the suite by turning this or that off. I don’t have a lot of time for test companies Malware Search Group or others who can’t perform tests correctly and then have the public rely on their statements. It brings a bad reputation to the security suite provider whether it is Comodo, Kaspersky, Symantec etc. Their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

Anyway i will get off my high horse now and say that if you read a bit further you will see that CIS with D+ turned on passed all the tests. I have been using CIS for a long time now and haven’t got one virus and I am not very choosy to what sites I visit.

Hope this doesn’t deter you from using CIS. I certainly won’t be using anything else.
regards
shadha

:comodo110:

#9

Guess you missed the link posted in the first entry on the page linked by the OP about Malware Research Group Project #20 where all of the 60 samples found on actually infected computers in the wild were detected.

As this is not an official test, the results are shown only in our forums [url=http://malwareresearchgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47]here[/url].
For some reason which MRG didn't seemingly point out, the test you linked to was not official and hence it was featured only on their forums.
#10

I know this was an unofficial test but its still a test. As I understand CIS it has 3 layers/options Firewall, Antivirus and Defence+. Defence+ Protects your files, the firewall your connections and the antivirus must stop malware.

I can understand that they killed D+ as it is not a part of the AV scanner and thats what they tested.

And As of 3.10 I use CIS again no worries. But It would be best If Comodo let them test their software officially by the big guys. I thought I red somewhere here that would be done in September so …

#11

Then I guess by now you were able to confirm the the detection rate of the latest MRG official test the OP wrote about (Malware Research Group Project #20)…

…was it 100% over a three times larger sampleset collected from live infections? :wink:

BTW how comes you didn’t notice when you wrote your previous post? ???