CIS 4 goes you he(it) in the right direction of the safety(security)?
One can only thank the company COMODO for supplying quality software.
Because when one know a little the mass of supplied work, it is not necessary hesitated has to greet the free access(wantonness).
Only Here we are, CIS 4 is not really pret to replace the version 3.
The strategic choice of the sandbox is debatable. Succumbed has a fashion or a reality éfficacité?
Number of software publishers includes one, but her(it) often is to ■■■■■■.
Why from then on, not to have to implement the antivirus engine of the version 4, to to leave defense + equals has the version 3 (tres effective), and, if it was absolutely necessary to integrate(join) something again not to create a function(office) of hostile address?
A lot nobody return has the version 3.
Personally as things stand at the present, I would not pass under the version 4, because, under seven 64 bits I have too many bugs (incompatibility wow64 and of the sandbox? I do not know), and he(it) is out of the question that I do not use any more my usual software has
You are not completely safe by only running an AV but there is no question that you are safer than if you don’t run one. There are also other tools like Malwarebytes that you can use to remove anything that may get past an AV. Many people still use nothing but the Windows firewall and their AV of choice and have very few if any problems.
a Firewall is something essential , no doubt about it .However, the AV is not !! … why ? because you don’t need it , if you just visit trusted websites , update your browser and system . you may ask >? what about those viruses the come with the removable media … ? I will answer , that’s too old Microsoft already patched this and there is an article which describes how you can turn off this auto Run feature … Nevertheless , a firewall must be installed and we all know why >:(
for example , my brother is running on xp sp3 latest update , I can’t recall a time at which he asked for help or something ! ?
so Melih is right !! Anti virus is not needed ( to protect your computer ) << if your computer already infected that’s another long story
The point is not everyone goes to lily white sites all the time. Some people may get a little tipsy and stray to the “dark side” from time (including myself). Many people are click-happy. You’ve got to understand that people in these security forums are vastly in the minority and use their computers accordingly so if you base you’re security theories on these users you will be WAY off. Use what works for you, however, realize that you are not everyone else.
Part of the problem, to which you have alluded elsewhere, is the novice/expert divide. For me, the perfect solution is CIS and its firewall/sandbox defense. I am comfortable enough to configure/teach it as I go along and maximize my self-protection.
The problem is that is simply not a workable solution for the vast majority of my clients who want the security of something protecting them with minimal interaction on their part. As has been said, this is not really protection at all.
The solution, in my mind, would take an industry initiative. What if all executables were registered, contained a checksum and/or signature and that this was a standard such that a far more simple security paradigm could be enabled and defeat almost 100% of malware? This for the typical end-user, of course (software developers would need something different).
There’s obviously a lot more to this than makes sense to post here but am I so far off base? Will anti-malware developers support or fight such an initiative?
Indeed your solution would work Espy, and its the one I am pushing for in the industry…but i don’t see it happening anytime soon
In the meanwhile we are creating this whitelist.
[at]Melih
i like the firewall and the defense+.
defense+ is what you call the more important point than antivirus.
but, when i tested your CIS with(!) its antivirus, what a surprise, defense+ is banned out of the main page of the userinterface. you CANT see with one view if the defense+ has blocked something, or holding something for review, or even if it is set to the mode you want it to be.
and if you have set a password, you need to type it before, to get this informations.
the style of (suite) userinterface is the OPPOSITE of what you are telling. a BIG space for antivirus but NO SPACE for defense+.
in my eyes, two little lines for antivirus would be enough:
statefull, update date
number of virus found.
all this white space, and no defense+. i really wonder about that.
defense+ is YOUR big point, and a big point at all. why not bring it (back) to the suite userinterface mainpage…
I do not think anyone is mad when he believe to be protected when
he use a classic AV program, but I am sure that the true madness
is when, as user, you are convinced to buy a product which claims
to provide protection but in reality, you are just added to the list
of users that improves the detection rate (due to new malwares that
you will catch). But you thought you are protected… >:-D
In my opinion the problem occurs when a user must decide wich security
suite will use and if he has all information necessary for the correct
product. Most computers already have on purchase a security system
preinstalled, ads are very aggressive on the market and always will be
promoted the classic AV products with the highest rate of detection
which, will NEVER provide protection against newest malwares in the wild.
