eKaitse if a website that does AV testing out of Estonia. They also have a very active forum. What was interesting is that they put up a dynamic test, testing some of the top vendors out there. Comodo was also included in this test. If you want to go to their web site the address is www.ekaitse.ee here is a link to the english version of the test results.
http://www.ekaitse.ee/EKAITSE_TORJETEST_2010_ENG.pdf
and discuss 
Im not surprised by the results because I know how effective CIS is. but I have two observations:
1 How can you compare a full suite (they say they tested COMODO Internet Security 5.0) with free AVās and only the AV part of Norton or Kaspersky?
2 How reliable are they?
+1
Im curious about that myself .
Very true. That doesnāt make sense, although Comodo Antivirus is CIS without the firewall. Still, they should have tested Comodo Antivirus.
What I would really like to see is a test in which it also let the user know how many of these samples required user interaction, not including AV alert, and how many were taken care of automatically. This would give a good idea of usability as well.
It does show that an av alone is not very effective against the latest malware.
They clearly understand about the temp files.
As I am one of the siteās maintainer, I would like to answer your questions
1.) We tested CIS because it is the same as CAV (CAV still has SB). We did so to make people install more CIS than CAV (which isnāt bad, but CIS provides much more protection as we know) V7chy will provide some info if there were any Firewall/Def+ alerts.
2.) I canāt say we are not reliable, but we are not professionals either. We just do some test time to time to see whether products have gone better or vise versa.
We translated this into English for Melih at first Then he told us why not publish it. So we did.
To sum up, this test isnāt made to make CIS look good or something. Also, this test isnāt in style āwe tested it, it is good and this test is 100% trueā or something 
We donāt try to be some sort of AV testing company.
eKaitse.ee in general is security site that contains lots of tutorials (written in Estonian). Mainly anti-virus/computer security related articles. By doing this, we want to help Internet to become safer place for our fellow countryman/women.
Maybe you(languy99) do a test, with Comodo AV and Defense+?(without firewall and sandbox).
We appreciate that guysā¦
this is users testing the product! It doesnāt get more real than that
good work!
Melih
I still think AVs should be compared against AVs. But since you are not professionals (as you said) youāre free to choose your options.
Thanks for the explanation.
The main reason for choosing CIS is that itās free.
Also, if AV asked something, then as a āadvanced userā if we can call us that way, we did answer to block that action (whatever it asked about in itās alert). So we were in āAV sideā
Also not surprised by the result, the architecture is not easy to break :-TU. Just think in fairness - Š”IS must also be tested against the most newest goodware. :o. Myself wondering what nonsense Iām talking - antiAV soft against goodware ;D, but it is a good test for robust, because you can just tell the sandbox to block everything ā¦ can be separately test the sandbox against 50/50?
Alex
I agree with you completely. For a product like CIS / Comodo Antivirus there should be two tests.
For the second test it is necessary to see how easy the product is to use in day to day operation. It is also important to find out how easy it is to use when dealing with actual malware. For example whether the alerts are too confusing and an ordinary user may allow malware into their system accidently.
Thatās my way of looking at it.
We talked about it and hopefully next test will contain some info about usability of product that is tested.
Btw I use CIS 5 on my sisterās computer and I will ask for feedback after some time. Whether CIS has bothered she or not.
Good test
;D
Interaction with user is not problem i think (it does not concern the security aspect) - she solved to constant updating of the white list. The main goal as somehow to test a core when it is not one of the interaction filters did not worked (not updated yet). Finaly - new goodware should at least start in a sandbox and at the same time bad not to cause harm.
PS: My brain boiled when think what is the most important criterion for this class of software ;D. Maybe should be something like written above, I do not knowā¦ and it seems no one yet knows. Wow, we at this forum are developing new criteria for testing - making history ;D.
Alex
bit off topic but thats a nice overclock on the i5 :-TU.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Shaun
EDIT: Its great to see someone not counting temps files as an infection. :-TU
finally we have test that shows what CIS goes for!
This is a bit sad.
I didnāt know Comodo needed a test āthat shows what CIS goes for!ā
We have notice of an obscure Estonian site (by the way Languy, how do you know their forums are āactiveā, do you speak the language?) and suddenly users start to jump in happiness as if they had won the lottery.
Does that mean they were not sure of the product before this ātestā.
And now that eKaitse reassured them (us) we can all sleep in peace with our PCās turned on?
A tad of focus and good sense wouldnāt hurt gentlemen.