Glad to notice that Comodo is now more eager to participate in those comparative tests.
People test COMODO every single day on YouTube… So it’s a pretty good alternative until this AV-C test comes… I am not worried, I know CIS protects me and I sleep safe and sound.
Oh yeah, thanks for reply, Melih! :-TU
I believe, for sure CIS will challenge VB100 and AV-C.
these are a gateway to be approved as one of the big tuts ;D
[attachment deleted by admin]
I understand where Melih is coming from because I would like to have this question answered - are these testing companies testing just the av component or are they testing the whole suite and the way that the suite runs.
If they test only the av in CIS it may fail but if they test CIS the way it is supposed to work then it will pass with flying colours. CIS is designed to work as a suite eg av d+ fw sb not just the av or just the d+ but all together. Besides I read an article just recently here in Australia where it said that the pure av is almost dead. What did Melih say right at the beginning, basically the same. These days there is a far greater need for suites like CIS and Melih being such a forward thinker has brought to the table a suite that performs excellently and is getting better with each release. Perhaps Av Comparitives, VB and other testing companies should think the same as Melih and start changing these testing procedures to suit suites like CIS and others that are no longer just av’s.
Like I said I understand Melih not wanting to put CIS in the hands of these testers until a new protocol of testing is developed. If you really think about the av testers are falling behind in the testing protocols cause most of the av companies are following the lead of CIS and redesigning their suites and making them not just an av but offering better protection using different modules that work together.
just my 2 cents worth,
shadha :comodo110:
If you are saying that some layman tests on youtube can compare to avc’s large sample methodological test using statistical tools, you are somewhat misinformed. Youtube “tests” (if you can call them that) mean absolutely nothing. They just let you see the GUI in action. In fact, they are often very misleading. It’s not an alternative, it’s not even close to an alternative.
Disappointing not to see Comodo in these reports, after so many claims earlier in the year (especially given how vendors outside the main list are being tested). Let’s hope Comodo appears in the dynamic tests that should be published soon.
Read the report, the dyanmic test measure the protection not the detection and this is what Melih wants.
Take a look to the methodology and you will see that the dynamic test are made to be a reproduction of a real case.
From AVComparatives says that they are testing other producst and the report will be published at the end.
They can not tell us if Comodo is being tested but Comodo can tell us if Comodo is being tested.
So the question is, Is Comodo being tested?
Any test is better than NO test at all! People “layman” test it every day and if they find something, they report it to the devs so the product gets better! Sure, 10-20 links is nothing like 250 million billion gazillion links…
But, when you browse the web, are you gonna get yourself infected with 1-5 viruses or the number tested in test labs?!
Let’s say, for example, Avira has detection rate of 100% in test lab. Good! Now, you stumble upon brand new fresh malware. Avira does not know it and lets it in your system. It gets infected. NOW WHAT? How good is their detection rate of 100% in test lab? To me, then, that means NOTHING. 
I would not undermine the value of youtube tests at all, because for example when you test redirect page or something, which is very good scenario, it would show how a product would perform in a “realistic” scenario. Direct url links to exe’s would simulate e-mail scenario, direct execution of malware into system…
The only difference I see is that av-c test is automated, program crawling for links while youtubers are manually downloading from MDL list. And in size… Also, av-c can be a guidance, and not law, because some product may improve after the test…
I am not that much crazed about the test, sure it would be nice to see, but it’s not the end of the world, a lot others may/will test and we could see a general picture, but not certanity…
Please dont even try to compare what AVComparatives does with the youtube tests.
I don’t understand why AV-C and VB 100 are staying to test so poor products like Kingsoft or Norman? Maybe is question of money… How many cost an independant test? Maybe a lot of dollars.
Exactly. Some people need to brush up on their statistics, and try to understand methodology. It’s a shame how many people now days think youtube tests are a significant indication of performance…
I’m very interested to hear the answer to this as well.
Norton can boast about their cleanup abilities all they want but I bet Comodo is a thousand times better at PREVENTION than Norton and that’s what matters more.
When I read about how great an antivirus is at removing malware I have to ask myself “Why was the system allowed to get infected in the first place?”
I’m still interested in CAV test only.
Why should I use CAV if I can use another AV with CFW or CIS with AV disabled ?
We’ll see if they test CIS and what they test…
Not to someone who is already infected. A security suite should be able to do excel in a range of categories - prevention, detection, removal, useablilty, performance.
Removal. Blah. Removal after infection means nothing.
Once a system is infected, it can’t be trusted.
You need to understand demand and supply, not just your own views on security. The layman is not going to run off to reformat his computer every time he is infected. People do and will keep installing security products on infected machines - that is reality. This is why removal is an important category. Removal after infection means a whole lot.
Also they say that if any of those other products being tested allow to publish the report they could do publish it right now, in a separated report.
I did not say they were significant. I said they were not worthless.
Fine, I will kindly ask you to clarify that for me via PM.
You can remove the virus, but how do reverse the damage that it has already caused? This is what I do not understand about removal. It’s a false sense of security, that is the reality. What would Comodo have to gain by having good removal abilities but still leaving a compromised system?
Sorry I dont have time to teach you read the report of December 2009 (dynamic test), learn how important is a methodology (a lot of people test Comodo with a bad methodology in youtube, using virtual box, not restarting the pc… as an examples) and the statistical impact of the sample size in an AV test. You can use google for the last two.
I’m not talking just about Comodo I’m talking about testing any security product.