Just don’t challenge him to a test of usability, especially on machines with games. I just installed CIS on my gaming machine, and it has interfered in some shape or form on every game I have tried so far.
I can make a very usable security product if you want…
You just say the word…
it won’t protect…but you know what…it will be very usable… 
Security product’s duty is to protect!
So instead of creating marketing FUD, Comodo decided to offer “PROTECTION” first. Now that we have achieved that, usability is something we are working on and with CIS v5 we have created a top notch “protection” with a very usable product. But this is only the start… other AV products have to start with “protection” …something we already have solved 
Melih
I tried to run GuildWars with CIS v5 default settings without Game Mode. Guild Wars auto-update itself and do a bunch of operations before starting the game. It didn’t work very well with sandbox, D+ and all…
I deleted the previous rules CIS added, I enabled Game Mode, restarted GuildWars, and everything worked perfectly fine.
What good is being protected if you can’t use your PC? lol Sure, I know the hoops to jump through to get my games to work, but a lot of people don’t. There has to be a balance.
lol…
considering the millions of people who installed CIS, i guess its safe to say that its working for them and with CIS v5, this number has jumped drastically!!!
Melih
I must say NIS is the better product. Of course CIS is free.
I don’t know how to calculate a “better product”, but I am more than happy to test the “protection” capability of CIS vs NIS anyday
Here are 2 questions:
1)Does NIS detect 100% of all malware?
2)If the above answer is a NO, then how does NIS stop the malware it doesn’t detect from infecting the system?
Melih
Behavioral analysis, cloud scanning, cloud rating system etc… it’s not exactly a secret.
all are glorified "detection’ methods…
so the question still stands…
do you think NIS can detect (using everything they have) 100% of the malware?
Melih
I meant better at providing less vague warning to the user it says malware as it is and unknown new as unknown new.
Just that with CIS, the pop up is often not as obvious.
I just watched the first part I wonder why the tester didn’t try to run it in sandbox instead of blocking them. He just blocked unsigned files. In RL daily situation a lot of time we are compelled to run it sandboxed instead of blocking an unsigned file altogether(which is most common kind of files anyway)
As for the two points,
Yes NIS obviously doesn’t protect against all threats but now they’ve got cloud based security system. At the evry least they are able to tell whether a file is new and unproven. Now when a file is unknown to CIS it just says it’s unknown . . . .without telling the use whether it’s unknown because the file is new or otherwise. And though in theory CIS would analyze and send back the unknown file in 15 minutes, it takes far far longer time than the claim in practice. I’ve accumulated 5 unknown files since I began using CIS 5 and all of them are still unknown to this day.
Sooner or later the user will decide to run it anyway and here’s where the understanding of what sandbox able to protect and not would become important.
I didn’t mean to demean CIS to NIS just that I loved CIS so much and wanted to see it keep improving. It’s still the best of all the free products out there make no mistake but my confidence is somewhat shaken by the AV and sandbox primarily because I don’t know exactly how the sandbox work to protect me. The explanation offered so far has been a bit more confusing like the difference between manual and automatic sandboxing without explaining the consequences of such differences and why and with no mention of it in the help file. Yes I do understand the concept behind default deny that’s designed into CIS just that I don’t understand how sandbox technically is protecting me and this is what tickle me. I just think knowing what sandbox able to protect and as well unable can help user to better protect their PC with it.
Actually the one question in my mind is as far as the user is concerned can a sandboxed application or malware or virus harm the user PC in any way? Is there even such possibility that it could very well harm the PC and if there are then I would like to know in what instances and why. But that’s probably a corporate secret
As far as anyone can tell it isn’t possible for malware running in the sandbox to harm the pc. The worst it can do is drop files and possibly create folders. I believe this is why in some tests you will see the other scanners find malware in the programs folder.
However, it can’t actually harm the computer. As far as I can tell the worst it can do is use system resources and slow the computer.
If I’m wrong then can someone please correct me?
You are right.
I don’t know of any way of jumping out of our sandbox. Its pretty good really.
Melih
And this is why I am losing hope in CIS. Comodo appears to be content with usability as is. After all, millions of people can’t be wrong.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. CIS is a very nice program, and I really admire you for offering it for free, but the program does not work satisfactory for myself or anyone else in my family. I am willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of protection for a AV program that will allow me to run everything on my computer without error.
sorry to hear that.
I guess in this case, we won’t be seeing you here anymore since you or your family doesn’t use CIS.
Goodbye to you Clocks and wish you all the best with the choice of your product.
Melih
I guess you can’t ask for more for free from Comodo. Symantec, such a multi-billion security powerhouse with so many human resources and silver bullets that can analyze all new and unknown files promptly sent from customers and the cloud. I believe it is not the inability of Comodo staff to analyze the new and unknown files, but not enough employees to handle massive amounts of new malware released everyday. As a result, I can see many malware not classified yet (UnclassifiedMalware: 10717) with many of them might be false positives. Contrasting to the huge size of antivirus corporations like Kaspersky and Syamntec, I think Comodo, with limited resources, just couldn’t have enough time to analyze all new and unknown files and correct all those false positives. Might we see Comodo acquiring or merging with major AV competitor or hire more virus experts to handle the AV department to improve detection rate and fewer false positives? Or Creating automated tools to handle all the files analysis and new definitions production?
Detection is not the first line of defense.
Please watch this video to explain why our technology is superior.
Just like our armies do not use the weapons from 1940’s, the innovation in desktop security doesn’t stop. We simply innovated a way to keep you clean! And in that architecture detection method becomes less important. Either way, our Detection is very high and do have automated tools like CIMA.
thanks
Melih
Thanks, Melih, for the explanations. I switch to CIS because of its innovative technology, not relying on traditional database approach. I still would love to see AV part to improve with higher efficiency to analyze and classify all the new, unknown, and unclassified malwares (really growing too large to handle) and lower the high false positive rates. I am worried about too many new and unknown files submitted to the cloud with not enough time to handle at all.
Now a lot of malware is able to drop malware files in the system that remains after restart it. Ok, is not an active infection but the malware is still there because the sandbox is not able to clean everything. I hope you can fix this soon.
:-TU Fact, point proven.
I was just pointing out that in video 1 ~1min 12sec you say Comodo only has 1 process using about 6MB which is cfp.exe, this is just the GUI.
The main process for CIS which handles AV/D+ etc is cmdagent.exe and normally is ~15-20MB
Not fuss meant just wanted to clarify
p.s. Good job on the vids, nice stuff :-TU