PCWorld just doesn't like CIS

In a recent article entitled Can http://www.pcworld.com/article/170587-2/can_you_trust_free_antivirus_software.html Erik Larkin begged the question of the reliability of free Antivirus software versus paid and rated a few contenders out there. Of the many free programs tested, with the help of av-test.org and reference to Wilders Security Forums Comodo’s CIS AV component fell dead last with only 75% of a detection rate and the highest reported false positives.

Funny things Erik mentions are the default install setup nags (hopsurf and the ask.com search engine) but also admits to only installing the AV component while taking a cheap shot at Defense +.

Go figure.

Comodo review: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/290845/review/internet_security.html

Also annoying is the program's Defense+ layer of security, which feels like a throwback to an age when security tools repeatedly prompted you to decide whether a particular program could take a certain action, such as creating a folder or changing the Registry. Such protection can be effective if you're willing to deal with countless interruptions and risk making a bad decision, but you'd probably end up disabling it instead.
Definitely doesn't like a Hostbased Intrusion Prevention System.

yeah HIPS are a nasty breed of security when it comes to nagging but it can be made much better. This is what I would like to see in a security system:

You download a file - first the AV engine compares it to the signatures - if all is good it goes to the Black/White list - if it passes that then it would go to behavior analysis - if it looks good it goes to the HIPS that uses a cloud database to determine how many people have let it in and if it’s still not sure about the file it then asks the user.

Most security apps design for easiest to use.
But HIPS sometime it’s annoying user and make their some security apps with HIPS are very hard to use.

Maybe COMODO could make a “ThreatFire” liked HIPS or something based on cloud technology?

Yeah… PCW and their tests… like PC MAG… I wonder why these articles usually say, that free security software is much worse than paid software… Of course, there are many FP, but detection rate isn’t as bad as PCW says. There are tests, and there are tests… I test CIS every day, and as far as I know my PC is free of any malware, so whose test is more reliable?

I am skeptical to all these “articles”…

What the hell? The only reason I switched to CIS was so I could use HIPS instead of AV software (I didn’t install COMODO AV).

EDIT: And what’s with the dámn being changed into dang by the forum software?

Have you tried Mrn ?


Shows a clear vision of those guy’s…
AV pattern/heur is dead, it’s only good for detecting when it’s to late.

Every test will show who was best during the test with their selected set of “malware” and settings used on the product, i believe that none of those baddies would have infected a system if D+ was properly used.

And next week/day/month/hour some other report will come up with other figures and “the best” product.
Let alone some that have financial benefit in the outcome of the results :wink:

No one is the best in real-life they are all so/so… floating around the 85% - 95% rate.
Like i said AV patterns and heuristics are only good for detection when it’s to late…
or to prevent the “this is already a week old” malware from infecting you.

I wouldn’t say heuristics is dead, becasue on my KIS 2010 it has caught plenty of zeroday malware with just that.

It does still but for how long ? i don’t think it will survive… but that’s just my personal opinion :smiley:

So-called security researchers and companies are all unnecessary if we had good software; everything starts at the software level. If we fix all security holes and prevent new ones from appearing due to sloppy programming practices, we have eliminated one of two security issues. The only other issue remaining is users’ choices. I do not believe AVs are of any use here because they can easily be bypassed with 0-day attacks - they are a temporary kludge. I believe operating systems should already have HIPS security mechanisms implemented. Then we won’t need 3rd party programs for basic OS security…

Threat fire is IMO no match to the beautiful HIPS in CIS… There will be some adjustments and some great improvements to version 4 probably to make it more for normal folks… However if you read the article the focus was soley on the AV and testing done by others… Completely ignoring the component that makes CIS secure… D+… =)

CIS shouldn’t do anything just cus the “PCmag says so”… 88) 88) PCmag actually makes money on products like Norton, KIS and similar but not on CIS… They sell those products on their web page and every-time someone place an order from their page they get a % of the sale… Recommending a free product would from their point of view be stupid… Since free alternatives won’t generate money…

Pretty ■■■■■■■■ by PC mag to fail to mention anything positive IMO… At least they could ACT like they were somewhat objective… :-TD :-TD

Bottom Line: Comodo Internet Security is not a good choice, due to its lackluster malware detection.
The AV's prove them-self VS the conflicker..?? Yeah right.. Reality is AV's SUCKS vs new threats.. AV's can't keep it up like CIS can with D+.. But that fact is ignored..

+1 AV’s will do nothing against a hacker…

(Image were PCmag trying to sell those other products attached…)

[attachment deleted by admin]

A behavior blocker (TF) is scheduled for version 4.

I see it as something in between an AV and D+ for the non technical user to use.
Call it a “simple” HIPS.

SHIPS ;D or whatever floats your boat…bum, bum…

Lol :smiley:


Anyone can take a good product and make it look bad

(IMO) Here a possible review that can make a top notch product look bad (for your entertainment pleasure)

Let do a review on avira AV <—(poking fun at PCWorld

The configuration setting for avira were terrible. How do they expect an inexperienced person to figure out that technical jargon. It would be too confusing for the average user. The icon with with a red background with a white umbrella is just too boring for this day in age. Now for the detection ration was also terrible. We used our own samples and only detected 6 out of 8 of them. That’s a 75% detection rating. How can someone trust an anti-virus software if it can only detect 75% of our samples. That’s poor detection rating if you ask me. The layout of the main interface was a bit plain

Thats the point I’m trying to make, any PCWorld review can take a top notch software and make it look bad. But if you pay them money in one way or another, then the reviews will be better.

the more you pay = the better the review

I hope you guys like my opinion of knocking down someone product because that person didn’t pay to get a good review

P.S. Can comodo order a “cease and desist” on not to review comodo products. They never say anything nice anyways and it will prevent future reviews by this company in the future. The only way they’ll write something positive is to pay for a good review.

Yeah, i think Comodo can… not sure though. I’ll ask


I think a cease and desist on a bad review and asking never to do another review can only make Comodo look stupid. Poor public relations is a pretty far reaching thing. Sometimes I’m not sure Comodo realizes that…

Look at there webpage, it’s financially motivated reviews
heres the topic

Can You Trust Free Antivirus Software?
The way they worded it should speak for it's self
I think a cease and desist on a bad review and asking never to do another review can only make Comodo look stupid
if it was only 1 bad review then I can see your point. But it's not the first time they done this.