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.
Very true. That doesn’t 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.
As I am one of the site’s 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 isn’t bad, but CIS provides much more protection as we know) V7chy will provide some info if there were any Firewall/Def+ alerts.
2.) I can’t 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 isn’t made to make CIS look good or something. Also, this test isn’t in style “we tested it, it is good and this test is 100% true” or something We don’t 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.
Also not surprised by the result, the architecture is not easy to break :-TU. Just think in fairness - СIS must also be tested against the most newest goodware. :o. Myself wondering what nonsense I’m talking - antiAV soft against goodware ;D, but it is a good test for robust, because you can just tell the sandbox to block everything … can be separately test the sandbox against 50/50?
I agree with you completely. For a product like CIS / Comodo Antivirus there should be two tests.
Detection / Removal of threats. (Along with this comes protection of the system)
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.
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 know… and it seems no one yet knows. Wow, we at this forum are developing new criteria for testing - making history ;D.
This is a bit sad.
I didn’t know Comodo needed a test “that shows what CIS goes for!”
We have notice of an obscure Estonian site (by the way Languy, how do you know their forums are “active”, 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 “test”.
And now that eKaitse reassured them (us) we can all sleep in peace with our PC’s turned on?
A tad of focus and good sense wouldn’t hurt gentlemen.