on this topic i will explain some of impotent Things about comodo database …
we all know comodo depends on Firewall - Hips more than antivirus and viruses database …
so , these are some flaws in comodo databases …
1 - comodo have a few of virus signatures compared to other programs like ( avira - bitdefender … ) !
2 -Comodo have a lot of False-Positive !
3 - Comodo add a ( ■■■■■’s - pach’s - activating illegal ) like a virus or harmful file but its not ! …
4 - Delay in the analysis of harmful files are already sent to labs .
5 - Labels harmful files in Comodo databases is inaccurate
In short …
we want a smart protection can’s detecting harmful files :-TU :-TU
we want a samrt and fast labs to analysis files :-TU :-TU
we want a smart and big virus database (like bifdefender - avira … ) :-TU :-TU
we want a accurate names of harmful files (like ESET … ) :-TU :-TU
In the end , i hope that topic is clear for everyone , because I am still studying English … :azn:[/b]
Don’t compare other companies DB to another company DB they don’t use same engine etc…it clearly differs to each other.
There are still people claiming it has “tons of FPs” but can you give us some fresh exemples of that ? From what I can see from users feedback around some forums, FP’s rate has decreased a lot from the past years. Now you can see on FP board the same users reporting FP’s everyday but we use some sites to do that and I can assure you that with herdprotect you can report like ~ 25 FP’s for each company ;D so what we report does not reflect real life usage IMO.
I can’t really comment on this, this is up to them if to add detection for keygens/cracks…
Been submitting them samples for years now, processing time seems OK to me. Sometimes in live thanks to CAMAS and once something needs manual processing you can wait like 1/2/3 days depending on files they already have to analyse (ie from other sources…) BTW files submitted via CIS are directly sent to CAMAS for automated analysis/addition to cloud DB then local.
Again this is a bit problematic since most of the files are processed by a number of automated systems (CAMAS - AdvancedHeuristics - and some others…) thus the best malware name are most likely delivered from human analysis.
1 - We can not deny never exceeds most of the programs on comodo on size of databases ! …
2 - It is true that there is low in the (false positive), but it is still high compared to other programs !
3 - If there ■■■■■ was added as harmful in the database
Thay Should be renamed (■■■■■-not-a-virus) and not (malware) .
4 - I’ve to submit files extremely dangerous for Comodo It take six days to add half of the files in the database!
And you send the same files to Avira Labs
And All files have been added to database as a malware file, just in one day !!
Does that really matter ? To me no, to some users maybe but many cracks/keygens are detected by AppUnwanted or Unsafe…
Which way do you generally use for reporting files ?
If you simply report from CIS don’t expect them to be analysed that fast, they absolutely don’t get priority unlike forum/web/mail based submissions which is quite normal (everyone can submit whatever they think to be malware while it’s not).
If the ■■■■■ contains malware, then Yes.
But argues that you add it just so. Just because it ■■■■■.
Every user knows that the ■■■■■ may not be safe. However, expects alarms of the antivirus only if the ■■■■■ is really insecure.
About the lab test I do not trust them, and if concerning false positive yes it exists and rates are not acceptable, for example, programs that are used in decoding and programs which are used to determine the type of encryption, as well as programs that are underused and other programs that use programming languages is not famous
If you compare engine Comodo Other engines such as "Kaspersky,bitdefender,nod,avira,Ikarus " It is not a good