As I said, in regard to the amount of interaction required, yes I will use NIS as an example and yes, CIS does require too much effort to be accepted by the masses.
As for the other things, I said the 80% was excellent compared to other offerings not that it was the best that should be expected. I said that it was only the latest test by matousec that gave NIS the not recommended label when in previous tests it ranked higher and was recommended so therefore the tests obviously must have changed and also that the 2010 version would do better. And I did not say that the Comodo leaktests were specifically designed to promote Comodo, only that I wouldn’t be surprised if they were and that Comodo scoring the best should be no surprise. Lastly, tests are one thing, results actually perceived by users are quite another.
As for the alerts related aspect there was a screen-shot in these forums, depicting a safe application triggering alerts…
There are though few things worth of mention (I may be wrong as I only got a look at the settings from the video and I don’t have KIS)
In KIS Application control, it looks like that there is a setting to whitelist digitally signed application seemingly without a trusted vendor list.
Application control apparently automatically use an online withelist database and in case of unknown applications it can either preset a fixed policy (out of 3 variants) or use heuristic to assign a policy (maybe out of 3 variants as well).
KIS Proactive defense settings though is represented like a behavior blocker and not like a hips. ???
I guess you may wish to edit the following quoted post then (and maybe some others) to reflect the best of your current viewpoint whenever you may be willing to overstate both the thing you like in NIS and the ones you dislike in CIS.
I’ve only tested KIS for a couple of days for comparison sake.
You see, CIS is still my favorite application. That’s why it hurts me to watch it bloat.
There’s a pool of users out there huge as an ocean; but in order to reach them we have to please them.
The ingredients are here already: an efficiency without pair and free of charges.
It only has to be smoother.
That screenshot indicates the crux of what does or does not constitute a “safe” file.
I’d definitely like a warning if my firmware is about to be flashed. The file may be safe, but the operation itself isn’t one to be taken lightly and I think the user should definitely be made aware of what is about to happen.
I don’t need to edit anything. Suspect is a long way from “specifically designed”. There are many tests performed by Matousec that Comodo does not pass but they are not included in the leak test. And I’m sorry but past matousec reports definitely did have Norton in the recommended and good protection bracket. Maybe 80% was not always the cutoff. It’s irrelevant anyway since I never said that Norton provided the same level of protection as Comodo, I simply said it was much easier to use and provided an acceptable protection level for most people. I will stand by that.
Erm… didn’t anybody watch video review? He had to kill the browser twice using the task manager. If that’s what is around the corner… I’m not going. Mind you, he was using MSIE.
So If I understood your comment and the phrasing approach in the following quote:
Then the phrase “everyone could suspect you designed your statements to promote NIS”
would be long way from “everyone could suspect you specifically designed your statements to promote NIS”, isn’t it?
Whenever it looks like you are inclined to count as “many” less than the fingers of your right hand, did you notice by any chance CLT tests that NIS fails and were not included in matousec testsuite?
Who knows maybe matousec really made an exception for NIS, isn’t it?
Well it is not the case anyway:
If the tested product fails only a few tests in our challenge, it still might be a great product. This is why we can [b]recommend, from the security point of view,[/b] the products that reached [b]at least 80%[/b] score in the challenge.
I don’t get where anyone could construe my posts as promoting NIS. All I ever tried to say was that it works seamlessly with no interraction and that is the goal CIS should be shooting for. I did try to defend NIS against incorrect criticisms because it is a fine product but I never tried to promote it or convince anyone that it was better than CIS except in the one respect pertinent to this thread. I did not bring it’s performance in any other respect into the thread, that was done by others. Matousec’s ratings as well as anyone else’s are OT.
I don’t understand why some people feel the need to be so confrontational to everyone who expresses something contrary to their opinions.
Personal viewpoints are superseded when objective test results are provided whereas the tests themselves should be addressed with more than conjectures and suspects and generally incorrect statements to evade the information provided…
If it is about “incorrect” statements NIS is not an example whereas even its most recent version of behavior blocker let it slip 20% of malware whereas previous NIS 2009 failed to reach the minimum to be recommended by matousec and not everybody could be willing to neglect that because it let slip safe applications as well…
Whenever it could be that in some case people coincidentally overstate their criticism about CIS Default deny and then coincidentally introduce 3rd party products in this topic overstating their advantages maybe even neglecting obvious faults even retroactively…
Dch48 is right.
What I and many others have been trying to do in this and other topics is to help improve an already good product, namely CIS.
But we are often met by a barrage, a broadside of intolerance, refusal to apprehend and sometimes aggressiveness.
Something is rotten in the kingdom of Comodo.
If that’s what is around the corner… I’m not going. 
Mind you, he was using MSIE.