why i didn't install cis AV

Just wanted to give you my feedback about cis (even if it’s not very usefull… :P)

I installed Cis FW on my pcs and finally didn’t keep the AV. I installed avast AV instead … :-X

Indeed, even if i think that cis av is better than avast’s (more reactive to new threats), cis AV slows down my computers (at the bootup , launch of applications and when i browse the explorer ) . For example, when i browse a folder with a lot of files (mostly executables) in the explorer, it takes a very long time (compared to avast) for cis to scan the whole folder and show the icons. :-TD. With avast, it’s almost immediate… and nicer to use…

i would return to the full cis protection if comodo gave me the same impression of fluidity in my computer using as avast does…

ok that’s all for tonight… just wanted to explain why a better everyday feeling is sometimes better than a better protection… :wink: 88)

The Comodo AV is not more reactive to new threats than Avast! is. The combination of D+ and the AV is responsible for that with the AV playing a minor role, if any. If you’re using Avast! and also using D+ you’re just as well protected from new threats and actually maybe better even though some of the multiple shields of Avast! may be redundant.

What are you basing this on? I have tested both programs against zero day many times, and the AV portion of CIS is comparable to Avast in that regard IMO.

How can you test the av on it’s own without the contributions of the rest of CIS? I’ve never seen anyone do that and don’t even know if it’s possible.

I would think setting D+ and the firewall to “Disabled” while leaving the AV enabled would do the trick. I don’t know if anyone has done any testing this way, but it seems simple enough.

All AVs can be susceptible to zero-day attacks, regardless of the brand.

Yesterday, my wife (who is a consulting accountant) visited a client whose PC infected her flash drive (ZAR backdoor trojan). This clients PC was running AVG (fully updated). This flash drive was subsequently used on three other clients systems. These three other systems were running fully updated versions of avast!, Panda and NIS2010. None of these three systems alerted her that her flash drive was infected.

When she returned to her office, she scanned her flash drive in a segregated PC. This is her standard procedure when bringing removable storage devices that have been used on a foreign system into the office. CIS AV (not D+) provided an alert as soon as the drive was inserted.

Now I have to go and make some money cleaning four LANs. :wink:

Ewen :slight_smile:

Don't even know if it's possible.
If you like a standalone comodo AV http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/free-download.html It's the second one down :-TU
How can you test the av on it's own without the contributions of the rest of CIS?
Open the defence+ section --> click "advanced --> defence settings ---> move the tab to "disable Open firewall seciton --> click advanced --> firewall behavior settings ---> move to disable

You didn’t answer my question. Anyway, you can do as others say and disable D+, sandbox, etc. Also, the alert windows are easy to tell if it is an AV alert, or if it moved passed onto the other lines of defense.

What are you basing this on?
I agree too "clocks" I was wondering what "Dch48" is basing that on. I've done my own testing too (Past, Present, and soon to come Future)

Not exactly, they allow exactly the flexibility and the protection level to not degrade performance. When you need a deeper scanner, you use a specialized shield, giving a better balance of the computer resources.

I’m basing it on all the tests I’ve seen done where the AV was not tested strictly on it’s own but was always tested with the other components of the suite still active. I don’t believe any of the reputable testing organizations have really tested just the AV so saying that it is better than Avast! at detecting new things can not be supported. CAV was designed to work in conjunction with and to complement the other parts of CIS and that’s where it functions the best. I think that if you’re going to install CIS including the AV as part of the package is a good way to go and I don’t think a different AV would protect you any better unless the D+ HIPS is turned off. Then I would rather have a different AV like Avast!.

ok, I don’t think that it’s easy to compare the performance of those AV (one will be better one day, on one threat and the other will be better the next day)…

I just wanted to point the fact that CAV needs to improve its scanning in term of fluidity … i know that files are scanned once and then not scanned until the next update(wich improves browsing speed !) but the first time they are scanned the pcs is really slowing down (cf my example of opening a full of .exe folder).

I have this issue too in Vista 32bit. I’ve done a little test, because I noticed that my pc was a bit slown down: like OpenOffice took more time to open (I’d say about 20% more), folders opened slower than usual, etc. I then deactivated the antivirus in CIS and everything was back to normal.

Then I unistalled the av (keeping the fw and d+) and installed Avira and it goes fine as usual. it seems to be an issue related to Comodo antivirus, even in stateful.

