Comodo really needs better marketing for the testing organizations to test it. the AV plus CIMA Blocking is really good. saw a huge improvement with version 5. Sandbox seems to be much more stable but it doesn’t work like real sandbox.
Glad you see what I mean Melih. But you have to understand that you and Symantec are talking about different things. They have many criteria (one of which is for example removal) - this is why they can justify saying paid products do better than free ones. You shouldn’t run around claiming they mislead or scaremonger without understanding their definitions first - that is “misleading”.
Big LOL
If you have to clean a computer, you have to use a bootable CD or MBAM not Symantec.
Check this out:
Symantec Support Gone Rogue by Neil J. RubenkingI’ve praised Symantec’s support, especially the integrated chat-based support introduced with Norton Internet Security 2009. Their support agents did a great job handling some problems that came up during my evaluation of that suite. Lately, though, a number of readers have reported problems with chat support. One asked for help because he was concerned that the threats Norton found were merely quarantined, not removed. The chat agent could have explained how to delete items from quarantine, or even demonstrated how using remote control. Instead, this agent insisted that the only recourse for full removal was an extra-cost session with a consultant. Another reader got worried when a chat agent performing remote-control cleanup used an unfamiliar non-Symantec program.
To my surprise, he downloaded and ran the free Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware utility. This is, of course, not a Norton program by any stretch of the imagination. It did find a few traces of various threats left behind when the CD-based scan wiped out the executable parts. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have no grudge against tech support using free tools from other sources for cleanup. It’s a fairly common practice. I just resent it when they pass those tools off as their own.
Full article [at] PCMagazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2342634,00.asp
Regards
As explained before: Cleaning/malware removal is NOT “protection”…hence Symantec’s claim is misleading.
You need removal to enable protection on those computers that are already infected (unless you are going to get everyone to reformat). So removal is part of protection (if you can’t clean, you can’t protect). That is why their claim isn’t misleading.
That was with a specific piece of malware Norton couldn’t remove, not as a general trend. Every product has something that it can’t remove - the point is that it is much less with Norton than with say Comodo or others.
I don’t need cleaning when I buy a brand new PC :)…considering everyone buys a new PC at an interval (lets say 3-4 years) if everyone used CIS in 3-4 years malware problem would be much much less and the consumer would have saved $40B!!!
And you know what…for infected PCs there is a solution…reformat…to keep a clean PC Clean…there is only Comodo…
LET’s get COMODO installed by default!
usually PC OEM vendors install $$$ symantec and pay them.
and people tend to use ‘as is’.
so it’s a Win-Win game! ;D
The way I see this whole Comodo testing thing… is not that they don’t want to test it, is because CIS must be put in a whole new category which conventional security products aren’t !
CIS is based on prevention, default deny technology, etc. For them to fully test CIS, they would have to come up with a whole new set of testing methodology !
For a comparison, if you will, is like trying to introduce an electric car to a car market that is all centered arround fosil fuels burning car engines, or something along those lines !
CIS is a new breed and like all that is new, people will always be sceptic at first but that is going to change, it’s only a matter of time !
+1 But it would never happen but maybe Melih can get a big deal with dell or acer to install comodo on new desktops.
I believe Symantec pays HP etc big $$ to have Norton preinstalled!
As begemot said, Symantec is doing this for “cleaning” so they must know that these machines will get infected 
Melih
Some are unable to just format, i did a friends computer recently, he didnt have a restore to factory conditions partition, he didnt have the install disc for the operating system (and couldnt get them). How is he going to format? Theres no way he was going to fork out for a new copy of windows.
I cleaned the infection, hopefully completely, and told him to change all his passwords to someting new, this will hopefully prevent a similar episode.
Oh and i also installed CIS after 
all scans came up clean and nothing untoward looked to be active!
What you do is not what the rest of the market does. You will never convince a majority of customers to format their PCs before installing Comodo. Without cleaning, you can’t protect those who don’t reformat. Without it, you can’t compete with market leaders.
CTM would help, if it can wipe even rootkits.
I use it. But it is not the final solution as (some) rootkits pass through it.
Removal is important, but so is complete restoration to a known safe state. The antivirus could include an intrusion detection system that works alongside CTM so that it can restore any damaged or altered system files automatically if it detects a modification. For novice users, this could work in place of a HIPS in that even if an infection did occur, CTM would detect the change and restore the file. Sort of the way system restore works, but more on the level of a IDS.
I’m a handicapped person. Reformatting for me is a task that I can’t do alone. I require help looking among boxes for my disks and introducing new CD’s in my DVD drive to reinstall everything, which means, I need not only my own time / knowledge, but the time from others. It’s a “daunting” task that would not allow me to go and easily say “Ah, my comp got infected. I’ll just reformat”. And like Matty_R said, not everyone can reformat for less drastic reasons than my own, but because of the lack of back-up disks, etc.
Prevention should be the core of CIS, I agree, but cleaning, should not be interpreted as a failure from the user (like saying they deserved it for using Norton, for example :P) who didn’t have CIS installed previously.
P.S.: BTW, I got a letter from John Hawes, saying that Virus Bulleting would test Comodo on their next comparative test in December… Or that was his hope.
I can’t see why this would be the case at all.
With their current testing methodology they start out with a clean baseline,then proceed to attempt to infect it with numerous malware.How does that not fit in with “keeping a clean system clean”?
CTM is not a backup system but a system restore one. Will restore all the disk.
Problem: infection of MBR that could be resistant to the restoration process (some rootkits are “restored” into the clean system.
Is that all they do in their testing !? Start clean and then try to infect the machine ?!
But that’s only half the test imo ! If they don’t test the product on a previously infected machine then that test is not one that I would consider valid imo !
Like someone stated above, there can be an X number of situation where the machine cannot be formated for a clean start !
If CIS doesn’t do very well in cleaning, then imo, is not a complete security product !
Personaly, I formated my pc when I first installed CIS v3.x (hopefully I never will),but not every user is ME ! There are different people/machines with different problems ! Formating a machine and installing all the software again can be a real drag as I know from my own past experiences !
So I think the cleaning capabilities of CIS must be improved for those that cannot format for some reason !
This will only attract an even larger number of users on CIS’s side thus helping more in CREATING TRUST ONLINE !