CIS v4.1.......CIS Premium!

[Mnb10]

@bequick post:80

Or black:

Yes. Indeed, that looks really good. :-TU

[bequick]

The black color symbolizes the funeral of the malware.

[Endymion]

@patrice58 post:77

Words can’t do much so your right I can’t do much to make the project come along faster but as I have said before my main beef is that everybody (or most people) remembered to forget about the BB (That was after all due in this version). I have not.

As for the delay there is a great way of fixing that…Be on time.

I see you are arguing based on a version number… Whereas V4.0 was released 3 months ago it looks like you meant that the ETA was 3 months.

Thanks for the beef but don’t forget to put off the fire or the smoke will get in you eyes. 88)

[patrice58]

@Endymion post:83

I see you are arguing based on a version number… Whereas V4.0 was released 3 months ago it looks like you meant that the ETA was 3 months.

Thanks for the beef but don’t forget to put off the fire or the smoke will get in you eyes. 88)

What are you talking about? Honestly? So you are saying that I was thinking that they only had 3 months to make a BB? I am not arguing based on a version number. I was arguing based on a promise that is not now coming to pass and the fact that because of the new “news” about the pure firewall EVERYBODY had forgotten about the BB. As I was the first person to say wait hold on what about the BB everybody else was oh wow that great news a bloat free firewall wow wow. I take it this has now answered your question.

As for the beef comment…Words fail me!

[Endymion]

@patrice58 post:54

Anyway a firewall that is just a firewall wow how amazing well it made people forget about the real issue of another project that has slipped so yeah it has done it’s job. People wake up or stay asleep you choice.

Why you suddenly felt the urge to assume there was need to “remember” anything just when 4.1 was going to be released three months after the first V4?
Did you feel such need with the current version (4.0.141842.828)? ???

[b]Version 4.0.141842.828: 12 April, 2010[/b] ... [b]Version 4.0.138377.779 : 24 March, 2010[/b] ... [b]Version 4.0 : 03 March, 2010[/b]

@patrice58 post:84

As I was the first person to say wait hold on what about the BB

Nor that I asked you to not remain true to your own past words (nor I asked you to quote and link them)

@patrice58 post:77

Words can’t do much so your right I can’t do much to make the project come along faster but as I have said before my main beef is that everybody (or most people) remembered to forget about the BB (That was after all due in this version). I have not.

@patrice58 post:84

As for the beef comment…Words fail me!

Beef and everybody forgetting?

Didn’t really see you at loss of words.

@patrice58 post:84

I I am not arguing based on a version number.I was arguing based on a promise that is not now coming to pass

Actually as long you don’t assume fortunetelling powers it appear your vocally provided disappointed is either based on an Estimated time of arrival or a version number.

@patrice58 post:77

As for the delay there is a great way of fixing that…Be on time.

It isn’t really a matter of know roads and foreseeable traffic condition the one you promoted to “promise not coming to pass”

@patrice58 post:18

Yeah madness, everbody seems to forget at the slightest thing been offered. What was offered really? Oh a plain firewall or AV or both with nothing added and and a rename. Is that enough to make people turn stupid? Well almost everybody.Glad to know you have a brain evil and your not scared to use it.

But sure the BB isn’t here yet and by far I guess you stressed such point many times enough to possibly address your eventual concern about everybody forgetting. (whatever way they “turn”…)

[Kyle142]

Patrice, It frustrates me (as it probably does you!) that when ever criticism is made to\about Comodo it’s never accepted, or used constructively.

@Melih, I think you need to go talk to your marketing team or maybe even listen to them (who knows?) A big rule is to; Never Promise and under deliver.

[bequick]

@Kyle post:86

Patrice, It frustrates me (as it probably does you!) that when ever criticism is made to\about Comodo it’s never accepted, or used constructively.

[at]Melih, I think you need to go talk to your marketing team or maybe even listen to them (who knows?) A big rule is to; Never Promise and under deliver.

+1
Absolutely! :-TU

[Endymion]

Obviously there have been many controversies about toolbars and LivePC integration and even the addition of the word “Free”

Not sure how an ETA now become a (pinky) promise.
Nor if related criticism legitimate derogatory comments addressed to “almost everybody”

Thought reasonable to think that eastimates can be “wrong”. Perhaps “estimates” are not allowed for Comodo.

But if criticism makes things better criticism’s criticism ought to be “constructively” appreciated as well, Isn’t it?

[Melih]

@Kyle post:86

Patrice, It frustrates me (as it probably does you!) that when ever criticism is made to\about Comodo it’s never accepted, or used constructively.

[at]Melih, I think you need to go talk to your marketing team or maybe even listen to them (who knows?) A big rule is to; Never Promise and under deliver.

Another big rule is: to know what you are talking about Kyle…

So show me where I promised?

Melih

[knk2006]

what’s so good about BB anyway ?? we don’t wanna ( our ) product to be like Norton anti virus , which literally deletes unknown executalbes just because they are unknown :o < is that a security enhancement! ;D I’de preffer the current situation where i can run anything and i’m sure that what I ran will never have any impact on my system , so BB will just bring more annoying and unnecessary alerts and for sure a lot more of FPs’

don’t you think so Melih ?

[Citizen_K]

@Kyle post:86

Patrice, It frustrates me (as it probably does you!) that when ever criticism is made to\about Comodo it’s never accepted, or used constructively.

[at]Melih, I think you need to go talk to your marketing team or maybe even listen to them (who knows?) A big rule is to; Never Promise and under deliver.