I haven´t seen any kind of real malware of my computer for years. I think that I could survive without AV software but i would keep Comod firewall with Defence+ installed. I have been using F-Secure IS 2010 on my XP OS and since I got Win 7 I have used Comodo ISC on it. F-Secure has alerted me few times of a-squared free virus signatures so I know that it is FP. Comodo AV is giving a lot more FP´s than F-Secure or avast! or Avira. And that is the reason why I can`t install it to other my family computers. I can handle these FP warnings but other family members can´t. But when F-Secure is using 72 MB of ram, Comodo uses only 20 MB :-TU

It would be interesting to see how Comodo AV performs at alone. I have wathed languy99 videos and it seems that Defence+ is doing most of the work. Are AV-Comparatives planning to include Comodo to their tests? Nothing personal but these video reviews are quite narrow minded. How we can know if tester is picking those links or malwares which tester knows that the AV program what he is currently testing recognises them or don´t? And 10 malicious links aren´t enought. You need hundreds of them to see the whole picture.

I hope that you guys keep improving and make Comodo the very best AV software in the world! And sorry for my English skills. I hope that you understand. :wink:

My own little story on the power of CIS’ AV:

I used to use CIS (D+ and Firewall only), alongside Avast! (with all it’s shields running).
The girlfriend was regularly visiting game and gaming sites every day.
Each week I would run a full scan (Avast!, MB, SAS) and always found viruses lurking on my system.
Once CIS’ AV reached a maturity I felt comfortable with (after 3.5), I switched to CIS full only (uninstalled Avast!).
Since then I have not found even one virus lurking on my system.

Don’t claim Avast!'s multiple scanners can do a better more detailed job, it is false security, and chews up additional clock cycles and memory per scanner.

I haven’t found any malware on my system that got by my protection in over 4 years and that’s with using Norton Internet Security up to June of 2009, then CIS from June 2009 to May of this year and now Avast! since May. Avast! in that short time has blocked 2 viruses in uTorrent downloads using the P2P shield and a couple of things on web pages with it’s web shield. In the year that I used the full CIS, it never blocked anything with D+ or the AV but did have 3 or 4 false positives when running full scans.

I find that Avast! does not impact my system any more than the others and I feel well protected with it for as much as an AV can provide. I’m about to install it on the other machine and dump MSE after the recent program update disaster that they refuse to accept any blame for even though they admit it has affected thousands of users.

Although CIS has never let any Malware onto my computer in over a year with not so much as a single tracking cookie detected in frequent scans Norton Internet Insecurity let a Downloading Trojan through shortly after I bought my computer which I had a horrible time removing. NIS also gave me an innumerable number of false ‘Bloodhound.Exploit 13’ alerts one for each time I resized a digital photo which for a photographer is extremely annoying and very distracting.

~Maxx~

I used Norton Antivirus from 2001-2005 and then Norton Internet Security from 2005-2009 and though it blocked a good number of things, not one thing ever got through it and I never had a false positive in all that time. I’d go back to it in a heartbeat if I wanted to start paying for security again but since I don’t see a reason for that, I feel pretty good with what I have.

Very well heeled from charging excessive fees Norton paid HP enough money to have NIS 2008 pre-installed on my computer without my consent and unfortunately it very quickly failed miserably and let Malware through. No wonder the Matousec Security Challenge gives NIS 2010 a 40% ‘Very Poor’ failing score and not recommend status. I have Comodo to thank for freeing my computer of the horribly inept pay per disappointment Norton Internet Insecurity and providing my computer with the top rated Comodo Internet Security and for free at that!

Norton AV and NIS may have been decent security software in distant years past I know my 80 year old Dad used it as well as Norton Ghost and liked it very much, but those days are long gone and by the looks of it they will never catch Comodo who was left them in the dust when it comes to innovative, highly effective and top scoring proven protection.

~Maxx~

[attachment deleted by admin]

I’d used CIS with AV for about a year and then switched to Avast 5 early this year. CAV just like a beta product or WIP in my experience.

There are few reviews or comparisons for CAV. Within those few comparisons, CAV’s detection rate is more or less the same or just a bit lower than AVAST. However, this is not my reason for the switching.

I decided to switch because CAV

  1. has too many FPs and I need to report those FPs nearly every month.
  2. CAV’s bug caused start up problem for some programs and that take days to be admitted and be fixed by the development team.

I remember there was also a debate here too and some members warned me that the switch would not solve my problems. Now, I 'm happy that I have made the decision and avoided the above problems since the switch.