I doesnt matter to me if they were disqual’d for detecting more than what was there. Comodo still ranks ahead of practically all of the other big names.
Nice Job Guys you catched more then Avira and AVG and Avast and G-Data.
The guy forgot that Diffrent AV’s cound diffrently so comodo got disclasifed
But yes WE do need AMTSO tests
How can you count it differently if the files weren’t compressed ? 88)
So ? CIS scanned 1 file and showed it as 1 file ;D
Or, CIS could have had some false positives, as it has been known to do…
Other than the FP’s, not a bad showing there Comodo!
:-TU HeffeD. You type too quick mate!. You stole my thunder on the Fp thing that was probably the cause of Cavs detecting more malware than was actually on the computer.
However, if the extra malware were indeed Fps then thats worrying to me. Fps if not treat properly can be as damaging as real malware. I see lots of Fps reported every day on the Comodo forum and when tests are done by the likes of Av-Comparitives then they usually test on a lot more pieces of malware than in this test.
This leads me to observe. Cavs would most probably be marked down for a high percentage of Fps.That then says Cavs is going in the right direction ( surprising result detection wise at this early stage), but needs to deal with the Fp situation in order to perform well in tests overall, because apps with high fps get panned!.
Lastly it says what i personally have found in my own tests. A month ago on less than 3.5 million sigs Cavs produced 98% for me or 490 out of 500 samples. Perhaps due to the increase in the size of the data base since then we have seen a good result which has attracted Melihs attention and the need to get Cavs Tested. What needs changing/fixing regards the cause of a high ammount of Fps?. Anyone care to give an opinion on this ?.
56 false positives is a lot 88)
Yep. When you think that each FP is potentially a critical file, each FP removed could cause applications to break or even take down your system…
Hi Cocktail. Yes that was exactly my point, 56 fps is a lot!. If Melih submits Cavs to testing he needs to get the Fps down to an acceptable level in comparison to other apps. I beleive however, that its almost impossible to eliminate Fps altogether. If Cavs were tested against say 1 million then i would expect a higher level of fps.
One point here. When i tested Cavs, i also tested A squared. it found 520 out of 500!!. This now confirms to me that certain high detection rate apps do produce a lot of false positives that can wreck a computer in the hands of novices and the less experienced users out there.
Cavs has a better detection rate than many gave it credit for, but like A squared the price at the moment is a higher percentage of Fps, but i keep the faith that Melih and his devs will correct this as soon as possible.
Who cares about FPs compared to the … “By far and away this was the fastest AV scanner that I tested.”
Very low FP count or super fast scanning ? 88)
Hmmmm, I’ll go with low FP count ;D
most of the FP reported on the forum come from people messing with the heuristics and setting them to med or high. I have yet to encounter one FP with them set to low.
I would prefer faster scanning speed as FP’s can/will be reduced in the future. ■■■ for tat.
Same here. i also check results for FP.
It’s only natural that people want to go with heuristics set on High → better detection
FP’s might be fixed quickly and they are not a big issue for an experienced user, who knows how and where to validate the results. But for newbies - 1 FP might render their systems unbootable >:-D ;D
than people who do that should not complain about FP, it is well known as you increase their sensitivity you will get FP.
I do not agree with you on that. Fine tune the engine and the FP rate will be very low. Like ESET or Kaspersky or Norton
i think they are doing that right now that’s why I think we are seeing more heuristic FP lately. It will get better.