Should We Be Using This

I have been using V2 for a month now with only minor problems however this website Virus.GR rates V at #34 with only a little over 50% detection. I have never had a virus in over 8 years of computing so cannot say if Comodo is working well or not.

CAVS is just a beta right now. Of course the definitions aren’t that great.

But when the official release comes out, I expect good things. Look at their firewall for example, you know they mean business when it comes to security.


CAVS 3 BETA is planned for release soon… then shortly after final. CAVS 3 is expected to be outstanding, with HIPS and I believe it is using BOCLEAN DataBase signature as well to make it even more powerful :wink:


it is in development - it’s good. it is not ready for everyday use - it’s bad. HIPS is cool but it definitely needs to improve detection rates…

OK - I am now holding my breath for Version 3. Hope I don’t get oxygen starvation. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, unlike CFP, you’ll change colour according to your status.

ISTM “beta” is wrong. This is “alpha” software, at best. If version 3 works as well as version 2, it should report itself as a known and confirmed denial-of-service attack.

For my people I’m rating …

Comodo firewall: marginally acceptable alternative to Sunbelt/KPF (with reservations), switch if you feel you must. The out-of-the-box configuration is far too verbose and will intimidate most users. The interface is too obsure.

Comodo anti-spam: completely unacceptable, use Popfile. QED. I won’t annoy my users with this kind of anti-spam filter and I refuse to deal with anyone who uses it.

Comodo anti-malware: completely unacceptable, use Spybot. Too slow, too obsure. My remaining Windows 98 user hates Spybot, but noone else is complaining.

Comodo website authentication: acceptable (with reservations), use direct dial for sercure ordering. I found the program annoying and was glad to uninstall it. Perhaps if it had some more options and was less jarring on-screen, I’d like it … maybe even like it a lot.

Comodo anti-virus: utterly unacceptable, use AVGFree or Avast.

Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested. It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

Baring media attention, in the meantime, I’ll check back in a couple years to see if things have improved.

There is a wishlist if you’re missing something in CFP.

“Completely unacceptable” are very strong words. Slow, obsure? (obscure?) I’d like to hear more details…

I haven’t heard anyone talking good about Spybot in a long time!


At least it was specified that the content of that post was a rant. ;D
A rant every two years would be something I hope for (:LOV)

Maybe meanwhile we are going to see lundberg detiled review on an external site where he is going to describe his rating standards coupling them with explicative examples.

I have an high opinion of Matousec reviews and test methods so when something scores poorly you know exactly why

The most obscure statement was this

I guess I would be more concerned if Thunderbird email client was not supported.

Thank you for your opinion. Sorry to hear that Comodo products (apparently any of them) haven’t worked out for you and that they are apparently never going to work out for any of your clients.

If I can point out one tiny error in your post …

Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested. It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

You’re absolutely correct in saying they don’t work in Firefox. It might just be me, but I think they fail because Firefox is a browser, not an email package and probably hasn’t got a clue what to do with an email certificate.

Thunderbird (the open source email application) on the other hand, just loves them to bits.

I look forward to your biennial opinions.

Ewen :slight_smile:

For my people I'm rating ...

TYPO ALERT - missing an “n”

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Sorry. It was too good to pass up.

WTF are you talking about comodo firewall is the best firewall ever…

Spybot, are you serius.?? theres a bigger chance to find a bone-needle in a haystack with a metal-detector, then all your malware gets removed with spybot… (and same with adaware)

Its free isn’t it?

Spybot is very reliable if you ask me. I use that, Adaware, Superantispyware, and Spyware blaster. I never have any problems with spyware.

hi all,

just using this product a couple of month… Now, I was courious if it does it’s job well and started a online-scan from panda-security. So far there where 37 Spywares plus 1 Virus on my win2k-box - and CAVS didn’t hickup one time. It keeps tellin me “all well”

cheers itman

Well Panda as far as I know is infamous of producing a lot of false positives…
Btw as already stated above, CAVS is beta, its not yet a mature product. If you are going after high detection rates then go and get Avira.

Comodo e-mail security certificates: probably acceptable, but untested. It does not work with Firefox and so does not meet my minimal system requirements.

I think here he meant you need IE to install the certificate. ActiveX thingy…
What a big annoyance regarding usability of the certificate…lol

I am using comodo anti-virus,so far no complaints

CAVS 2’s detection rate at the moment is so far not “Up to Par” but CAVS 3 will be coming out hopefully by the middle of 2008.


Reason: Out-Dated post.