How can it be? is impossible, a company taking care of their end users security and double checking the results. ;D ;D
I guess is easier for Comodo to ignore the results and say that Comodo is the best… :viva: :SML: :Jiggy: :rocks: :110: :Marry: :love: (CLY) (CWY) (CNY)
That would be a bit difficult and you no the reasons why.
Also unless the rules of AV-Comparatives have changed, could you please remove the direct download link from your first post.
Or do I need to ask them directly if direct downloads are still not allowed.
Update from ESET too…
https://forum.eset.com/topic/2191-eset-smart-security-7-firewall/
Time for Comodo guys to wake up , really disappointing.
I wish to have a professional reply from egemen.
I’d like to point out that it’s not the first time we are waiting for a professional and constructive reply (ie valkyrie ?) … :-TD
TimeMachine…DACS…the list goes on…
many products but only a few being actively developed…Don’t really agree with this method but anyway…
The problem I tested the firewall ( teamviewer ) windows firewall , comodo and private firewall .
If configure applications only exit any application that will have input connection even allowed.
The failure or neglect of the firms rely on software firewalls is digitally signed. Today it is known as a major means of data theft is through malware that exploit software and reliable since cited the Matousec tests . In the settings of HIPS module is a set of four rules :
Or make a new test or will post the links again , because in previous post disqualify a valid test yes . After all if I accessed my virtual machine through an external server network you are connected .
I could only solve this remote access blocking the output of the tracks TCP / UDP ports [ 1024-6535 ]
may make exceptions on global rules do firewall.
The question that remains is : User and which relies on the default settings as these products are ?
ok, i read all the topic and my conclusions are questions:
my recomendation:
melih, please stop the ctrl+c, ctrl+v and clarify things for the users. we need it…
before we can comment we need to see the report and its details and how things are tested, under which conditions etc.
pls provide full report with full details so that we can comment.
thanks
Shouldn’t YOU contact the testing organization?
No, because I did not ask them to test it in the first place plus we can`t go around chasing everyone who claims to have tested our software!
This is why we work with professional organisations not cowboys!
OK, thanks!
Well, I’m by no means an expert/ techie, but I consider myself reasonably savvy when it comes to the security of my PC. All I know is that having used CIS for about a year now, not one nasty has found its way in. I also periodically scan with other standalone progs and they all confirm the same thing…clean, clean, clean.
Having grown tired of the ever-increasing bloat of my previous AV/ FW combo, I remember checking out numerous reviews of Comodo around the web, and the message from every single one was the same: this is a very strong product, with the caveat that it is not for novices. CIS requires fiddling under the hood to suit individual needs, and I trust my online safety (and that of my daughter) to what is, in my opinion, a wonderful solution. Nothing, as far as I can tell, gets in or out without my knowing about it.
As someone else mentioned, the fact that CIS is free is all the more remarkable. It’s a vote of confidence and thanks from me, Melih.
Please note that AV-C did not include Comodo in the test. Chip added a comment about Comodo in their article but did not tell how they tested to come to their conclusion:
:-TU :-TU :-TU
exactly. what is funny is people are blindly asking us to comment on a report that doesn`t seem to exist 
;D
did you not ask money for that ?
oh a bit question-prohibited area
Is it the same kind of report when Comodo was tested by AVC but result was not officially published?
no…
this seems to be the total opposite…no test but result is published but the result doesn`t exist