[OFF TOPIC]
The BOClean integrated version is the one inside the zip package (CIS_Setup_3.9.71965.483_XP_Vista_x32_BETA.exe) used to translate CIS? I installed it and I didn’t see the many options of BOClean configuration inside CIS.
i thought CIS 3.9 would have CIMA, when its released??
and i hope the memory scanner in CIS wont be like BOClean at startup , i removed it because it started up so slowly, (the blue color in tray icon)…
And what would you reccomend in terms of detection, which is what I asked… not performance\usability…
I still think however that this first line of defense is rather flawed method. It may work great for experienced users but for new users, popups may just seem too much and too hard to understand even with ThreatCast and all the descriptions. Thats why i still think behavior analysis is better option since it doesn’t ask as many questions and when it does popup, the detection is usually pretty obvious so clicking Block would be the right action most of the time. I’ve seen few D+ Heuristic detections so far and it would seem to be a logical thing to extend this from traditional HIPS to behavior analyzer. Behavior analyzers are basically a more sophisticated type of HIPS. It works similar, except it leaves most of the “thinking” to its rules and not to user.
Shouldn’t take long to impelment this since the base for it is basically already there.
That’s correct, just because it’s not integrated yet, does not mean it won’t be in the final release 
Beanie 
Well, i hope that is true. Because current heuristics are ■■■■■■ for me, while CIMA is a completely different story. More than for memory scanner, i’m waiting for CIMA…
You asked 2 questions:
- which product I would recommend as detecion for protection
my answer was: I do NOT recommend detection for protection
2)Then you asked what AV I would recommend if used as part of layered security.
my answer was: depending on what you use as first line of defense. And went onto and said if you use CIS you should use CAV and explained the reason.
I think the above 2 answers your questions.
If not can you pls expand your question.
thanks
Melih
Why should I keep comodo AV enable within CIS and not use another AV in comobo with it such as Avira\Avast! ? I don’t care about interms of usability or performance, I’m talking detection.
Wow…
Now can we expect CIMA heuristics in 3.9 or not?
That would be so awsome and cool! It wil make CIS more powerfull!
Because another AV is not needed. The AV in CIS is not even needed! D+ is there to stop everything, known and unknown. COMODO’s AV in CIS is for usability. Instead of answering D+ alerts for EVERY malware in the world, over 2.7 million are already defined and known as bad, resulting in less alerts for the user.
Defense+ is flawed. And, mostly, because it lacks a great database of well-known and digitally signed applications.
For Defense+, pretty much everything is unknown.
Personally, I don’t make use of antivirus. The prevention methods I use (not related to COMODO) do their job very well.
But, people are not looking for a ■■■■ anti-malware tool with usability in mind. They want a product capable of detecting as many malware as possible; being light on resources; something easy to setup, even though most will be set up by IT professionals, when people buy their systems, still they do need how to update and check their systems.
And, what the heck is this usability you guys and girls talk so much about? What the heck has that to do with anything? Does usability provide protection? Allow me to rephrase… Does usability provide efficient protection?
In what comes to anti-malware products, people WANT detection. And, also, not forgetting a security vendor capable of enhancing it’s product.
And, I almost forgot something, also, important… People want to know the product they will be getting, free or paid, is effective or not. And, for that, they need to know if any tests were done where that product is mentioned.
Let me rephrase…Do end users want to deal with a hard-to-configure, confusing, program? It doesn’t matter what protection CIS offers. If it is not user friendly, no average PC user will use it.
That’s exactly what I said. You just needed to read between the lines.
I said
Defense+ is flawed. And, mostly, because it lacks a great database of well-known and digitally signed applications.
For Defense+, pretty much everything is unknown.
It’s also known, for me, and others, that COMODO Anti-virus isn’t a match for other top notch anti-virus. I don’t say this based on tests I make, rather due to the fact that there aren’t any independent and professional tests done to it. People want to see that. I won’t be using this or that application if the vendor claims its the best. That means nothing. It only means the vendor wants people to use it. Either a free or paid product.
So, as a user, I like to know what the security applications I use are able to do.
By default, COMODO Internet Security comes with some of it’s important security settings disabled. That’s the reason why there are so few alerts. Not due to the fact there has been improvements in usability. Then, it also has an antivirus I don’t know if it’s any good or not, because simply there aren’t any tests done to it by independent and professional testers. Many other people think alike. I’m not targeting COMODO, but, a general view of security applications.
I also said
They want a product capable of detecting as many malware as possible; being light on resources; something easy to setup, even though most will be set up by IT professionals, when people buy their systems, still they do need how to update and check their systems.
Does COMODO Anti-virus fit to this purpose? I just don’t know. There aren’t any independent and professional tests done, by the already well-known organizations.
And, COMODO Ant-virus also includes Defense+. Flawed by nature, for the reason I mentioned before.
So, tell me how usable is this?
Defense+ is flawed. COMODO Internet Security default settings are crippled. COMODO Anti-virus, well, I just don’t know how great it is or not.
And, by the way, you don’t say with this reply that usability means effectiveness. And, I don’t see any usability in COMODO Internet Security, unless Defense+ settings are way too crippled, as they are by default.
May I ask why you argued that D+ is not usable (a valid point), and then after that, state that usablitly had nothing to do with anything? D+ lacking well-known digital signatures is related to usability.
I never said it was usable enough for the average user. Did I?
I agree with your assessment up to a point.If CIS implements a large enough whitelist of known good applications,then users of D+ would know to take heed of any pop-ups making the AV superfluous.At present though it’s still leaving too much up to the user to monitor and secure their own system,therefore a good AV is a vital safety net against an incorrect choice being made.
I’ll add a bit to this conversation: according to Melih, in CIS version 4 there will be a new technique which should improve D+ a lot. But I’m not sure if I’m at liberty to say what it is, as Melih posted it in a hidden board. ;D (But he may have posted it elsewhere…and I haven’t seen it.)
errr, it doesn’t matter which AV you use because no AV can detect 100% malware. so you better stick with CAV for usability & resource efficiency reason. is it correct?no? 88)
I’m afraid you’re confusing things.
I said that usability has nothing to do with the efficiency of an anti-malware tool. There are only two things people need to know - how to update it and not to eliminate everything considered a threat. As I said, most people won’t be installing such tools on their own. Some IT department does it, or some friend who told about this or that security tool, and tells the person how to use it.
So, lets stop with the excuse of usability for an antivirus not being part of an anti-malware test.
It’s just like the COMODO Internet Security being, technically (I really love this world…), number 1 at Matousec. Technically… But, do we really know for sure?
And, as you also state, COMODO’s tool is not usable, at all. By default, it’s protection settings are crippled, and that’s the reason a lot people at this forum states there are fewer alerts coming from Defense+. Well, set all settings up, and you shall see what happens.
So, one thing is for a IPS to be usable, one other an anti-malware tool, which needs to be effective at detecting. Lets stop with this nonsense about usability for an antivirus.
Its just plain stupid and fooling people.