The most important part of “Security” is “Prevention” …
there are many (MANY) different techniques of detection…one could go on and spend a huge amount of money investing in trying to do all these detection techniques, they will still allow infections in the PC 
Where AV vendors should be spending money is “prevention”. Comodo is leading the pack when it comes to “prevention”. and we will continue to do that…of course we are also improving our detection technologies for better usability.
Melih
The thing I LOVE about Comodo is it has a white AND black list. 
Most AVs have JUST a black list so if a file is not on there it can play on the computer all it wants. Comodo checks 2 lists and if its not there puts it in a lil padded room for it to run amuk in until it decides if its OK or not.
I know exactly what you are going to be selling in future posts. Nothing. It’s not going to happen around here. We have a strict no spam policy. Spammers are banned, no questions asked.
So I would strongly suggest you rethink your ideas of trying to ‘sell’ anything here… :P0l
If that Norton link on your blog would have been an affiliate link, you’d already be gone.
Pfft. LOLZ indeed. Interesting diversion/deflection. But, clearly not the issue here.
Well, at least, you now know how not begin I guess. :-\
I am not selling anything here , and if anyone posts something about Norton you all go crazy for some unknown reasons ??? . . . … what I am trying to sell through my blog is awareness you ll see in future posts . . . . i don’t think selling awareness comes under your spam policy 
Blade, the mistrust and suspicion toward you has nothing to do with Norton. It has to do with the fact that you misrepresented your affiliation with the link that you posted here. You failed to reveal a conflict of interest, and it appeared to be intentional.
Why not say something like: “I wrote this article on Norton SONAR and I feel that Comodo may benefit from similar technology.”?
Many here in the forum suspect that you covered-up your involvement in the link because you have a hidden agenda (such as trying to advertise yourself, trying to get traffic to your link, trying to sell something, etc.).
Your post below certainly seemed to confirm their suspicion:
Legitimate posting about any security program (including Norton) is welcome. However, we request that users make these posts without being deceitful and unscrupulous.
Unfortunately, whether you intended to be deceitful or not, you have lost the trust of the forum. I believe the only way to redeem yourself is to earn the trust back.
Edits: typos fixed
BLADE is too funny.
Could he be any more transparent?
But don’t ban him; we really need a “malware (:NRD) expert” here in the forum…haha.
Yes, definitely intentional. The better post is this one…
Note the bold-face text. (bold added by myself) Yeah, that’s not attempting to mislead anyone at all… 88)
Comodo already have a SONAR-like technology. It is also knows as Heuristics + Executables Whitelisting (in this one, Comodo was the first file reputation “service”).
Maybe CIS is one step back cause it’s behavioral detection tools aren’t in the cloud as Norton and McAfee
+1
Comodo become like Norton? I dread the thought because the complete failure of Norton to protect my computer by not only flagrantly allowing Malware into the computer, but worse yet letting the HOSTS file be corrupted on 2 different occasions which eventually led to the computer crashing. Fortunately Norton’s ineptness at computer security led me to Comodo in order to find a higher and more trusted level of computer security which I have found in Comodo Internet Security and for the last 3 years both of my computers have been completely clean and their HOSTS files have remained uncontaminated as a result all for the price of absolutely free!
~Maxx~
Please don’t drag my Computer like Norton please!!!
I’ve been informed (multiple times) that Norton is no longer is as heavy on system resources as it once was.
Yes, now it comes with a bottle of oxygen
Every Security Suite vendor claims to have the ultimate in protection against zero-day threats. They all use various types of heuristic analysis to decide whether unknown software contains malware. This analysis usually includes behavior monitoring and statistics to decide whether unknown software is malicious, and sometimes it is wrong.
I don’t know if CIS has an equivalent to the SONAR “Pre-Classification” analysis. If not, it would be worth investigating. I’m sure that Comodo claims that heuristic analysis in CIS is more advanced than any of the competition. The only really important feature is the amount of protection provided, and as there is no standard way to measure protection objectively we just get caught in the crossfire between between supporters of each product. I believe the only realistic way to compare protection between products is using large-scale surveys.
Comodo keeps saying that detection rate is not important. This is misleading. What Comodo should be saying is that high detection rate alone does not automatically give high protection because it can’t protect against zero-day threats. Meanwhile they should be improving the detection rate (to reduce reliance on heuristic analysis) and improving the heuristic analysis because heuristics are the source of almost all wrong decisions about malware.
Norton can keep their Sonar and put it where the sun don’t shine, i believe what’s to come from Comodo will be miles better.
I have complete faith in this company :-TU
Last Symantec product on any of my machines was back in the windows 95 days.
Let’s say i have not forgiven them since ;D
Comodo is steadily improving its detection rate. Heuristics will get a boost with new cloud technologies being developed as we speak.
But here is the catch with the protection CIS can bring. Nor signatures nor av heuristics are needed. During testing of CIS v5 Comodo tested the sandbox against 15,000 malwares and they were not able to infect the system. That gives an idea of the scope of CIS protection capabilities. No heuristics needed; just smart use of limiting of what programs are allowed and not allowed to do when they are not known.
That requires a head switch. Being provocative can help to start people think about it. Who needs signatures if sandboxing can do a great deal? To quote Melih from several years ago: av is only needed to reduce the amount of D+ alerts (on a side note: in CIS 4 and up the sandbox is reducing D+ alerts significantly).
In general I would have to agree with EricJH.
I believe that what CIS could improve on is compatibility of the sandbox. Imagine how incredible CIS would be if almost any program could run in the sandbox without any problems, while at the same time not being able to harm the computer.
If the need to remove unknown programs from the sandbox in order to get them to run was removed, then I truly believe that CIS would be nearly perfect. It’s at that time that additional fixes to detection could be improved, only so that it would be even easier to use.
At least that’s where my priorities lie. What do you guys think?
i agree. thats why i almost always use only the firewall and defense +. i have no need for an AV period. Hips/sandbox is plenty. Hopely with v6 comodo takes a big step closer to that perfect sandbox where most apps can run perfectly in the sandbox while malware cannot infect the system
we will most definitely improve our Sandboxing technology!