“Despite my high expectations BOClean performed poorly on testing. Naturally I couldn’t run any of my normal scanning tests as BOClean is only a memory monitor and has no file scanner but on the other tests it performed terribly; arguably the worst performance of any product I have tested. You can read my lab notes here  but it suffices to say that BOClean missed too much and protected too little. Perhaps the worst aspect of its performance is its total lack of self protection. It can even be terminated by Windows Task Manger. If that’s not bad enough BOClean is on the hit list of many of the security software termination programs that form an integral part of modern malware. Its lack of protection and slow response make it a sitting duck. More accurately, a dead duck. I hate to disillusion BOClean’s many ardent fans but BOClean, like SpyBot Search and Destroy was a once great product whose time has now passed. I simply can’t recommend it for general use against modern malware.”
I’m looking for people’s comments on this, I have been researching about Comodo products and how good they are so as to determine if they are worth keeping on my computer. I was convinced by a post here on the Comodo forums that they are worth keeping due to the fact that they focus on prevention rather than curing after the fact. However, this quote that I posted is counter evidence for that and it’s not like it’s from some unknown person, Gizmo Richards is known for his quality assessments of programs. Please give some feedback.
i don’t think that gizmo’s testing was appropriate for CBOC… the only test that would have been appropriate for CBOC would be to run malware and see if CBOC catches it… that is what CBOC is designed to do…
if CBOC did fail to catch some malware, then i would like to see if any other antimalware program succeeded in catching the same malware, for comparison…
for years, gizmo’s tests gave BOC a 100% rating… then, suddenly, he says BOC is no good…
i don’t want to say that all of gizmo’s testing is pure trash, but i would say that his latest testing of CBOC is pure trash (since the tests were not appropriate for testing CBOC)… i will give the guy credit for not being as stupid as he appears, and so the conclusion is that he just wants to bash CBOC, for whatever reason…
Kevin and Mr Richards appear to have some history. From what I can gather Kevin is a trustworthy chap and I am inclined to believe that the ‘alleged’ test results are nonsense. This subject has been discussed several times on the forums and tends to just cause arguments. Believe who you choose but it is interesting that earlier results on Gizmos tests were great for BOClean and then all of a sudden the report was bad. Odd eh?
Read the posts and make your own mind up about Gizmo but I can assure you that BOClean is a superb antimalware solution.
I don’t know what you mean by that. If you mean the posts in reply to my post starting this thread, then yes, I have read them and thought about what they say. If you mean previous posts in this forum in other threads, no I haven’t. I haven’t been in this forum for too long and so I haven’t read anything about Gizmo. It seems as though people here really don’t like him.
As others have suggested, please read the other posts on this topic. Bear in mind that there is, apparently, history between the authors of BOClean and the author of TechSupportAlert.
My own personal opinion is that testing BOClean in the way that he did could only have ever produced the result that it did. While I’m certain his test methods were valid if applied to software that was intended to perform the functions being tested, BOClean was simply never intended to do the things he was testing against so, as a matter of course, it was going to fail his tests.
This is like using the test methods you would apply to a spreadsheet application to Windows Calculator on the basis that they both handle numbers.
As I said, his testing methods are undoubtedly sound when applied to appropriate software, but you’re only ever going to get skewed results when the test methods are innappropriate to the object being tested.
He does, however, have a point about BOCleans termination protection. IMHO, this should have been there to start with.
Personally I’ve used Process Guard (by DCS) since version 1 for termination prevention of BOC and other critical security apps such as AV, FW, ect… (with great success I should add).
Although it seems further development of PG is dead in the water and DCS hasn’t said anything to either confirm or deny the fact, I don’t see it going anywhere… and now I’m thinking maybe COMODO should step up and see if they can get in on it, as they did with BOC.
That being said… it’s not like PG really needs to be updated (for XP users)… it still does a fine job of termination prevention (running the full / paid version 3.4).
As for Vista users…well I don’t know for sure (I won’t even be thinking of touching Vista for atleast 1 more year), but I’m confident in saying that PG probably won’t run on Vista and I have a feeling that’s why the project is dead in the water.
Our search function may not be up to par quite yet, I’ve heard it referred to as “The Random Term Generator”. ;D
First check the FAQs and Help sections.
If you see anything that needs included in the CBO FAQ, please let me know.