Hi Guys
I just read two reviews of Comodo products such as CIS and Comodo System Cleaner by Bright HUB. Both products got positive reviews, fantastic. Keep up the good work Comodo staff, huh you too Melih. ;D
CIS
Comodo System Cleaner
What do you guys think of the reviews?
Peace.
The CIS review, although overall favorable, did point out a few weaknesses. But, these will be remedied with the version 4 release.
And this is all fair and good; moreover, this is how a product can improve with constructive criticism. CIMA and CIS v4 the objects of my dreams. ;D
Peace.
Nice reviews!
Much better then those by PCmag since they did not contain a lot of false information (PCmag for instance claimed that norton had a better firewall than CIS against leaks, LOL) 88) 88) ! =) 8) 8)
It seems nowadays everybody is able to review anything… anywhere…anyway…
Please, be aware that I’m not bashing COMODO. I just don’t understand the importance of such reviews. All I could read over there was blah blah blah. That girl brings nothing new, and nothing that special, to be considered a review. My 1 year nephew could do that… The girl came to a great conclusion, in fact - Defense+ is a pain in the ■■■…
Defense+ is brilliant in theory, in execution it tends to be overly sensitive and actually hinders the user experience on the computer. It can be programmed to be more lenient, however it is doesn’t have the capability to learn behaviours, making it irritating and cumbersome.
Blah! Big blah blah blah…
Heck, nowadays anyone can do a review… if that can be called a review… Hmmm… Maybe I’m confusing review with analysis…???
Guys and girls, come on… Such reviews bring no light over a product… It’s only smoke and mirrors.
Compared to this one, PCMag’s review was, in fact, a review. And, why do some folks keep on bashing other products, just to say the ones they use are better?
In what do base your opinion? Your own massive testing? What?
Have you even read the PC mag review of CIS 3.5?
Yes, I have, when it first came out. And, that’s why I say that was a review, compared to the one mentioned here, which is not even a review… rather some minor article, which practically anyone can come up to that.
A review, in my way of seeing it, and that’s why I say PCMag’s was a review, is suppose to say what works and what does not in a product, as in test it’s vulnerabilities, etc. Not to say if some product is easy to install or not and what features is has or not. Of course, the easier it is to set, the better, and the more protection features (without bloating it) the better. But, just because one product offers more protection, doesn’t mean it protects better than one product with less protection features. Smoke and mirrors.
Its true that the PC MAG article is more of the technical nature…
But its also true that the PC MAG reviewer did miss the whole point of D+…
And camt to the conclusion that CIS the #1 firewall at matusec and similar was worse than Norton at preventing leaks.
What a load of ■■■■.
And he used public tools for the job… Tools that others has tested CIS against and seen for them self that it passes those simple tests. It somewhat removes my trust in the reviewer.
Also PC Mag has a strong history of saying “norton beats everything”…
Also ■■■■. =S
But, he is right when he makes that statement.
There are two different views. Some look at the review and say its a ■■■■, because they limit themselves looking from the perspective of someone capable of making the right choice, which requires, in it’s very least, a minimal information background. Others, like me, and like those at PCMag, look at it, from the perspective of how easy or hard a security application is to work with, when we’re talking about casual users. From this perspective, no one can deny that products like Symantec and others, do the job very well, without a possible wrong choice done by that casual user, which could result in serious damage for the system, important stolen information, etc.
Bottom line, in the hands of a casual user, there’s no doubt that, Defense+ poses itself as a risk.
And he used public tools for the job.. Tools that others has tested CIS against and seen for them self that it passes those simple tests. It somewhat removes my trust in the reviewer. Also PC Mag has a strong history of saying "norton beats everything".. Also ■■■■. =S
But, couldn’t I assemble a large number of random people, and let them alone in front of a system, and tell them that they should make a choice when alerts are given, and the results be a lot different from Matousec’s? The end result of this massive test could simply say that Defense+ sucks at protecting users who can’t understand what they reading, and whether to allow or block.
