Does CIS need to be tested by x, y or z?

The oldest debate on the Comodo forums… CIS being tested by x, y or z (x, y or z being whatever organizations you can think off).

It might exasperates old users ,keep Mehli awake at nights (typing out why’s and how’s), boggle new users but it sure creates for a hot topic. More posts have been made on this topic than any other in comodo history.

So what’s your take? what’s your vote on this ‘longest running debate’ on the comodo forums and the hottest topic after “Chris from MRG”. ;D

I voted for the 1st option. Coz i think the increase in the detection rate of CAV is due to the increase in the false positive rate i.e nowadays CAV gives high number of false positives with HEUR.Suspicious, so the increase in the detection may be coz of FP’s. If the FP’s are controlled (mainly Heur.Suspicious), I think the detection rate will go down a little. CAV also gives FP’s for popular and safe software’s.

So, I want to see CAV’s detection rate in direct comparison to FP’s.


LOL. The second option

Yes, till ATMSO compliant testing is done, I might think of using another AV.

is redundant.

Since there is pretty much no AMTSO compliant testing for any product, what would be the benefit of changing to another non-AMTSO certified AV?

slangen, I think you must be missing an option…

:slight_smile: :wink:

PS Considering the other AV related poll options, I’m a bit confused about Matousec option. Is that meant to be there?

[at] kail your’s is “No, million+ users of CIS can’t be wrong.” or “Not really, I am happy with …” is basically saying I couldn’t care less for testing. ;D

Yeah matousec is a “certification” as regarding D+'s abilities. … I don’t know of any other tests that have done d+. So I thought it made sense to the people who only used D+. I, truth be told, came upon comodo through matousec in 2008.

[at]panic: :a0 the change is to another AV only. “AMTSO Certified AV doesn’t exist”, only a test following AMTSO guidelines can exit. (Mehli - I’ve been paying attention… :smiley: ).

ps. i can see all the mods frowning upon the options, till they come upon “i do my own test”, then a flash of joy on their faces, a ray of hope, a divine intervention and lo, finally an answer they can live with.

Voted… But I think the options have redundancy and there isn’t a proper option for “I just want it to be tested”.

^^^ that’s not a proper option. I could argue that the best test is a field test, forget the labs. In that case the millions of cis users are already ‘testing’ the product.
Second problem is, the key to these whole debates is tested by x, y or z. “I just want it to be tested” - guess what its already been tested, by lots of organizations, the key is credibility if you will of organization x, y or z.

No, not mine… that must be yours. :slight_smile:

No frowning here… I don’t do AV testing. :slight_smile:

+1 :slight_smile:

Assuming that’s the choice I picked, of course.

Assume fail. :wink:

actually out of everyone here I can actually pick " I do my own test" and actually mean it. But I still want it to be tested, why becasue I want comodo to have the awards and to be able to rub it in people’s faces. But that is just my way of looking at things. >:-D

Yeah i agree, but i dont want it for rubbing it on people’s faces, haha. it would be best in my opinion if it gets tested.

Just in the last year I’ve seen CIS AV detection rate go from the low 90 percentile range and soar into the upper 90 percentile range showing more progress than any other major AV out there and I don’t see why that trend should not continue until the CIS AV is right on top with the legacy Antivirus programs that have been in the business for 20+ years that have a 99.XX% detection rate. Its only a matter of time…


We will simply not reflect on any tests - community already very serious test… Tech, with all its technical literacy, still doesn’t know as to force to work CPM… Too most about CIS - if all wishes and bugs will be corrected, what for these tests, here people not the silly will be necessary to someone… In kingdom it is time to change something to go further, now it is walking on a circle, with hit on the same rake.

PS:There should be knowledge, instead of belief on what that tests.


It is severely twisted logic to suppose testing to be the antithesis of knowledge when in all science testing is the one true foundation upon which knowledge is built.


Don’t pull out separate words from a context please.
Specially for you in other words, there are people, I among them which trust the eyes and the head, rather than any tests more. I don’t have any desire to understand authoritativeness of the testing organizations, for this purpose what to draw conclusions on quality of the test - opinion of community (simple users) more valuably for me.

Best regards, Alex.

And the value of the results that simple users like you I are able to come up with is also based on the quality of the testing and the amount of Malware samples that we have access to as individuals which may cause the results to be highly subjective in comparison to a testing organization that has access to 100,000’s or even 1,000,000’s of more pieces of Malware to use in their AV testing.


Maxx, you think I don’t know it, it is not necessary to refuse to the interlocutor knowledge a priori. :wink: For me the signature analysis is the vestige of the past reminding immemorial struggle of a shell and the armor - the armor will be always weaker. I appreciate other methods of protection, certainly it is necessary to be able to use and know weak places in concept and that is important, in realization (in bad realization don’t leave thought that something will work not as it is conceived and it will necessarily go not so - a matter of time )

Best wishes, Alex.

interlocutor… in·ter·loc·u·tor (ntr-lky-tr)

  1. Someone who takes part in a conversation, often formally or officially.
  2. The performer in a minstrel show who is placed midway between the end men and engages in banter with them.

There are several shades of meaning here could you please clarify your choice of wording?


  1. a person who takes part in a conversation

From your link :slight_smile: