Most tests just perform scans of known malware which only shows an AV’s detection rate. Comodo has repeatedly stated that detection rate is not important (which is why CAV hasn’t been tested by AV-Comparatives). Testing a security suite’s protection rate is very much more time-consuming because it can only be achieved by simulated or actual real-world computer usage. This is why almost all protection tests only show results for a small number of samples. Comodo claims that protection provided by CIS is better than the competition. Unfortunately this is almost impossible to prove!
Whenever you test Comodo AV & compare it to others, just remember it to test against the realtime protection only i.e onaccess protection. Coz many AV’s has url protection & the url blocker is way easy to implement than the signature update i.e I have seen many times in my testing the malware blocked by url blocked is not blocked by the realtime protection.
Any AV’s main protection is Realtime Protection which blocks malware hitting the systems from any channels.
And Comodo doesn’t have the url blocker.
What I meant is if you want to see how effective Comodo AV i.e signature detection is in comparison to other AV’s then test…
Signature v/s signature - True signature test
& not signature v/s signature + url blocker.
You will be amazed with CAV detection.
Thanxx
Naren
One should watch Youtube test carefully. Coz many malware links directs/downloads the same malware. So in the test you will see an AV product missing 4 malware but actually it is missing only 1 malware.
In MDL site, you will find quite a few example of these malware. For ex - malware with names like about.exe, readme.exe, contacts.exe, info.exe are quite a few times the same malware but with different names.
For ex - Yesterday I downloaded & saved 28 zeroday malware. I did a right click scan with Comodo & it detected only 8 malware. When I checked the remaining malware in the folder, I found out that 19 malware were the same malware with the same size/attributes but with different names. So instead of 20 malware Comodo actually missed only 2 malware.
I checked 7 malware out of the same 19 malware with VT & the result were same 4 Vendors detecting them.
Thanxx
Naren
Yes, that’s why for my tests I always first remove any duplicates. That way I know that I’m going to get a meaningful percentage.
Usually those are tests on detection of ‘dead’ viruses - they take a collection of infected files with inactive viruses and test an av on detection - the AV-Comparatives is on that, for example. That’s rather ridiculous as real detection is when an av detects ‘live’ virus when it is trying to get into your comp. That’s quite often that the av which detected a dead virus can’t detect it when the virus is active. Pay attention here I’m speaking only on detection, not protection.
downloaded around 100 pieces of 0-days malwares on a famous malware website, most of them were blocked by the AV, the rest by the cloud/sandbox/D+
i dont rely on other people tests to have a point of view of any AV, i do the test myself.
:-TU
@testzabezpieczenpc tested 2239 malwarefiles only on-Demand with default settings
→ 72,3 % in comparison EAM > 90 %
Why du you judge by tests that you see on the net? They are mostly Comodo haters because Comodo is great AV product and it is free.
If your PC gets infected then come here, dont judge when you see some tests!
I looked at AV-Comparatives website and they have a “Whole Product Dynamic Real World Test”. Comodo should submit their product for testing to them instead to VirusBulletin (which is testing as you stated against old samples and only on-demand). AV-Comparatives has also such a test, but at least they test against current malware and with cloud when doing detection tests (while I read that VirusBulletin does it offline).
Yes, this AV-Comparatives’ Whole Product Dynamic Tests fits to Comodo’s notion of av protection test. It would be nice if we had results for CIS.
Here’s the test result I was speaking of several days ago: https://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-antivirus-58-detection-rate-and-heuristic-test-by-faravirusicom-labs-t78314.0.html