Please vote objectively.


Please only bump your topic every 24 hours

i dont know about eset and eam but according to me kesparsky and bitdefendr both are better. Because they maintain the quilty of their product timely they are very serious about their av. For comodo it is free but lots of bugs and not timely maintain. One word is carelessness.

EAM has bitdefender engine.

really if so then does bitdefender provide the latest av engine or the old engine.

I do not know, you have to check what is.

Vote continue!


On pure detection Emsisoft. Period. Comodo can do what both cannot. I could run CIS with just the HIPS and sandbox and never get infected. Take the signatures from the other two products and see what your left with.

Edit : Here plus Avast as a bonus. :slight_smile:

In detection I say Eset !!

I know that Comodo has the best blocking 0-day threats. I mean the same detection. :wink:

Everything is within context…

Detection…is that to provide protection?

Detecting 99% and still allowing infection vs Detecting 98% and preventing infection.

Isn’t Automatic sandbox one big generic detection engine? Detecting all unknowns automatically and sandboxing and hence preventing infection?
Isn’t unknown the potential enemy? Isn’t having a generic detection of this potential enemy and rendering it harmless, the best detection?

You have to change the way you view things to solve certain problems! Detecting reactively is not the solution…Detecting proactively and rendering harmless all the potential malware is the ultimate detection!

Every so often, there are innovation in an industry that creates a new category…eg: Mobile phones…and now we have “Smart Phones”… What Comodo has done is to change the game, redefined what is the potential enemy and protected its users against that!

Melih, I know that detection is not the most important. The engine with the best detection does not detect all the malicious files. In contrast, COMODO always protect against threats (including 0-day protection through layers COMODO). Despite the need to improve the detection Obviously I always recommend CFW and the CIS, and I am on the side of COMODO. :love: .

Absolutely agreed, but what I’m really curious about is the protection role of AV component in CIS. Obviously its main purpose is usabiity (e.g. give one clear AV alert instead of dozens less clear D+ alerts). But is there any, even theoretical, possibility that CFW which is tuned for maximum protection (enabled D+, blocked autosandbox and so on) will not block some threat while CIS will block it??? For example, detect macro-virus, trusted-digitally-signed malware, or detect malicious code in memory, before it gets on hard drive (BOClean was able to do it, wasn’t it?)

Speaking of which, it seems like CMS has AV as it’s main protection, no? I mean, privacy advicer doesn’t even work for me on my nexus 5. When will we be seeing sandboxing and proper HIPS for smart phones? :wink:

Good idea :smiley: