You might want to read this topic
Dennis
It is natural for human beings to choose to see what they want to see.
axl.
What?
User friendly?
IMO Comodo made a wise decision; they focused on all potential attack vectors when coming up with their HIPS.
Very good for professionals, not so good for Joe User.
They have tried to provide a buffer for Joe User, at the expense of the exceptional security that they started with, so now they are gathering as much information as possible from the experiences of all the Joe Users for the next version.
Regardless, I use the current version, and I am looking forward to the next version.
axl.
Is also natural to provide erroneous conjectures starting from flawed premises.
Whenever many may like to speculate about fictional “average users” it would be far more reasonable to let those average user test the product themselves and request help in these forums whereas the only thing seemingly apparent in these kind of comments is the preconceived opinion about what average user can potentially be able to do…
As it looks it looks very easy to claim anything it is not good enough regardless of any improvements or leveraging on inappropriate premises.
Clearly you have never provided tech support in any large organization; my comments were not directed to “average users”.
regards,
axl.
“Ease of use” seemingly require a trade-off with security.
It goes without saying that “Default Allow” has the most usability despite its widely recognized pitfalls…
Whenever the average Joe may have been mislead after many years of such approach to potentially neglect any drawback.
Indeed people whose perspective has been entangled to “Default Allow” might initially find difficult to correctly assess a “Default deny” approach like D+ but this difficulty can be addressed in these forums provided these people will not be discouraged by misinformed advices…
or plain FUD tactics…
Clearly considering your anonymity and your approach I won’t be surprised you wouldn’t be either 
Or else you would have actually provided your help in these forums as well, whereas you look more focused on other types of contributions the likes of sarcastic comments or seemingly negative conjectures 88)
Average User:
1.1 A relative: someone in your family (mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, spouse, partner etc.) or what is often called “general population”.
1.2 A person in a developing country: someone with no IT background and/ or no PC exposure in school.
1.3 A literacy-challenged person: someone who is new to or intimidated by a keyboard, mouse or to reading and writing in general.
1.4 A non-IT exposed person: a person who has not spent a lot of time with technology due to circumstance (an elderly person; a young child; a disabled person)
1.5 You? (Do you know all the ins and outs of every program you use?). Please note if you are reading this, “you are not the average user”.
You should wonder about that because you took the effort to link and “praise” the latest KIS whereas it looks like you didn’t notice that there is a default option to safelist all Digitally signed applications in those videos and since you claimed you tested it by now you should have confirmed that at least.
You should obviously wonder if KIS white-list was enough why they did that…
Then by this arbitrary definition provided on that site average users won’t even able to use a PC.
Indeed these Average user are by the above definition uncomfortable computer illiterates and will not be at ease being intimidated by a keyboard, mouse or to reading and writing in general…
But the above definition forgot to clarify one thing: Is an average user supposed to be able to learn something? Because if humans weren’t like that we would still live like it used to be in stone ages, really without a care about computer security at all…
The following is what a study described in 2005:
More than half of the participants either had no anti-virus protection or had not updated it within the last week, researchers found. About half did not have a properly-configured firewall, and four in ten didn't have spyware protection. Taken collectively, more than 4 in five consumers lacked at least one of the three types of basic protection.
How long what could have been reasonably considered a “starting point” should be assumed to be a permanent condition?
And why it should be so only for Computer security whereas education is considered a meaningful approach to any issue that affect the collectivity?
Is a computer less real than a car? Or people should be expected to drive without taking driver’s eds because they could be considered “Average (car) users”?
I cannot help but wonder what would happen if driving licenses would be “optional” and people would be encouraged to think that it would be a reasonable choice to neglect driving education…
Could it be that people who got their infected PC involved in DDoS attacks against the whitehouse or sold to the black market were “average users” of “install and forget” approaches as well?
Hi Axl, make up my mind! (:LGH) :THNK PLEASE!!! Post#666 just for you :-*
Now I understand the “Thread Assassin” aspect, this suite maybe isn’t meant for granny, grandpa, my little 9 yr old brother, etc… This suite is maybe conceived for people who are looking for the next step ahead contrary to all other security suites offered, which means sit down and study, agonize, then enjoy…
Regards
Xman 8)
I don’t think it ever was.
I’d really like the OP to return and provide the ijnfo that has been asked for several times. The only wauy I can get CIS to act in the manner he has described is to pretty much disable everything or configure it, deliberately, to be as open as possible and as weak as possible.
For all we know, 1 pop-up is too much for him.
Ewen 
Hi Ewen, hope I wasn’t too harsh with axl, would hate to get another PM on your behalf, somehow I feel that some people (no intent) really don’t understand Melihs’ ultimate goal it just rides right over and beyond, but if they stick it out a year or so max it’ll become crystal clear
Cheers Panic! :■■■■
Xman 8)
I could not agree with you less. All known safe providers should be in the whitelist. What is the problem with having them there if you’re never going to use them anyway? Your kind of thinking is what will prevent CIS from ever being widely adopted. And yes, it is too much of an effort to have to add vendors that are known to be safe by everyone in the known universe. And there was also nothing wrong with the wording of my quoted post. Some of the posts by the person criticizing mine verge on the incoherent and incomprehensible but I have up to this point refrained from pointing that out.
There is no detriment to security caused by having a whitelist of known trusted software providers.
Yes there is. If I don’t trust them, they shouldn’t be there. End of story.
My list should only have companies I trust on it. Not companies anyone else trusts. If you want to trust everyone, that’s fine. But the option should be there for those that want to take a more hands on approach to their systems security instead of this blanket “trust everybody with a signature” concept.
Back at you buddy… 88)
The infamous “White list” that Comodo is trying to implement is of no hinder to any one as long as your trusted additions can be added, applied and not wiped away on an upgrade thereafter is all that counts.
The ball is in Comodos’ court as far as this is concerned. Then and only when this becomes a true and solid option will many renew their faith in the final purpose…
Xman 8)
Melih has said that v4 will be much more user friendly and give far fewer alerts. I trust that this will be the case. Whether it will be enough to make the program suitable for widespread adoption remains to be seen. I’m hoping it will be and I will continue to add my opinions into the mix to make sure that a more balanced sample of views of what the program should be is presented for the developers’ consideration.
I took no offence from your post.
TBH I thought it was coming from the ■■■■ smiley, haha!
I could not agree with you more on these points.