Why many people opt for Firewall & HIPS only & run a different AV like Avast & Avira? I have read this in many forums.
Well, to be fair. quite a bit of them always switch brands on a regular basis(even though they have one that feels comfortable to them). like when avast came out with there new version 5 people got that. when avg came out with avg 2011 people when to that Basicly what ever the newest AV product comes out people just like to try it
I use comodo AV as my primary and use Avira as a backup.
CAV not a comparable AV to the likes of Avast, Avira, AVG...........?
Avast and Avira are pretty much on top. Comodo is only behind then by like a precent or two. <--other important things THAT NEED TO BE considered(witch some people ignore or don't think about) too is like is it easy to use, can it play nicely with other security software, can you get help when you have a problem, and among other things
As for AVG it isn't that good at al IMO, the only thing people seems to like about AVG is the linkscanner (your better off with MYWOT) I'm sure people don't know that they could just download the linkscanner itself and ignore the other ■■■■.
This shows you say CAV is not upto the mark.
Based on your post, I take it it's not up to your mark? Like anything else, there is no AV or any software for that matter that is flawless or close to that. also there is nothing that would make 100% of the people happy either
Has Melih's statement affected Comodo Antivirus???
Let's see, From 2008 to 2010. From those 2 years, it made leaps and bounds. That's pretty damm fast and impressive if you ask me.
i simply dont like some aspects of comodo antivirus.
the update disc-usage (one writing for each number of version increase while last update, imagine after a month…), the update cycle of every 30 minutes (or you must trick with a scheduled scan), the interrupts while these updates, a “plopp-sound” while update, no archives scanning in guard, too few settings, alarms disappear after minutes, false positives are a lot, false positives have to be set on an exclusion list, no sound when a virus is found, slow scan, annoying animation while scan, false scan reports (says scanned, but didnt scanned, for example vpk data of steam add ons)… i am sure i missed some, but this is allready enough for me to allways return to another antivirus after testing the comodo one.
the problem with CAVs is his heurisctic,
i hope it will be remove in the future to be replace it with a new technology…(aka dacs)
this is the only heur who consider a file as a virus only for his name
i use cav without heur and its very well.
i recoment to everyone to disable it too
Performance (system resource usage) impact is one of the reasons for some users making the choice to combine Comodo’s offering with another AV.
I don’t know if I’m allowed to link it here but if you look at Raymond.cc Lightest Antivirus Test: http://www.raymond.cc/antivirus/, then you’d see what I mean.
Another possible reason is of the individual’s personal taste/choice. Some users might have been using a particular brand of AV for some time (or years) and are comfortable with how it works on their machines. The way they see it is that they don’t need Comodo’s AV to ‘replace’ their main AV but are keen on using Comodo’s Defense+ for example as their HIPS in their security setup. Or perhaps the Firewall component only.
Whether or not Comodo’s AV is ‘strong’ enough depends on how much importance you give towards statistics like detection rates, etc. Some users look upon tests conducted by AV Comparatives for example as a guideline/reference into making their choice and apparently, so far Comodo hasn’t been tested (to my knowledge). Hence, it may not be a comfortable notion for them to use Comodo’s AV when they haven’t seen convincing figures to assure them of the ‘strength’ (or ‘weakness’ if you deem it so) of Comodo’s AV. There have been tests conducted by so-and-so, various individuals, other groups/organizations but again, there’s the issue of credibility - let’s just assume for discussion sake that one might not favor those tests in comparison. Before anyone mentions it, not everyone does their own malware-hunting tests so let’s be fair…
And of course, some users don’t even need an AV to protect their machine but that’s a different subject altogether.
