;D why i’m even writing when I just have to wait until I say (I told you so ) " again " to a lot of people like you who are impressed with the new features that will will not even compare to the technology that’s being used in comodo , moreover, what was said is " simple " if simple is really hard for you to consider then you probably will fail in " security 101 " :-* !! ;D and because of such minds still exist people will always get infected !! >:(
and for you , what’s wrong with " praising" a good person rather than praising greedy companies ,which want nothing but your money mister. ;D ?
Now, with Avast 6.0 (which is coming sooner than you may think), it's a different story. Avast 6.0 will feature the in-the-cloud heuristics based on the age/prevalence data (as suggested above by sded) as well as new stuff related to the use of our sandbox. But, instead of using the "default deny" paradigm that Comodo is trying to advertise so much, avast will work differently. It will rely on its heuristics engine to make decisions whether an executable file should run sandboxed or not. Let me explain this in a bit more detail. Currently, the outcome of the scan is pretty much binary - either the file is called "clean" (and is allowed to run), or it is flagged as "infected" (and appropriate actions are applied - and the file isn't allowed to run). This also applies to heuristics detections. Now in avast 6.0, the outcome could also be "potentially infected, use extreme caution" and this case, when talking about an on-exec scan, will (by default) be handled by sending the file into the sandbox. If the program is legitimate, it has a good chance of running OK inside the sandbox (and of course you, as a user, can always override the decision and run it normally). And if it's really malware, avast has just saved your ■■■■.
There are many other minor things that make up these changes (such as further emphasis on the Behavior Shield when making these heuristics decisions, i.e. taking into account full context info) but this is, at a glance, how it’s going to work. What may be of special interest, also, is that this is how it’s going to work even in the free version (which means that the core functionality of the sandbox will likely be moved to the free AV).
Thanks
Vlk
So I guess, if Comodo doesnt improve detection right away, competitors are going to catch and surpass Comodo.
Avast is already planning on autosandbox, but I bet they will have no popups.
Hope DACS is as Melih describes it, otherwise Comodo will just be runned down.
No. So far no infections but all security sofware involves some risk and they and I know they are taking a calculated one. The best protection is an offsite stored cloned image and I do that for everybody.
These guys have had their fingers burnt using 2nd-rate retail products that either slowed their PCs too much or let malware through too easily. They have reacted against the “paid for is best” philosophy more for reasons of flexibility and perversity, rather than the absolute need to save money.
Some have tried COMODO in the past, one has tried CIS 5 but we kept finding things that didn’t work properly with CIS defaults and they just got sick of first disabling and then testing exclusions in order to do their job.
Something to think about:
People on this forum and elsewhere promote CIS as a great free alternative for commercial users but that’s not the usual way such decisions are made.
E.g. Say I’m the IT Manager for a company. We’ve got Symantec Endpoint, McAfee Total, or similar deployed. Some malware gets through. My supervisor comes to me and says, “What gives?”. I say “Well we are using Symantec/McAfee but it let something through.” The product may have failed but at least my backside is covered.
Now, say we’ve instead got PC Tools Free AV (deliberately leaving CIS out of this). Same thing happens.This time the boss says, “PC Who? Why are we using this freeware ■■■■?” Product performance may be no better or worse in either case but this time, I’m in trouble for choosing a product with no industry cred.
Well, I am known here as a rebel … I do not except the recent development implementation
… at the same time … seriously
Symantec??? that failure … woW ! ; McAfee ??? (that is a pure joke)
“The product may have failed but at least my backside is covered.”
Ohh! … nice !
either be honest & get a better job environment
or
just do not expose your backside the latter helps … sometimes … hmm 88) … not always though. Life is tough!
Please look back
I did not quote any “story” except of asking what was hypothetical & suggesting to be careful with your “backside” including that fact that your “supervisor(s)” probably (most likely) don’t have a clue about security
I am running several Mac latest OS(es)… please enlighten me what is a relevance ???
Nahhh! …Perhaps not … I don’t need that , cause it would be Offtopic
Comodo Endpoint Security Manager comes with a Guarantee against infection. Also this is underwritten by a large insurance company.
So as an IT manager, choosing Comodo over others will come with guarantee backed by insurance that other’s don’t offer.
So why did I choose Comodo over Norton or Mcafee? Because Comodo guarantees we will have no infection and if they fail, they are underwritten by a large Insurance company. So we are safer with Comodo!
It is all hypothetical. There is no actual backside to be careful with, no security-clueless supervisor.
As you say, a simple answer, but the simplest answer to this hypothetical dilemma could be to “simply” maintain the status quo. Overcoming such management inertia might require more than free insurance but it is a targeted argument worth considering.
