On March 8th, AV-comparatives will test CAVS and other antiviruses that haven’t achieved high detection rates before.
How do you all think CAVS will do? CAVS is improving all the time of course, but exactly by how much in terms of detection?
Depends on which version they test… If they test 1.1, it may not do very well. If they test the current Beta, I believe I read it’s about 60 - 70%, not including the HIPS. Naturally, that’s improving every day, as users send files in for analysis.
LM
Perhaps someone at Comodo should ask them to test CAVS 2. If they say they will not test a beta then obviousely they should not be testing 1.1 either?
It would be a shame if they test 1.1, get poor results and then publish them. It may put many people off CAVS who are not aware of the latest beta.
:SMLR
I believe IBK is the one who’ll (or has) take(en) over the AV Comparatives tests:
https://forums.comodo.com/index.php/topic,6794.msg50137.html#msg50137
(PS: I got my searching groove back)
IBK is the project leader at AV-Comparatives and he is testing CAVS2.
From my point of view (this is just my personal opinion), the testing being done (assuming it will use the testing methods employed in the past) will not produce a true picture of CAVS effectiveness. This is not due to any defect in their test methods or any deficiency in their technical knowledge. Testing the detection rate of CAVS without regarding the prevention layer as an integral part of the overall protection application is sort of missing the point of CAVS as an whole.
In an AV app without a HIPS layer, detection rates are criticial. With a HIPS, the critical element is the human interaction with the HIPS dialogues. Without a massive whitelist, the application is entirely relying on the knowledge of the user pressing the buttons to tell it what is good and what is bad.
It will be interesting, nevertheless, to see how it shapes up.
Ewen 
That’s great news, I never tried out your antivirus, but maybe one day I will. I believe how they do it is different, the last test I believe I looked at they were testing with three month old definitions. They wanted to see how the heuristics did. I believe Antivir did best in that test. I believe they also have on demand only tests.
I hope you do good.
Should be interesting to see how CAVS does.
Link below to AV-Comparatives test for February 2007. Microsoft came last.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/report13.pdf
:SMLR
We retested CAVS yesterday with:
200,000 Viruses
100,000 Trojans
50,000 Macros
400,000 Spywares
700,000 Adwares
20,000 Worms
70,000 Backdoors
10,000 Keyloggers
In total, CAVS came out at a 77% Detection Rate. They did best at Viruses, worst at Spywares.
When we tested the HIPS with 700,000 known exploits, only three worked, and two were detected by the heuristics, and the third was detected by the AV engine.
Over 400,000 exploits were used to test the firewall, and only one worked, but Comodo already knows about it and it will be fixed in the next version.
Until CAVS comes out as a final version and gets at least in the 95%+ range, I simply cannot recommend it. Try NOD32.
It looks promising, I see it’s improving a lot almost every update, solving some bugs and getting more efficient.
77% of Detection Rate isn’t that bad I guess, for a beta AV. I just hope when Comodo releases the final version, it will have its Detection Rate near the other AVs.
Keep the good work guys :■■■■
thanks for this feedback Quwen, we do appreciate it.
We are busy working on the scanner and we will get to over 95% detection soon
Also… re: catching spyware…hmm… maybe i have an idea!!! …
Melih
hmmm…
Hmm…this gets me excited for new improvements in CAVS…btw…do you have any plans of incorporating a full time antispyware in CAVS (including registry scanning, etc.)???
CAVS stands for Comodo Anti-VirusSpyware, so it should scan for spyware as fully as it does for viruses. It just doesn’t do a very good job at it. ^^;
If you exlude the spyware ratings from the detection rate, it gets 87%, which is considerably better. I’d keep CAVS but hold on to Spyware Terminator for now.