Roadmaps are not carved in stone. They change in the process.

[DiSP]

@knk2006 post:90

what’s so good about BB anyway ?? we don’t wanna ( our ) product to be like Norton anti virus , which literally deletes unknown executalbes just because they are unknown :o < is that a security enhancement! ;D I’de preffer the current situation where i can run anything and i’m sure that what I ran will never have any impact on my system , so BB will just bring more annoying and unnecessary alerts and for sure a lot more of FPs’

don’t you think so Melih ?

Probably nobody will agree with you, The BB will let the CIS give you even less alerts.

[Gtafanboy]

yes… we need the BB. The moment CIS has a BB in it it will be the best suite out there. You have anti virus, behavior blocker, and if an unkown gets past those it is sandboxed… totally secure!

[Melih]

@DiSP post:92

Probably nobody will agree with you, The BB will let the CIS give you even less alerts.

Prevention Technologies: D+, Auto-Sandboxing.

Detection Technologies: AV, BB, Cloud scanner and so on…

Now, prevention technology, will prevent any malicious file anyway…so where does detection technologies come into play?

Well, they are used to lower the amount of alerts that user sees. So the detection technologies are used to stop showing an alert for a known malware and so on… Afterall why show an alert for a file that you know is malware…

BB is a detection technology…but will come handy when the user has willingly and intentionally taken a malware out of the sandbox (of course the user might not realise its a malware).

Let me explain further…
There are 3 kind of files

Bad
Good
Unknown

With CIS,
if we know its Bad…we stop it (AV catches it)…
If we know its good…we allow it…
If its unknown we sandbox it…

so BB will be yet another layer of protection against unknown files that are executed within outside sandbox. In theory, user shouldn’t… but some users will… so we will be there to protect them further…

The FP etc for BB in general will apply if you use BB or Conventional AV techniques… eg: they check all running apps whether they are good files or not etc etc… which then causes FPs on good files… this doesn’t mean to say we will never have an FP… I think because, in theory (I say in theory because implementation of BB is not finalised in the labs yet), BB will apply to unknown files in CIS environment, which means the chances of FP will be reduced drastically.

thanks

Melih

[knk2006]

@DiSP post:92

Probably nobody will agree with you, The BB will let the CIS give you even less alerts.

it will just increase FP detections ;D ! it will not (add) any enhancement regarding the security , but as you said it’s just reducing the number of pop ups , but combining that with the current sandbox will also be overkill since the sandbox significantly reduces the pop up messages. I’m not against the idea of having that BB ,but I’ll push the idea of the ability of disinfecting ( since there is a button for it with the current version ) < don’t you think that should have a higher priority consideration than what’s so called BB ? ;D

[Melih]

@knk2006 post:95

it will just increase FP detections ;D ! it will not (add) any enhancement regarding the security , but as you said it’s just reducing the number of pop ups , but combining that with the current sandbox will also be overkill since the sandbox significantly reduces the pop up messages. I’m not against the idea of having that BB ,but I’ll push the idea of the ability of disinfecting ( since there is a button for it with the current version ) < don’t you think that should have a higher priority consideration than what’s so called BB ? ;D

Indeed…

A PC can be in 2 state

1)Infected
2)Clean

Our focus until recently was to keep a clean PC clean… and do it so that even a novice user has the ability to keep a clean pc clean and do it for free! That I believe we have achieved!!!

Now, we are focussing on “infected” computer and how it can be cleaned. But that doesn’t preclude improvements on the notion of “keeping a clean pc clean”. we improve both…because we can…

Melih

[knk2006]

thanks , so I think a legitimate question will pop for the mean time ,

when will the button ( disinfect ) work ? , or let me reword the Q … ! when do we ‘expect’ it to work ?

[clockwork]

a pc can be in 3(!) states.
infected
clean
and dirty.
Dirty means, that something is on the drive. and when you switch the defense for a while to training (what sometimes is needed to avoid freezes), then you have maybe an infected pc after that.

Antivirus must detect as good as it can, to save the pc from getting dirty. All this talking about prevention is only good, as long as defense+ is never in trainingsmode, and as long as NOTHING will stay on the drive when an application was sandboxed.
Without an antivirus people will never know, if they downloaded something dirty. You know, what we see from a program is usually just the name of an exe.
Without antivirus, a defense+ has only an effect for well and totally known sure-not-infected programs. And thats not realistic.
Defense+ can only help you, when it wasnt YOU who started a program… and when defense+ is permanent NEVER in training.

Defense is a VERY usefull addition to an antivirus. Not the opposite. Because, when someone choosed to start a program, defense+ can just ask if it is allowed to run. but the decision to run it was made already by double click. The antivirus tells you, if this program should not be started at all !

[Citizen_K]

Defense + also has its own heuristics that can warn the user about something potentially malicious.

[Kyle142]

@Melih post:89

Another big rule is: to know what you are talking about Kyle…

So show me where I promised?

Melih

Melih, I do know what I’m talking about. I’m doing a course in management and a VERY experienced lady (40+ YEARS), owns her own buisiness, been regional manager etc etc is teaching us.

Saying ’ will be…’ is classed as a promise, thats how people take it. And it’s not good to not deliver on those promises, That’s why you shouldn’t make them in the first place.

Your not arguing with me, Your arguing with 'the ‘book’ there is a small section dedicated to ‘do not over promises and under deliver’ which is part of the certificate.

The reason for this is obvious, look at all the upset people there are now :-
EDIT::
Had to edit this post as another post was deleted after this >.>