Not guarantied !
Upload files tested in the cloud may fail.
But the solution is good ( protection layers ).
Is anything “guarantied”, Henrique? Any product that relies on signatures might not have a signature for the piece of malware that’s about to run on your computer. It takes only one. If you’re that troubled by the numbers, use something else.
hey hey
I’m just trying to improve the software, OK ?
The detections are very low to in Malwaretips.
I am sorry but the title of the topic does not inspire me with confidence that was you intention :-\
Dennis
The topic title is to get the attention of Melih to the question the detection that is falling recently.
I’m just trying to improve the software, OK ?
An inclusive, the detections are very low in Malwaretips today.
You made your point. You even had a reply from Melih.
I know that comodo has a strong proactive defense , but in return their virus signatures since February 2014 are in a lamentable state . Those who follow the site malwaretips clearly noticed a drop in detection rate and the results are so bad that sometimes even MSE has achieved better results . CRDF Threat Center in detection rates of comodo vary dramatically (something 25-50 % ) , which is pretty bad , ESET and Bitdefender have better results and its variation in the detection rate is much lower than the comodo .
Regional detection in the case for Brazil , AVG and Avast is bad is doing much better !
I also believe that the detection of PUPs is not very good , the company could create a more rigid policy against them .
I also noticed a significant decrease in the number of definitions released by comodo , were previously around 10000-50000 and these days the postings were on average between 150 .
Another problem is proper classification of malicious files , many are classified as UnclassifiedMalware , so consider bad, the proper classification of malicious files is of substantial importance in my opinion .
Another problem I see is the size of your database which in my opinion needs to be reduced and be more efficient .
I believe that a solution to the problem could be updates via streaming ( " continuous " ) adopted by avast , for example.
What do you think about this and like comodo could improve their signatures ?
I also believe that the more comodo improve their signatures least users will have to decide on unknown files, which can approximate the CIS of the most common users, and reduce the chances of errors by users to meet certain unknown file.
I believe the questions comes from Henrique pointing toward the need for improvements in signatures and not discuss other points of the suite that is siceramente evade the issue.
if you are a little confused sorry, but I’m not very good with languages and used the google translator to express my opinion.
Thanks fernadoab for your contribuition.
The points that Henrique - RJ is referring to are already known and has already been discussed. Comodo is aware of them and lot’s of effort is being put in place.
Henrique - RJ’s topic title is not a very friendly one as it is suggesting there is no dedication on Comodo’s end. Add to that the caustic topic start start:
and the needless day to day lecture with statistics from one specific source and we have a sour, if not slightly toxic, tone is set by topic starter.
We are not evading the topic of detection rate etc but trying to stay on speaking terms while putting things in context where we also could decide to lock this topic. Detection is in the end only but so important.
I understand the situation you found yourselves. I was happy with your answer above, stating that Comodo is already striving to solve the problems presented.
Thank you! ;D
There are infrastrucutre issues at Comodo and they are trying to fix them…that’s why you see low database additions.
But anyway, it’s been a long time that these issues are there…
Thanks for the info!