[merged]why comodo dont focus on virus database ?

[b]Hi all …

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]

  1. Don’t compare other companies DB to another company DB they don’t use same engine etc…it clearly differs to each other.

  2. 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.

  3. I can’t really comment on this, this is up to them if to add detection for keygens/cracks…

  4. 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.

  5. 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 :-TU

hi all

Yes it’s true
Often experience labels inaccurate engine Comodo if one compares labels Kaspersky

Malwaretips and also sends samples to Comodo, but are not placed in the database only after Comodo days if you compare it with the engine nod he puts it in less than an hour at least

And also find it puts names on activations is a viruses, unlike Kaspersky and NOD32 and much more


You didn’t get the point, buddy! ;D
Or did you? :wink:

Most of my submitted samples as well as malware1’s samples are added like 1/2 hours after submission thanks to the cloud.

I understand that you confirm that COMODO adds ■■■■■’'s as malware?

I think (i.e I don’t know) that cracks are detected as PUP.

Edit: Unless the ■■■■■ in question is also a malware, then it’s probably classed as a malware. (I mean, just because it’s a ■■■■■ that doesn’t mean it can’t be malware)

But I am interested in the spywar answer on this issue. Added to the virus database ckacks only for what they cracks or no?

“ApplicUnwanted” most likely. Like many companies but not all.

:-TD :-\ !ot!

We are here to discuss …

:-TD :-TD :-TD :-TD :-TD

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 !!

1+ :-TU

I am talking to you but you obviously do not understand.
Read my lips: Not going to happen.

Are you nervous?

Let me reply you here :

  1. The database size seems to be a problem for the download of full size at first installation, they’ll have to work on that I agree.

  2. Again, without giving real facts I’m not going to believe FP’s rate is high.
    See AV-TEST | Antivirus & Security Software & AntiMalware Reviews
    It’s not that bad and again, refer to real life usage.

  3. Does that really matter ? To me no, to some users maybe but many cracks/keygens are detected by AppUnwanted or Unsafe…

  4. 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.

But the ■■■■■ have been checked from Kaspersky and says that he is not a virus and also nod 32, Microsoft and others

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