Comodo V5 Tested by eKaitse.ee

[Valentinchen]

don’t you get happy to see that CIS does well in tests?

[lordraiden]

@SG65 post:20

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?

This is sponsored by Comodo or something? I dont have any doubt of the 100% of Comodo but looking at the results of the other products smells very bad.

[Citizen_K]

@lordraiden post:22

This is sponsored by Comodo or something? I dont have any doubt of the 100% of Comodo but looking at the results of the other products smells very bad.

@Lord Ami post:7

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.

[clocks]

@lordraiden post:22

This is sponsored by Comodo or something? I dont have any doubt of the 100% of Comodo but looking at the results of the other products smells very bad.

LOL I think the test looks pretty accurate with one odd exception. I can totally believe the 100% by Comodo, but how the heck did they get so much past Norton? I have seen a million reviews, youtube videos, and tested the program myself 1/2 dozen times. Other than that exception, I think the results look pretty reasonable.

[lordraiden]

Would be nice to know how many samples were detected by CAV (AV, Behaviour Blocker Cloud…) and how many were stoped by the sandbox, I can’t understand why this information is hidden

[Syl]

@lordraiden post:25

Would be nice to know how many samples were detected by CAV (AV, Behaviour Blocker Cloud…) and how many were stoped by the sandbox, I can’t understand why this information is hidden

+1

There’s some orange and red bars, he should use these colors to reflect that.

[lordraiden]

@Syl post:26

+1

There’s some orange and red bars, he should use these colors to reflect that.

The color of the bars has another meaning, read it in the report.

[JamesFrance]

@clocks post:24

LOL I think the test looks pretty accurate with one odd exception. I can totally believe the 100% by Comodo, but how the heck did they get so much past Norton?

I would have thought that was obvious. They used new malware, not things already in the Norton database, unliike the techherald test which used malware known to Norton but not in the Comodo database.

[Vladimyr]

@JamesFrance post:28

I would have thought that was obvious. They used new malware, not things already in the Norton database, unliike the techherald test which used malware known to Norton but not in the Comodo database.

You say they used new malware. Did they wrte it themselves? If not, how did they prevent other vendors from also identifying it?

[V7chy]

• CIS AV had about 60-70% detection rate similar to AVG and Avast.

• I allowed almost all CIS firewall alerts.

• Emsisoft, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Rising used HIPS/BB so they asked questions also just like Comodo. F-Secure alerts were the easiest to answer. BitDefender used some kind of HIPS/BB also but it was automatic and very effective to be honest.

• I picked NEW malware samples randomly (NOT from MDL I’m sure almost all security vendors look there)

By the way I was very surprised too that Norton did so badly… =/
Here are some screens that I made when I tested it with older samples:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2u6ihz4.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/atjmd.png
http://i56.tinypic.com/r7np1i.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/2jaeq7c.png
http://i53.tinypic.com/2gxl8w6.png

And this test has nothing to do with Comodo vs. Symantec news etc. It is not sponsored by Comodo. I like to make my own tests and see how effective security solutions are.

Regards,
Marek

[Vladimyr]

Hi V7chy

Should I take it from what you have posted that you had something to do with this test?

If so, thanks for the extra information.

EDIT: Just noticed “Marek” on the web site

[dax123]

YAY !!

CIS beats $$$ Norton!!

but $$$ Norton beats CAV !!

Comodo Forum

that’s why I, still use Vipre, and CIS without CAV. CAV is not still reliable.
and please note : VIPRE and NORTON uses AUTO-HIPS technology, while CIS uses MANUAL-HIPS.
CIS ‘auto sandbox’ is a kind of AUTO-HIPS that just denies it all, in addition.
you can activate the manual hips in these AV’s option.

@V7chy post:30

• CIS AV had about 60-70% detection rate similar to AVG and Avast.

• I allowed almost all CIS firewall alerts that were made by malware.

• Emsisoft, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Rising used HIPS/BB so they asked questions also just like Comodo. F-Secure alerts were the easiest to answer. BitDefender used some kind of HIPS/BB also but it was automatic and very effective to be honest.

• I picked NEW malware samples randomly (NOT from MDL I’m sure almost all security vendors look there)

By the way I was very surprised too that Norton did so badly… =/
Here are some screens that I made when I tested it with older samples:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2u6ihz4.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/atjmd.png
http://i56.tinypic.com/r7np1i.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/2jaeq7c.png
http://i53.tinypic.com/2gxl8w6.png

And this test has nothing to do with Comodo vs. Symantec news etc. It is not sponsored by Comodo. I like to make my own tests and see how effective security solutions are.

Regards,
Marek

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Anathaen]

Oh my gawd xD COMODO rocks! Full detection this is super-awesome! I always knew why this is the only software on Windows I trust

[vv5204]

This test is interesting because there are “0 day viruses” in which the CIS automatically trust.

For example (look at this in 720p): - YouTube

[dax123]

@vv5204 post:34

This test is interesting because there are “0 day viruses” in which the CIS automatically trust.

For example (look at this in 720p): - YouTube

LOL what is this?

[JamesFrance]

@dax123 post:32

YAY !!

CIS beats $$$ Norton!!

but $$$ Norton beats CAV !!

Comodo Forum

Presumably as tested by Donna, with the sandbox disabled.

[vv5204]

@dax123 post:35

LOL what is this?

Downloading malwares to the desktop.

[JamesFrance]

Is that the same exe.exe that Lordraiden tried out and CIS caught it?
I saw his screenshot on Wilders.

[lordraiden]

@JamesFrance post:38

Is that the same exe.exe that Lordraiden tried out and CIS caught it?
I saw his screenshot on Wilders.

No, the icon and the size are differents, exe.exe is a very common name.

[tommymacangel]

Personaly, i will take this test like an indication because:

• compare a full suite (CIS) Vs AV is not fair
• authors are not pro ones

I trust many more AV-test certification and AV-comparative (because the number of sample, the methods, the monitoring of what’s append when the malware is lunched etc etc etc). :-TU

Also, that said nothing can protect at 100% (maybe near but…) >:-D