I do not think it is a surprise that classical AV products are running on
the most computers in the world and users will consider to be safe because
they are not convinced of the existence of alternative products based on
prevention technologies wich are able to prevent the infections of the
newest malwares!
An advanced user will know that a product like Comodo combining other
technologies than a classic AV product (Default Deny Protection, HIPS,
Sandbox, AV, Firewall, etc.) will ensure the most searched protection
against the newst malwares in the wild but a novice user will not be
convinced that such a product is safer than one that has a detection
rate of 99.99%! In this era, who have information, will rule the world!
Therefore, the information on safe alternatives to AV products must reach
novice users in their language, so that they can be convinced that there
is something more secure than a AV product with 99,99% detection rate!
Then we will see how the balance will change to the new user option and then
indeed, you are mad thinking to be safe using a antivirus program.
Comodo presents a powerful alternative against of AV products and this
alternative must be known by everyone, especially by users without
much computer knowledge! :-TU
But what about the people who use AV’s and don’t ever get infected in over a decade of computer usage? They do exist, and in great numbers. I want my protection to stay out of my face and give the protection it gives with no interaction required from me. HIPS based apps just don’t do that. To say that AV products provide no protection is just not true. I still think NIS is the best suite to provide good silent protection. Avast! Internet Security is also getting good reviews and has a sandbox that is on demand and actually works. Please don’t cite Matousec tests. They are tests of HIPS systems which I want no part of any more.
How about AV users who paid a lot of $$ and still get infected? how about them? Were they protected by what they paid for? In 2008 1.2Million people in the US bought a brand new PC because they had infection in their PCs and this it the only way they knew how to solve the problem…buy a new PC…how about them Dch48???
Melih
PS: Just because few people didn’t get infected doesn’t make an AntiVirus product more secure, it just makes those people “Lucky few”.
Classic standalone AV’s with signatures are useless in front of 0 day malware.
That’s why I don’t use any AV, FW and D+ are more than enough. Doubled by common sense and some browsing protection (for me AdBlock and NoScript) and in 13 years of browsing I’m clean.
TBH I like Comodo’s 3 layers philosophy:
Layer 1 - First line of Defense.
PREVENTION: Defense+ (HIPS), Buffer Overflow Protection (Built into Defense+), Firewall.
Layer 2 - Second line of Defense
DETECTION: Anti-Virus, Including Heuristics and the Memory Scanner based on BO-Clean.
Layer 3 - Third line of Defense.
CURE: Comodo Time Machine
I’m relying only on Prevention and Cure and I’m satisfied.
Had minimal activity on the computer that has reduced very much the contact with the newest malware and hence the feeling of being safe…
They were very smart and they know what to access or install - that means only advanced users and of course luck…
I do not think there is or will exist in future a internet security suite that does not interact with the user, at least at minimum
HIPS based application interacts with user but a HIPS based application + Sandbox will interact with the minimum possible. I’m not saying that an AV not provide protection, but after seven years in which I tried very many
internet security suits, I can say that protection does not mean to stop only the known malware (for which there is already signature) but also those unknown threats!
I’m fully aware that I’m not as safe without a HIPS but I’m willing to take the chance seeing that I am one of those people who has never gotten infected. I have not had minimal activity either. I’ve used instant messengers, accessed chat rooms, used P2P apps (including for a while Limewire), and played online games as well as browsing extensively with no other browser than IE and using no other email program than Outlook Express. The same is true for the other members of my family and my friends. I have had no more than 10 attempts at infection since 1999 with every one being blocked by the AV I was using at the time. The AV I am currently using has a behavior shield and pretty good heuristics as well so I feel pretty good.
If Comodo gets the sandbox working right where it actually recognizes installers and updaters and stops sandboxing things after you have told it not to and if the whitelist will include at least the most popular games, then I might be willing to give it another try. Not before then though.
Before, as I used the AV classic, I always scanned the computer with several scanners
and never found anything. But I was unpleasantly surprised several times as my computer
was infected and the virus scanners did not reported it…
and I’m still safe 8)