Comodo AV tested in test

Hello everyone,

My name is Antony and i am the webmaster of In a few days i will be starting a new antivirus test, which will include Comodo AV. Just thought i would let you know, since i too am fond of Comodo firewall and hopefully AV too.

For any questions i will be at your disposal.

Antony Petrakis a.k.a. VirusP
Webmaster of - independent antivirus tester

Not to be rude, but I don’t suppose you have any proof besides a username and a signature?

Hi Antony and welcome at the forum (:HUG)

Will you test both CAVS 1.1 and CAVS2 beta? (You promised me that you’ll test the beta2, but i am curious to see the progress from the 1.1 :P)

ps. Nice to see you in the comodo forum. :■■■■

Hi Quwen,
I can confirm that VirusP is the owner of . (:WIN)

Yes, pandlouk, both versions will be tested in the av test.
Quwen:" You can email me at the email shown in my sign, i promise i’ll answer (:WIN)

hi Virusp

Welcome to our forums.

We appreciate all the testing you are doing.

Pls let us know if we can help in any way.

and thank you for using our Firewall :slight_smile:



Your testing methods have quite the… Bad reputation sorry to say…

[quote] Don’t discuss detection rates and improvements based on such rubbish tests. I think even ESET will agree that you shouldn’t make any conclusion out of such type of “tests”. It’s absolutely pointless and a big waste of time even to read the reports of virusp av tests. Since day one of his “av tests” he didn’t learn a single bit how to do it better, it becomses even worse![quote]

That was from Inspector Clouseau… Who works for F-Prot.

This is not new to me, i have received all too many criticism from many people. Two things i still have not anderstood are these

1-How come the results of my test are very similar to those of av-comparatives (this would be impossible since my test is ■■■■ as some claim)
2-How come people still accuse me of not wanting to learn anything, although since DAY ONE i have got no real help from anyone at improving my methodology.

Anyway, it is up to one’s decision to take an article under consideration or not. I just show another perspective of the av software detection rates… One that cannot be bought off :THNK

Maybe a good solution to improve the credibility of the test is to post the logs of the av’s…

Anyway, nice work… and don’t forget to mention when you’ve made the test results public.
I’ll be waiting impatiently