Let me ask you something: is there any known incompatibility between Comodo Firewall and Kaspersky’s Antivirus Systems?
Last week I put Acttive Vrus Shield and Comodo Firewall to work together and since then, I’ve been facing lots of problems: some sites aren’t loaded correctly - it takes a long time to the pictures appear, in most cases, over 10min!!! -, some Java sites aren’t even loaded and so on…
I tried to install Comodo Firewall first, but it did not work. After that, I tried to install Active Virus Shield first and it did not work, too.
Is there any solution? Or it can’t be solved at this time?
Yes, there is. Kaspersky will NOT work with CFP. However, from what I’ve read, it’s on Kaspersky’s end, not Comodo’s. You can try switching to either CAVS Beta 2, or NOD32, the one with the next highest detection rate until Kaspersky cleans up their code.
Some users have had issues like this, some have not. It does seem to be on the AV end; in some cases it even refuses to communicate with the firewall, and in some cases it tells the user that the FW must be uninstalled. Not good.
There are other alternatives, both Free and Paid, as Quwen mentioned.
Well, it’s really a pity that Kaspersky Labs acts like this with Comodo Firewall.
But I still think that Comodo Firewall is more powerful than Kaspersky Internet Security.
Do you think that Comodo Antivirus will be as good as Avira, for example? I bet it will!!!
The reason is, they’ve come long way in the last year. A long way. Now, with the acquisition of BOClean, as I understand it, all the malware definitions that BOC has accumulated over the years (which is well over 10 years, I believe) will be added to CAVS. In addition, once BOC has had the next version released (for free), Kevin will be working with the AV guys as well to help them make some big improvements to CAVS as well, based on all his experience.
Comodo’s focus is still on prevention, though, rather than cure. Thus the HIPS currently in CAVS. CAVS has a good scan engine, and some good definitions, but as a file scanner it lacks “experience” - it doesn’t have the definitions database that some others have. But it has still caught malware that others missed, so there you go (there’s no 100% anyway…). With BOC’s definitions, that will definitely level the playing field. Plus, BOC has a different way of looking at malware, so it’s harder to get past it, which will help as well.
They’re definitely moving in the right direction. For a traditional AV scanner, CAVS will be a strong contender before too long…