However, I must say that doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same way. It’s ultimately up to the end-user to decide what he/she installs on the machine…and in that sense, Comodo is doing us a ‘favor’ by allowing the users to custom-install which components the user wants/need. Look at things on the brighter side if you can. If you’re fine with using Comodo’s AV, then use it. The ‘strength’ of an AV isn’t the sole factor…I’ve just touched upon a few of those but I’m sure we’ve got others having their own reasons. It’s not wise to jump down to conclusions based only on a few observations. There’s 2 sides to a coin
P.S. I’ve been lurking around here but this is my 1st post. Ignore my user-name if it offends some of you guys here. Take it in a light-hearted manner
I have the full CIS installed and I think CAV is great. the problem is that with it activated opening any program is much slower, about 40% slower I would say. so now I’m using only FW and D+ with the AV deactivated: I use it only as on-demand scanner.
why do you need updates so often?
as first of all comodo is saying that antivirus is never perfect, …it is not needed to get “not perfect” updates several times an hour (even not many a day).
when comodo defense+ works like it should, what are you scared of? what tells you that you dont get infected in minute “12”?
i get one update a day, intentionally. and i choose the latest. comodo defense+ protects me against zero day exploits. no?
when you use an antivirus that doesnt spam you with false positives while using high heuristic, you dont need update madness.
and when you get one update per day, it is much more seldom to catch a bad update that messes your pc… while you dont miss a single chance to catch a bad one several times an hour
I would prefer to use CIS complete simply for ease of use but with every version since version 3.5 when I install CIS within two days I get a bug report and cmdagent switches itself off. Through a process of elimination I discovered that the problem is in the AV and so have tried Avira v10, Avast v5, MSE and the latest version of AVG but ditched them all due to either small compatibility, update or other issues. Watching a test video by Languy99 over on YouTube where he did some malware tests using Comodo CIS and various other AV’s. The end result was that the only AV that had a higher rating than Comodo AV was the Panda Cloud v1.3.0. I installed it about 6 weeks ago and it is the most Comodo compatible AV I have used to date. It is very unobtrusive as all its signatures are held offline so no updates. The full Scan on my 7yr old AMD Athlon WinXP Home PC takes a littler an hour while the Optimised scan which I use on a weekly basis takes around 30 minutes to complete. I am very happy with how Comodo Firewall - Defence+ - Sandbox - Panda Cloud AV works so seamlessly together and highly reccommend it to anyone who would like an option to the Comodo AV for whatever reason.
Honesty is the best policy and in my opinion Melih is showing honesty. CAV is probably not a safe option without other components to help, but no other AV is a safe alternative without other components added also. Comodo is just willing to let you know in modern times standard AVs without other components is not enough. Kind regards.
I used the whole CIS suit for about a year since version 4 and I found CAV caused most of the problems in the suite, such as FPs, slowing down the launch of applications, signature update problems… It caused malfunction of my PC, need manual maintanence for the CAV signature database or reporting FPs nearly every few months.
I finally switched to Avast and I do not have those annoying problems anymore for nearly a year.
Worth noting that just like most AVs, Panda Cloud installs on your PC, a resident scanner, a transparently-updated definitions database (limited in this case) including behavior blocking rules, and a safe files whitelist.
All this occupies about 80MB RAM and involves significant CPU I/O.
Don’t get me wrong, it is good that you have such positive cohabitation with CIS but it has very little to do with Panda Cloud using cloud-hosted definitions.
You are correct, but on my PC since Avira 10 was released automatic updates just would not work and I ended up having to go to the Avira forums every day to download the latest definitions file and install it manually which quickly got tiring. They have also changed the rules at the forums so that not even members like myself can post a new thread in order to detail a user problem (cannot remember full details). Reading up on the various threads over there there was a general feeling that Avira v9 free version had been such a succesfull product that it had impacted on the sales of the pro version and that Avira had made the updating process of the free version 10 “difficult” in order to boost sales of the v10 pro version which apparently has no update problems ymmv.
Avira had made the updating process of the free version 10 "difficult" in order to boost sales of the v10 pro version which apparently has no update problems ymmv.
If your refering to updating the AV database for the free avira version, it has been upgraded on there end so it's faster to update. And I believe there is no longer a pop-up ad either(At least not for me, but then again, I also disabled realtime guard because I only use it as a backup secondary. So I can't tell if that makes a difference or not)
Thanks for the info it is good to know that they have done something about it at last. I have been using Panda Cloud for approx 6-8 weeks now and prior to that used Avira v10 which had the updating problems I mentioned in a previous post at that time. If I ever get problems with Panda and Comodo I will possibly try it again but at the moment Comodo and Panda play very well together and I shall continue to use them.