You’re taking the “norton beats everything” in the way they’re the best at everything. I do not interpret it that way. I interpret it the way I mentioned above. I interpret it that Symantec provides solid protection, without requiring the casual users to have background information to make the proper choice when the time comes. They make those casual users burden-free. While COMODO, doesn’t. COMODO’s Defense+ success needs those casual users to make the right choice, for Defense+ itself, to succeed as a security tool.
There are always two sides of the story. Always.
I believe a reviewer has the right to whatever opinion he/she might have… And I also accept that a reviewer might say “This is too complicated for a normal user” even without any study…
Its fine. What I don’t think is fine is when you say “it can’t block those tests” when it can. When you do that then you are spreading misinformation.
Lets take a similar example with cars. Its ok for a “reviewer” to say “the seats feels awkward” or say “I don’t think people can use this extra mirror…”
Its not okay to go ahead and say “this car is so unsafe it lacks airbags, and BMW even forgot to put in breaks, don’t buy it there are safer options with airbags and brakes”… When both these stuff are there…
Thats spreading misinformation. And that is excactly what PC Mag did.
I personally don’t thing a serious page or a serious magazine should do that… :-\ :-\
Without study? There are plenty of evidences that is hard to deal with. Even the so the called review, mentioned here, says it so. Was that statement based on a study? If not, why all the hype about that so called review? What makes it better than PCMag’s one? What is wrong with PCMag’s one?
Lets take a similar example with cars. Its ok for a "reviewer" to say "the seats feels awkward" or say "I don't think people can use this extra mirror.."Its not okay to go ahead and say “this car is so unsafe it lacks airbags, and BMW even forgot to put in breaks, don’t buy it there are safer options with airbags and brakes”… When both these stuff are there…
A car either lacks airbags or it doesn’t. There isn’t a middle term. And, a car without breaks is dangerous, unless no one drives it. A car without airbags is unsafe. The same way a car without seatbelts is unsafe.
I really don’t understand this possible analogy of yours…
Thats spreading misinformation. And that is excactly what PC Mag did.I personally don’t thing a serious page or a serious magazine should do that… :-\ :-</blockquote>
Where exactly have you seen PCMag misinforming people on that review? Did they say any lies? If so, where? I’d appreciate if you could point them out.
There has been many large threads about PCMag review here already…
It’s fine if you want to see it as a good well done review…
I would have thought so as well If it wasn’t for all the fact’s he got wrong…
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/thread/1004410519.aspx there you can see the reviewer chose to not participate any more when he was asked why he could get CIS to fail leaktests it really passes… 88) 88)
Even when I chose to block all the actions detected by Defense+, over half of the leak tests penetrated Comodo's defenses.CIS don't fail half those tests something he claims in the test. Its pure BS I don't know what he did, but CIS by default is leak proof and more leak proof than those he claims kicks CIS ■■■■.
The firewall isn't quite as powerful as top-of-the-line firewalls like Norton's and ZoneAlarm's. Perhaps that's to be expected in a free product.
Also this is spreading false info:
Real-Time Malware Protection Misses Much
And this was when trying the HIPS. :-X
Its pure BS that CIS malware protection misses much… Antiviruses misses much… CIS is more than a AV and actually warns for all malwares thanks to its Host Intrusion Prevention System…
Something almost no other does.
So he should not claim that it “misses many malwares”… He could do that when he can provide a real sample CIS can’t “protect” from… =S I sure could find a sample that bypasses any AV of today… But with CIS… No I can’t =S…
Just 1 advice: Stop reading reviews… they’re all ■■■■.
“[Insert word here] is in the eye of the beholder.”
If you want to understand something… don’t just look at it! use it, analyze it.
Yup, and what’s wrong with that? Not all people look for the same information in a review. Tech heads will want probably want detailed technical information, while others may simply wish to know whether a product is something that they can install on their non-technically minded mother’s computer without substantially impacting its performance. Horses for courses.
Note: I’m a ME at Bright Hub.
By the way, should anybody be interested in contributing to the Security channel, please feel free to send me a message. New writers ware always very welcome 