CIS Tested in PC Magazine,2817,2333803,00.asp

[b]Bottom Line[/b] For free security Comodo's firewall is still a sound choice, but the antivirus and antispyware parts of this suite just don't do the job. If you need free security, get the firewall alone and add avast! or AVG for free virus/spyware protection.

Defense+ monitor reports suspicious behavior by malware. Firewall stealths all ports, limits Internet access to authorized programs, resists attack. Safe Surf prevents buffer overflow attacks.

Defense+ monitor reports suspicious behavior by valid programs. Firewall vulnerable to “leak test” techniques and exploits. Antivirus is not certified. Antispyware failed malware cleanup and prevention tests. More impact on performance than expected.

Review is from November 3rd, so I assume most things have improved by now.

Everyone knows that CAVS still in development. Some technologies like CAMAS and BOClean will be integrated to CAVS in next year. Comodo do a great job on analysis of malware (of any kind) and detection rates grows fast.

Today CAVS didn’t give to us strong protection as CPF delivery. We have to wait and help. I use Norton Internet Security in my home computer but sent a lot of samples to Comodo by CAMAS and more recently by VirusTotal a huge malware repository.

Keep going Comodo! We will be the one! shortly!

The Virus Signature database version is now at 713, whereas a week ago it was 612.

That report is history.

I disagree with “Everyone knows that CAVS is still in development”. As CIS has come out of beta, people who don’t (regularly) visit these forums, think they have a fully featured product and thus expect high rates of detection and so on.
Nevertheless, one should also recognize that every AV out there is (or at least should be) in “continuous” development.

I am definately aware of CIS (read: the AV part of it) being subject of constant improvements and updates.
One has to keep in mind that potential users might get “scared away” by reviews such as the one in PC Magazine, as CIS only receives a “fair” rating due to the performance (back then).

Also, I believe that report is not history as long as there is no revision of it with a more up-to-date version of Comodo, as this will be what people will read.

Do not get me wrong: I love CIS and wouldn’t want to go without it. I have been using it since pre-beta and installing the RC’s at people’s computers that I maintain, so big is my trust in it.
However, I think “criticism” can always be used to ones advantage and all in all: the article states that CIS is quite good, but not yet up to the standard of the paid suites. Oh well, so be it, I think CIS will be there very very soon :slight_smile:

(B) (L)

I Wouldn’t pay attention to any Pc magazine reviews.

Care to elaborate on that?

For starters, Countless times in the Pc magazine it’s advertising for Symantec and a couple others.
It mentions that comodo’s firewall is prone to leak tests and exploits, Which we all know is a load of fud.
It also says that comodo’s impact on performance on the pc was more than expected, More fud.
AVG is a bloat application and we all know that, yet they reccomend it against CAVS3.

Another thing I don’t understant is if it’s so prone to these exploits\leak tests, why do they reccomend to use the firewall with another antimalware application?

hi,i suddenly found that we can no longer start a new topic at this forum,since i can’t find the new topic button,how about situation at your side?do u have the same problem at the moment?
thank u

i can only add reply but can’t start a new topic.

Hi adsf and welcome to the forum. :slight_smile:

You cannot add a new topic from within a topic, you have to go back a level from here to Feedback/Comments/Announcements/News - CIS.

I see your points. I must admit that I only read online reviews very sporadically. This one I stumbled upon and thought I’d post it here.
We, as more advanced computer users, see through these flaws, but the “normal” pc users (who take these reviews by heart) are not that savvy, I think :P.

AVG is bloat, but I think it’s safe to say that in detection rates and such, it is top of the line in the free AV-section (taking the impact on resources out of the equation). I am confident however that Comodo will surpass AVG before long.

Another thing: it is indeed strange that Comodo’s resources are put down as “more than expected”… I wonder what he expected then…

Oh well, at least we got a fun discussion going :wink:

Yeh :slight_smile: Think your under estimating CAVS3 my friend :wink: It may be young but it still has good detection.

Have a look at this guys reviews.

Nah, I don’t underestimate.
I just don’t have enough “up-to-date” knowledge to base CAVS’ detection rate on :wink:

I am eagerly awaiting the first comparison test from a trustworthy source that compares CIS with the likes of ZA, Norton, Mcafee, and such.

Generally speaking: I’m skeptical about wide magazines which try to cover a comprehensive PC area. The magazine I’m usually reading (online) has made 2/2 information mistakes about Comodo lately. The first one they corrected after I contacted them, but the second one has more or less been left.


Personally, I think all online reviews should be taken for a grain of salt. Sure it’s fun to read and learn but the bottom line is how does the security help your current situation. I have been using CIS since it started and have visited the dark side. CIS is doing its job perfectly. I have tried all the free AV’s out there and like a few of them but this security suite is very good. What ever security your comfortable with you should stay with. I’m staying with CIS! (B)


This is the problem with the internet, if you go to google and enter"Review of Comodo Internet Security" you will find this PC Magazine writeup in the first position. However flawed and out of date it is it will be seen by millions.

These magazines which spout their opinions to the world can do serious damage unfortunately.

The Internet makes no distinction between good and bad information. Google frequently points to things that are completely out of date.

InSince it takes 3 weeks to months to update anything with google…
Google webmaster tools does this quicker to 2 weeks to 1 months,

But sadly there isn’t much we can do besides hope that it will change soon


AFAIK maybe the reviewer intended to specifically address users that are not qualified to make security decisions and didn’t update their system.

Average users aren't necessarily qualified to make security decisions. They can easily cause problems by denying access to necessary but obscure programs. After being burned once by that mistake they'll probably switch to allowing everything.
Some Web sites host code that tries to breach security by taking advantage of vulnerabilities in a visitor's browser or operating system. If your system is vulnerable, just visiting the Web site is enough to trigger the attack

If I have to guess the reviewer likely used Internet explorer (still the most widespread web browser) and assumed the user is unable to update his/system
(Most malware target unpatched vulnerabilities after a patch is released).

I would have been interested to know the details about the specific leaktests and even tough it looks at least Core Impact penetration tool could be maybe tested signing for a FREE, LIVE phone- and Web-based demonstration of CORE IMPACT guided by a technical expert, there is no way an end user could fully reproduce his tests to confirm if that review was not meant for him.

Anyway regardless of PCMag review I would like to suggest everyone to:

  • Avoid to use Internet explorer on non Microsoft owned sites (better to not use IE at all and rely on Firefox + Noscript Firefox plugin or Opera)
  • Always update the OS and all installed applications and plugins. (Comodo Vulerability Analyzer or Secunia Personal Software Inspector would help in this task)
  • Never assume any security software to be fool-proof and take time to learn about using their product of choice properly (also running leaktests on their own account)
  • Take their time to learn about security related issue in general (even asking about and digging to find the truth behind many hacker related articles featured on online news resources is useful)

Since you are discussing to some degree web explorers, what is your (tested) opinion of IE8beta2?
This claims to be more secure than IE7.

You know what, you can’t really go by others opinion. Its all about personal preference.

Don’t ever trust PCmag, PCworld. They write good reviews about crappy software like all the time. Not really a reliable source if you ask me.

Once again, just try something and if it suits your needs than you should use it. Even if it has bad reviews.