Why trust Comodo firewall but not Comodo antivirus.

I see so many people saying that Comodo Firewall is brilliant, but we don’t trust Comodo antivirus. Why? Just because so and so said it is not good. Where is so and so’s proof who made him the judge of good and bad? Please stop defaming a company as good as Comodo, we all need to be grateful that such a good bunch of people are doing thier absolute best to supply us with very worthwhile free software. Give Comodo constructive criticism, but don’t defame a company based on opinions. I’m just an average user who puts a lot of thanks and trust in Comodo. Thanks and Kind regards to everyone.

Thanks to Melih’s post, I changed my view to “nice, I should try CIS” to “wow… I should use another AV”.

It’s a little bit sad because I came here to learn a little more about this nice product, but his latest posts made me realize something.

First CAV is presented to av-comparatives to pass the tests. AV-C deliver their report and CAV isn’t in it. Then Melih starts saying it’s not important and AV is there to improve usability. By saying that, he puts himself his own software in the background.

So, why should we use CAV instead of another AV if it’s not important?

I didn’t have any wrong thoughts about CIS before Melih starts driving away the users from this board by posting some strange stuff. Too much default deny in there…

To Syl. IMO Melih was just saying antivirus is not the most important factor to security if all other security measures are working properly. What is to say other security software would be any different? Maybe the CEO on thier forums. Also I do respect the fact that av-comparitives is most likely a very good test, but my opinion and not based on facts is that I don’t have trust in any form of artificial testing. Each to thier own thoughts and opinions. I did ask the question, I do expect positive and negative replies and thanks for your honesty in your reply. Kind regards.

@Syl

There is nothing new about Melih saying that the av is not important for the protection given by CIS.

People keep on and on in the forum about avc like it’s an obsession, so I would think he is tired of having to repeat himself.

No antivirus can offer full protection as you will see by reading the topics in malware help forums.

There are many other av tests which show the Comodo av performing well compared with others.

I don’t really want to troll this board, but it doesn’t answer “why should I use CAV instead of another AV?”

We didn’t really see the detection rate of CAV (and CAV only, without D+ and sandbox). I know D+ and sandbox can stop everything, I can use them without AV.

But I can use another AV to reduces popup from D+ for example. That’s why I don’t really like when he tries to minimize the impact of AV-C, it’s clumsy. Of course an AV can’t protect against everything, but it’s still important to silently kill known threats.

I still get some FP from Chrome extension, that’s where a better AV would shine, by not scaring the user with fake alert.

our detection ratio is well above 90% according to many tests out there…
We are eagerly looking forward to AVC tests so that public can see how good CAV is.

Because in CIS AV component is used for usability, and because CAV is an integrated part of our defense, you would not see popups for what is already known to be malware.

If you have a clean PC and using CIS, i do not see the benefit of using another AV for on Access.

The only benefit would be, (and this is only and only if you know that AV detects more than CAV), you would know how to answer the D+ alert, if the other AV picks it up as malware and CAV didn’t. So again, its a usability benefit on the malware that CAV doesn’t detect that the other AV detected.

Melih

Feel the same.

Please understand, you might be an educated user who understand how to mix and match and tweak things and understand the value of “detection” tests in this scenerio to be a “usability” rather than “protection”.

but majority others don’t!

So my messages are to make sure people understand that “detection” is NOT “protection” necessarily.

As to using other AV to reduce Popups…sure that works only if the other AV detects more than CAV does…and how many alerts will that be over 1 year period for an average user? How many malware will the user come accross that other AV detects that we don’t? Not many!

Melih

I’m not saying other avs are bad, just why not use Comodo. It is free. No advertising, not in your face to buy paid product. Integrates well with Comodo Firewall, no doubts about compatability here. Doesn’t add extra uneeded services and runs light and fast. From a very reliable and friendly company that is not fighting to get our money. Extraordinary good support forums and e-mail support. Runs better than most others on older systems IMO and not just newer systems. Adds another form of security without adding a ton of extra bloat. Very polished and beautiful design, from a highly respected security company that do much more than just Antivirus and Firewalls. All this and still good reliable detection and protection. And I am finding it an absolute pleasure to use and learn its functions. Everyone is welcome to use another av and I am not saying don’t, I just find Comodo does offer equally as much or maybe even more all bundled into one so why not give it a chance. I could go on but my typing fingers are getting tired. Kind regards.

CAV Engine is new in AV market.
But current Detection oc CAV is better than old player that’s used for a longer time.
I wish CAV will be better soon after practice in most well known independence labs.