[Noobquestion] Why using Comodo Internet Security

[gnomegemini]

Hi there,

I got comodo recommended by a friend. Now after googling a bit around I read many many reviews about comodo internet security. Most of some virus tests don’t even test comodo (av-comperatives,…) or comodo get very bad results. But on matousec.com, comodo got best result.

Now my questions are:

1. Why does av-comperatives not rate or test comodo?
2. why is comodo so bad or mid-field on most tests
3. why is comodo very good at matousec.com? What are proactive tests (also av-comperatives has some)
4. if the method comodo uses is so goot, why don’t use the others these?
5. All I know is a Virus is a bad exe-file. shouln’t any av-program scan it?

sorry for that stupit questions but I’m on it to install a new windows to my laptop and am not sure whether using avira like before or switching to comodo. Thanks in advance and please forgive my bad english.

[clockwork]

i use avira for the antivirus guard+scan aspect.
and i use comodo firewall and defense+ to avoid anything phoning out, and to avoid anything to run without permission.

in virus tests, avira is good. in firewall and host intrusion protection tests, comodo is on top.
my conclusion, combine the good aspects of both.

(never run two “antivirus products with a running/installed guard feature” at the same time, thats all)

[loveboy_lion]

comodo is basically good in prevention from virus it still has good detection though new version is gonna be out soon which makes comodo even stronger :-TU

(CWY)

[MartiusD]

@gnomegemini post:1

1. Why does av-comperatives not rate or test comodo?

Comodo does not want CIS tested by AV-Comparatives because they know that its detection rate is worse than other top security suites.

@gnomegemini post:1

2. why is comodo so bad or mid-field on most tests

Most tests only test detection rate which only involves scanning. Scanning has limited ability to detect new malware.

@gnomegemini post:1

3. why is comodo very good at matousec.com? What are proactive tests (also av-comperatives has some)

Matousec tests are not real-life malware. They attempt to perform malicious actions similar to real malware. Comodo seems to be better than other security suites at stopping these actions. Proactive in this case refers to stopping attempted malicious actions before they succeed.

@gnomegemini post:1

4. if the method comodo uses is so goot, why don’t use the others these?

Protecting a PC against malware is very complex. The most difficult part is protecting against new malware without affecting performance, without requiring frequent user input (popups), and without incorrectly identifying safe programs as malware (false positives). Security suites do this in different ways, each claiming to provide better protection than the others.

@gnomegemini post:1

5. All I know is a Virus is a bad exe-file. shouln’t any av-program scan it?

Any virus that has been around for a while should be detected by scanning. New malware is the main problem.

[loveboy_lion]

@MartiusD post:4

Comodo does not want CIS tested by AV-Comparatives because they know that its detection rate is worse than other top security suites.
Most tests only test detection rate which only involves scanning. Scanning has limited ability to detect new malware.
Matousec tests are not real-life malware. They attempt to perform malicious actions similar to real malware. Comodo seems to be better than other security suites at stopping these actions. Proactive in this case refers to stopping attempted malicious actions before they succeed.
Protecting a PC against malware is very complex. The most difficult part is protecting against new malware without affecting performance, without requiring frequent user input (popups), and without incorrectly identifying safe programs as malware (false positives). Security suites do this in different ways, each claiming to provide better protection than the others.
Any virus that has been around for a while should be detected by scanning. New malware is the main problem.

+1 :-TU