Well i want to know how good is the detection rate now as of 8/8/06 ??? ??? ???
Well the two refernce post i got,one from wilders and second here were last last disucssed way back in may and june respectively.
And as per CEO’s declaration,comodo AV has increased it database…
So,on the basis of latest package,how well does CAV fare both AV and AS…
You’ll probably have to ask Andreas Clementi about this… He’s the one who performed the test, though Comodo guys asked if he can wait till they release new version in the end of July. It’s august already so it’s just a matter of time and if Comodo team agree to test it again.
We have improved it a lot, but we still have a long way to go.!
Detection is only one part of the game!
we are interested in Prevention!
So we are very busy making sure that prevention techniques get built in. Spending our time writing detection routines for DOS viruses are not the best use of our time. Its best to first build Prevention techniques, while we are of course continually adding the latest malware signatures into our db.
I believe you are aware that well-known sites (such as Virus Bulletin) test AV softwares based on their detection rate. While I agree that prevention is important, detection is also equally important. But yet again, if the virus cannot come in, there is no point for detection :-. Just voicing out so that you know. Users rely on those sites that test AV softwares to make their decision on which software that they are going to use.
Yeah, VB and many others all check detection rate! However these tests don’t really check how well the software protect the user!
It was a big dilemma for me as to what to do
go with better detection
go with prevention
The reason why I chose to spend our resources in prevention (mainly in prevention, of course we continue to spend substantial amount in improving detection and you are seeing the fruits of that too) is because I just couldn’t bring myself to delaying something that I know would protect the users better and sooner! With detection its like fighting a loosing war. You will always be vulnerable to the newest virus, unless you have prevention built in! (not heuristic, as virii writers learn how to evade them pretty quickly). The way the current AV market work is like a “Wild goose chase”! Don’t get me wrong, detection, as I previously stated, is an important part of an overall security strategy but it should not be your primary one! Your primary one should be as much prevention as possible! Then detection, then cure!
So that’s why I decided to go ahead with spending more on prevention. I also know that sooner or later users will see who protects them better and sooner or later you will have some people measuring these new techniques and not just the how good your “wild goose chase” is!
So for me whats more important is how I can protect our users better, faster! Even though I do understand how some users might believe the measurements of the “old methods”.
I sure hope that you are heading in the right way. I could see your line of reasoning though. In the end, I believe it is the results that counts. The end justifies the means. If your prevention method could keep users away from malwares better than the conventional method, by all means, go ahead.
As for the mean time, I will continue to guess your age.
Its still in DEV, you think its so easy to write a program or implement a feature, snap, JUST LIKE THAT??!? No, its not easy, duh, implementing, self-testing, then alpha internal testing, beta testing, or public alpha/beta if you want, alpha testing for most program are buggy, and has either no UI, or badly made one, beta is close or almost the same as end product, thank you for taking the time to read my rant, that is all.
We are talking about CAVS ver 2
We make it very clear that the current version is beta ver 1 and has a lot of room for improvements.
that is why we have been telling people that CAVS ver2 is going to be much better etc.
I hope this clarifies it RejZoR.