Hi Verilee. I have no doubt that Comodo is the app of choice for protection.
!ot! I think sometimes products are location orientated, for example AVG is very common in my area (Slowly converting them).
So if their is an outbreak that penetrates various security apps, it will show a higher percentage penetrated AVG (to the repairers), because it has a higher percentage of users in this area. It may have penetrated others but AVG looks worse in percentages. Kind regards.
NEDEN BURADA HERŞEY İNGİLİZCE… FORUMUN TÜRKÇE BÖLÜMÜ YOK MU ?
Turkish Board is found here
–
Jacob
It becomes far too easy to incorporate a cleaning mechanism into an antivirus product. The problem with it is that in instances where a rootkit has infected a critical system file, the software has to be able to replace it rather than delete it. This is where more specialized software excels.
In my opinion, the antivirus should perform well enough to protect the average user from most of the prevalent infections. If serious infection occurs, call out the specialized removal software. Removal software, if already on board at the time of the infection can also be prevented from running correctly by malware. It is better to have it available rather than on the machine.
And somoeone who knows what they are talking about!
Thank you BlueGuppy!
Melih
It becomes far too easy to incorporate a cleaning mechanism into an antivirus product. The problem with it is that in instances where a rootkit has infected a critical system file, the software has to be able to replace it rather than delete it. This is where more specialized software excels.In my opinion, the antivirus should perform well enough to protect the average user from most of the prevalent infections. If serious infection occurs, call out the specialized removal software. Removal software, if already on board at the time of the infection can also be prevented from running correctly by malware. It is better to have it available rather than on the machine.
I work as an IT consultant, and many of my customers call me because they have infected PCs and don't know what to do. Interesting enough, 99% of those infected PCs ran Avira (both free and premium versions), and I really wonder how Avira gets its good scores in those "tests". But this is the difference of tests and the real life. However, that is another topic.I would post a link, but it's agaist the rules. Avira is a very good product. In fact, some malware authors say(in so many words) if you can get it to infect avira, the the rest of the AV's will be easy. If you take a malware that's detected by all AV Companys for example, doing a few minor things then most AV's most won't be able to detect it. malware authers have to work extra hard to get it to pass avira.(Feel free to try it yourself to see what I'm talking about) Avira has very good dectection ratings, I don't need no test to tell me that.
As always prevention should always be the highest priority, not detection
yeah that’s the case in making a detected backdoor, for example , goes undetected using something called " Fudding " , FUD stands for " fully undetectable ". it’s so hard to encrypt something from Avira and Panda. However, people sill can FUD from Avira so those signatures which are made to detect the encrypted malware are not effective when you compare it to behavior blockers or HIPS. 
This is something that I have experienced differently. I doubt the capabilities of Avira, because, in the past 12 months, I have had about 25 infected systems, all but one running Avira. Avira didn’t react, was still running properly after the infection, and a scan gave no results. Most of them had the premium version, btw.
Whatever tool I used to clean, including MSE, Malwarebytes, MWAV and Vipre, each of them cleaned those systems. On some systems I even scanned with all the above mentioned, and also with Avira, just to check detection rating. Avira did not detect a single malware infection, whereas the others detected more or less the same.
This is why I am not convinced of Avira. I don’t care about tests, these were real encounters I had. If others have better experiences, fine 
I am not bashing on products.
I fully agree. Prevention is always better.
What I meant before is just, people who I am talking to are more convinced about certain solutions if they can not only protect, but also clean. See, I come on site, look at the PC, and have to tell them, that I have a great product for future protection, but for cleaning, I have to use a different product, because the one I recommend is not that good in cleaning. This causes reactions in their subconscious, starting to doubt if that Comodo suite is really best protection.
Remember, they are not experts, they are average users. Users, that read magazines, full of tests covering the common products, some of them having great cleaning rates. Doesn’t that drive them to use a different product, sooner or later, when the doubts in the back of their mind are growing? People are not functioning logical all the time.
Which is leading me to the thought, that Comodo might also offer a specialized cleaning tool that can be run from a Boot CD or a Stick, when for example the PC has to be started in safe mode.
This cleaning engine could then also be incorporated in the regular AV engine.
I am no technical expert, so forgive me my question, but wouldn’t it add to the reputation and trust in Comodo if the cleaning capability was as good as other specialized cleaning tools? If it is a separate software, fine, but why not one created by Comodo?
Just my thoughts.
Kind regards
Verilee
You are spot on Verilee!
We have CCE (Comodo Cleaning Essentials) which we use for cleaning. Also Boot CD version of this will also be available in the near future.
Melih
If I am a ordinary computer user, I need one IS suite. I don’t care protection or cleaning. I’m lazy, so I just want A Security Software.
Unfortunately, the security product is only one third of the needed requirements for safety and security. Nothing is 100% all of the time.
The other third is taking the time to update and patch all of your programs to prevent as many vulnerabilities as possible. Some of those vulnerabilities are in the browser, before it even hits the machine or the security software.
The final third is user interaction. If the user does not take the time to understand how malware works, changes and is injected, the user is going to click the wrong link, respond incorrectly to the threat, or fail to take it seriously when infected.
the user has to take responsibility for the security of the machine. It can’t all be laid at the door of the security developers to protect users from themselves. God knows, they all try. 88)
i personally think a version of cce should be built into cis i read this post in the cis forum and it really shows this
this post also tells how much a timer or warning system is needed. even just a small bubble in front of the cis tray icon changing colors with the status of cis. blue cirlce for game mode, green for everything being ok, red for errors, yellow for components disabled.
so you expect CCE to be able to clean something that CIS misses?
yes i do because cis is only as strong as the user. if the user makes a mistake and lets a piece of malware through cis then it should also be able to clean it.
but if its a malware and CIS knows it as a malware it will tell the user its a malware.
dear Melih
full scan looks similar to CIS
what exactly is the difference ?
excuse me for my ignorance please
kill switch is impressive
and would love it to be always on
that is a cool nifty tool can be built into cis itself
regards
true but im saying as a backup
like the quote i posted earlier. if someone turns off comodo for whatver reason and forgets to turn it back on and they get infected or an unknown file is ran on a computer and the user thinks its safe and removes it from
sandbox to let it run they get infected.
i know this isnt how cis should be used all unknown files should be ran in the sandbox but sometimes users dont use cis correctly
in these instances cce integrated into cis would be extremely beneficial
Read here what features CCE has. The main differences is that CCE uses DACS, it is able to scan MBR for modifications and repairs disabled Task Manager, msconfig, Run, Regedit, etc.
You can leave it open in background - just untick the Hide when closed option.
DACS can be enabled in cloud scanning mode in on demand scans
this will enhance i think the malware detection and reduce false positives too
A Comodo boot clean CD sounds great! However, what do you do when a rootkit infected some important system files? Does Comodo ‘clean’ them or ‘quarantine’ them? Doesn’t your PC become unbootable because of missing dll’s?