Design philosophy for Comodo Antivirus

I thought this might be a good question to ask of the developers. What is the design philosophy driving the development of CAV? Is it being developed solely to be a component of CIS and a complement to the Firewall and D+ (reducing popups and enhancing usability)? Or is it being developed for the end result of being able to stand on it’s own as a standalone product without the rest of CIS? It seems to me (and this is only my impression), that it is being developed in the first way, to be a component of CIS and not to be able to stand on it’s own. I say this because, in my opinion, it would not fare well as a stand alone product for say, a user employing only the Windows Firewall along with it. It seems to me that, because of the protection offered by D+, that CAV is mostly superfluous in CIS and only serves the purpose of enhancing usability by reducing the D+ popups and giving instead alerts that more people are familiar with. I think it serves that purpose very well in it’s current form.

I would be interested in hearing what Comodo’s intentions for CAV really are.



+1 +1 +1

thanxx 4 opening this thread and asking 2 clearify this. i and many CIS users out there would like 2 know this. thannxx again and again +1 +1 +1. hope v ll get a response from The Melih or The Devs.


I would bet my life on it being the former as IMO it is not up to the standard of other top AV’s such as avira and avast which are also free to download but you do get CBOClean protection from using the AV with CIS so it’s all swings and roundabouts really.

how would a standalone AV provide Protection from malware it doesn’t know?

Comodo’s aim is to protect the user. Its not about designing this piece of code or that…its about designing Protection.


Melih, you didn’t answer the OP’s question.

Doesn’t the words “layered protection” ring any bells?

Guess not as somewhere a comparative might point out a self-standing AV with 103% detection rate and have everybody behold the wonders of gen signatures and heuristic applied to a representative (tester) collected sample-set…

Endymion:“Doesn’t the words “layered protection” ring any bells?”

Why indeed it does! Very nice bells in fact.

The design philosophy of CIS as a whole.

The question was,what is the design philosophy of Comodo anti-virus?

Stand alone worthy application?
Part of layered Defense as a component of CIS?


The question is not unreasonable.

Though I wouldn’t ask how much self-standing would be any person with only one leg…

…Is there any standalone AV out there worthy of having user neglect “layered protection”?

That is IMHO an as much not unreasonable question.


Indeed not. Who denies that? Yet that is not the question.
The question is “what is the design philosophy of Comodo anti-virus?”

Is it (the Comodo AV),to function as the firewall components of the ESET or Avira Suites,adequate in that context,but unable to stand alone,or is it to be as my understanding of Melihs promise,one of the best anti-virus solutions by the end of 2009?

No matter how eloquent,(or slick), your responce,you are not in a position to anwser that queston.
As I doubt you are privy to such corporate decisions.
This is a question answerable only by developers or corporate executives.

(You are of course more then that qualified to spin, and run interference.)

Yep hammersmith obviously I’m not into any corporate decisions.

But a security related question that begs the question about a reasonable approach to protection would not appear to be a matter of “positions”

Or maybe it is if only by semantical shifts.

And if I’m not mistaken, no matter how slick or eloquent a question would appear or who is asked to, it is confusing to read a question that imply a “stand alone worthy AV” category from the same person who would confirm that there is no AV worthy of neglecting a layered “protection”.

Can Eset and Avira non-suite AVs stand alone?

Though I’m not so naive to assume everybody views the same, I recall that before an AV was included in CFP3 (and have it renamed to CIS) there were many Avira and ESET AV users in these forums using them along with CFP3 Firewall and Defense+ HIPS.

“Can Eset and Avira non-suite AVs stand alone?”

They can as AV’s.

Can Comodo AV?

Is that the intent of Comodo.?

Give it up. You understand the question,I understand your tactics.
Anyone with a an open mind is able to see you are running a petty-fogging argument that
is both ineffective and uncalled for.

“Though I’m not so naive to assume everybody would think in the same, I recall that before an AV was included in CFP3 (and have it renamed to CIS) there were many Avira and ESET AV users in these forums using them along with CFP3 Firewall and Defense+ HIPS”

Thank you sir,as you just went a long way in proving my argument.
You will find the same to be true today.

The queston remains,“What is the Design Philosophy of Comodo Anti-Virus??”

If no one else will press for an answer,neither will I.


Thank you.
Even though I would like to strangle you till your eyes pop,you keep my mind from the Tyranny of Stasis.

Although,not your intent,For that I am gratefull.


