Should I Be Worried? Because I AM...

The true power of CIS is in the fact that with default deny and the sandbox it is very hard to get infected. And that is without anti virus.

During the testing of v5 egemen briefed us on the developments when we got a mod preview and told us they tested the firewall against 15,000 malware (with no AV running) and none of them was able to infect the system.

That’s why I am not worried whether the AV gets certified or not. An AV is nice addition but nothing more than that.

I’m back to full Comodo protection after Avast problem with ver 7 and firewall leaking due to web shield… No don’t worry… As far as I know Comodo not good at cleaning viruses (that’s why it fails to get paper) but it’s very good at protecting clean system… I don’t care about cleaning as Comodo will protect your system before and even if I do get infected I will use Malwarebytes anyway… And yes many security firms will ‘pay’ to get paper! That’s wrong!

And Comodo Antivirus beats Avast in detection fact…

Gettin’ better each day
Wise words, yet some people still want to use avast and comodo fw.

Indeed… Plus Avast is not good itself at cleaning infected system… So yeah… But I did see Comodo cleaning viruses it’s as good as many others… Don’t be fooled…

Unfortunately,for many,testing is still seen as the final word on the efficacy of a security product,therefore vendors need to “play the game” to a degree.

For me a lot of the tests are of limited use when determining how good a product is.Most just put out a flat percentage of “detection”,which can be misleading.

For example Product A scores 95%,Product B 90%…A must be better right? Not necessarily.

If the 5% missed by “A” are the most prevalent and/or the most damaging malware;whereas “B” misses relatively uncommon/less damaging threats;then in the real World Product B actually offers better protection.

This is before we even take into account how each product deals with the stuff it doesn’t detect,in terms of mitigation such as sandboxing,etc.

I agree somewhat with what has been said about the tests in this thread. Maybe the answer would be to create a computer malware testing organization which tested products using their default settings upon being freshly installed if such a test is not being done now. Perhaps using groups such as you mentioned.

Maybe a test of a clean computer then install anti-malware and then infect it (or try to).

Maybe another with an infected computer then install anti-mailware (if it can be normally) and using the default install settings see how well the program cleans the computer.

Now if the current organizations I have mentioned are bad-testing then the lid needs to be blown off them. That is not happening.

Definitely a test of how few system resources each uses and degradation of speed on a computer.

In my opinion, THE TEST most sought after, is the VB100.

I have been testing the competency of the Comodo Firewall with Defense+ HIPS alone without using the Sandbox nor the Antivirus component at protecting my Vista and Win 7 computers from Malware for the last 2 1/2 years and there has been absolutely no Malware detected on either computer. Neither VB100 nor any other AV certification lab can quantify that kind of excellent protection which has made using antivirus software on my computers a thing of the past.

~Maxx~

I would rather use an antivirus that gets 80% or less, than to use a system hook!
Comodo needs to solve the resource hunger of the antivirus.
At least if you switch it off :smiley:

I don’t know how many of you seen this… But Comodo AV beats Panda AV, AVG AV and somewhere I seen Avast and Norton losing to Comodo AV… Now what do you have to say about that? AV Certificate my ■■■ LOL!

Here is the video:

what is the point in virusBB test? as i have readed is not protection

Tests are better than no tests

A youtube video? I’m convinced. Can’t beat that for real-world effectiveness comparison. 88)

Sorry Seany007, but this statement is wrong. CAV has only mediocre detection rates especially against zero-day malware. You should check the CRDF Threat Center (CRDF Threat Center: Homepage / List of malicious URLs detected by CRDF Labs) which posts detection rates for over 40 different AVs every day using several hundred just-discovered zero-day threats. Results change each day, but in general CAV scores about 35% and Avast scores about 50%.

BUT, as I stated before CIS with Defense+ enabled still provides excellent protection.

Comodo 56%
avast 29%
;D

Yes, Comodo has had a good detection rate today ;D

I don’t trust such websites… I trust ppl who test it at home and upload to youtube… Plus today on your website Comodo has 66.37 and Avast 42.48… So you shot yourself in the foot LOL!

One of the reasons i cannot understand why people still use avast and CIS together.
Makes very little sense :o

Maybe because they read a bad review of Comodo AV ages ago and still think it’s bad or maybe because Avast is a popular brand and carry more weight as AV… Also maybe because this ppl psychologically think that they are better protected by using a variety of products… ???

I have never been infected while using Avast and Comodo for the last 3 years, so I see no reason to change.

Same was for me and Comodo or Avast or both… But define ‘infected’ that’s another thing… But that’s !ot!