Though you might as well be a “tactician” and without arguing in matters probably related to your area of expertise, I can obviously confirm that to address the premises of “the question” I would have to “understand” it.

I beg you pardon.

For quite some time it looked like that your argument was “What is the Design Philosophy of Comodo Anti-Virus?” but I have to reconsider and acknowledge that the argument was something else and less evident than that question.

Though interesting aspect it might be the above, I would ask if you don’t mind to clarify what you actually mean for an AV to be able to “stand alone”

Obviously it cannot be something as trivial as the fact those installers provide only the AVs as I would assume it ought to be related to the protection and the risks each individual user would be exposed by neglecting a “layered” approach.

Do you mean that a “Standalone Design Philosophy” would be reasonable for you?

And how many users would you assume to be among these lines?

Would you care to point out what layers you assume an adequate layered protection would be made of, please?
Because it looks like that now your reply would seemingly be an one layer AV protection…

" Just please would you care to point out what layers you assume layered protections would be made of?"

That would be as varied as the inclination of the user.
For me,it is two levels of Virtualization,Browser and System,with an Anti-Execute program,Limited User Account,and on demand scanners.

For years the paradigm was AV+Firewall.

Then AV,Firewall,Anti-Spyware,Hips.

Then a mix match of AV,Behavior Blocker,Hips,Trips,slips,and drips and flavor of the day…

The CIS model turned the status quo on its head,by teaming a first rate hips and Firewall with an accessory(?) Anti-Virus.

While in the past it was the anti-virus that was given the top billing,and firewall and HIPS were considered ancillary.

My queston is nothing other then if at some time in the future the combination of:
OnlineArmor Firewall+HIP’s,and Comodo Anti-Virus,
Will make as much sence as:
Comodo Firewall with defence+,and Avira free?*

Why do you defend when there is no attack?

*Although I would be more than satisfied with a an answer to the OP’s question.

Now that’s an explicit reply without personal attacks.

Indeed asking politely is the best way. :-TU

As such it looks like your specifically assembled security setup is indeed long way from a “Standalone Design Philosophy” thus leveraging on the AV as a “complement” to other layers.

Such overall multi component approach would be pretty much among the lines of Comodo’s CEO reply and also address the premises of the OP’s question which seemingly implied a “standalone” approach as a viable self-standing option for system protection.

AFAIK complementing different layers would not appear a goal reasonable only for a specific brand nor an approach that an user could easily disregard by over-relying on a specific layer alone.

My question is still unanswered. What I meant by standing alone was could CAV provide adequate protection when coupled with say, the Windows Firewall? I don’t think it could, but I do feel that others such as Avast!, Avira, MSE, and even AVG could. All of the others are far more feature rich and powerful on their own than CAV would be. However, because of the added protection offered by the Comodo Firewall and D+, CAV can be more streamlined and do it’s job within the structure of the entire package of CIS. It just seems to me that the design philosophy of CAV is for it to do just that. To fill a niche in CIS and reduce the amount of popups from D+, therefore enhancing the usability of the suite for the “average” user. Maybe that’s why it is no longer offered as a standalone product like it used to be, and also why you are able to opt out of using it in favor of a more powerful AV. I know there is also the option of installing it without the Firewall, but I have never heard of anyone doing that and I certainly would never recommend that they do.

Exactly. We had a visit from Melhi but no answer to Dch48’s question.

So what is the answer? Or is there something embarassing behind it?

I think the answer is this → The antivirus is nothing special, It’s just 1 piece of comodo’s 3 layered approach.

I beg you pardon. Your explicit question was indeed answered as it included also a multi component option albeit solely tailored for CIS (whereas multilayer approach is not something unheard of, like in long past AV days before early Windows versions were ever released)

Though now that you pointed out that your question was made focusing on this previously undisclosed assumption/argument…

…this obviously explain the peculiar form the initial post was arranged even though it appeared as a question.

Though I still wonder if the above quoted feeling is actually a “figure of speech” (whereas insofar you often claimed to be a longtime Norton user who recently switched to CIS),

considering the general availability of personal firewall alternatives to supersede windows firewall “protection”, even if I wouldn’t have to take literally what you said, it really comes across that you meant standalone in terms of without anything else (with the above quoted feeling seemingly pertaining others standalone AVs).

That aside, it appears that this topic is oriented more to take a chance to rehash feelings similar to the above quoted one, albeit seemingly waiting for an “answer”, than to ask a question.