Comodo A/V

[STV0726]

I am seriously considering replacing MSE on my netbook with CIS.

The three free big A's (Avira/Avast/AVG) just don't cut it for me. I don't like the usability or marketing.

[funnyfun]

Originally Posted by STV0726

I am seriously considering replacing MSE on my netbook with CIS.

The three free big A's (Avira/Avast/AVG) just don't cut it for me. I don't like the usability or marketing.

Im running CIS and Sandboxie on a 7 64, and after a few D+ pop ups being answered, its been as quite as MSE has been for me.

[DIgiDis]

Originally Posted by Victek123

I don't doubt that it works for you exactly as you've described, but you are an advanced user who doesn't need software to make decisions for you. False positives are only one potential problem of anti-malware software and the fact that you haven't experienced any with Comodo AV is anecdotal. The purpose of testing labs is to hopefully provide reproducible results which are more generally valid. No one is going to have exactly the same results, but chances are good that if the test methodology was solid you can expect results in the same ballpark. I would agree that CIS is quite powerful and effective in the hands of advanced users, but to say it is ridiculously easy to use makes me think you don't work with inexperienced users much. Being at least partially relieved of the burden of making decisions is part of what people are paying for when they buy security software.

Are there any malware programs that do everything without asking the user's intervention? I have never used one nor would I trust one. CIS functions much the same as AIS which I used previously. The only difference is the included HIPs that comes on when I install software sometimes. AIS did not relieve me of decision making. Maybe in the past Comodo was user intensive, but not anymore and my wife and 12yo daughter seem to get along great with CIS on their computers and they are very far from being experts.

Beyond the common fallacy that CIS is too complicated for the average user, another common fallacy is that noobs need anti-malware programs that hold their hands and do everything for them without any user intervention. I would bet most security programs that require no intervention are the main reasons for "Why can't I connect to the Internet" when the unobtrusive firewall blocks something and "Why is this new AV saying I am seriously infected and must pay again for it to clean my computer" when their computer gets infected by a Rogue AV. Noobs need to quickly learn how to go beyond noob. Making things idiot proof is just creating better idiots. These companies trying to make idiot proof software would be more useful if they actually provided better knowledge on how to use the program to avoid malware.

[DIgiDis]

Originally Posted by funnyfun

With both CIS and Sandboxie you still feel the need for a VM?

I use VMs for testing programs before I commit them to my main machines. This keeps things cleaner on the main machine and provides for a great risk free testing environment. I do video and music production and need my computers lean and mean.

I am a long-time Sandboxie user after dealing with a nasty infection on my wife's computer. Sandboxing the browsers has kept all our computers sparkling clean.

[Breakfastofchumps]

Personally I wouldn't trust comodo as far as I could throw them, I've just uninstalled comodo firewall for that reason among others. The av is weak in comparison to the free av's it's competing with.

[Victek123]

Originally Posted by DIgiDis

Are there any malware programs that do everything without asking the user's intervention? I have never used one nor would I trust one. CIS functions much the same as AIS which I used previously. The only difference is the included HIPs that comes on when I install software sometimes. AIS did not relieve me of decision making. Maybe in the past Comodo was user intensive, but not anymore and my wife and 12yo daughter seem to get along great with CIS on their computers and they are very far from being experts.

Beyond the common fallacy that CIS is too complicated for the average user, another common fallacy is that noobs need anti-malware programs that hold their hands and do everything for them without any user intervention. I would bet most security programs that require no intervention are the main reasons for "Why can't I connect to the Internet" when the unobtrusive firewall blocks something and "Why is this new AV saying I am seriously infected and must pay again for it to clean my computer" when their computer gets infected by a Rogue AV. Noobs need to quickly learn how to go beyond noob. Making things idiot proof is just creating better idiots. These companies trying to make idiot proof software would be more useful if they actually provided better knowledge on how to use the program to avoid malware.

Automation in security software is a matter of degree. I expect you remember earlier versions of the Comodo Firewall and the pop-up storm it was capable of creating. When I tested CIS v5 recently I saw that it has improved in that regard, but don't think it's as user friendly as (for instance) Norton Internet Security. You're correct that sometimes automation creates problems because the logic can't be 100% accurate, but I think NIS does better than a great many users would. As far as users becoming better educated about security do you really feel there's a lack of information available? My experience is average users have very little understanding of the increasing complexity of attack vectors and how security software tries to protect against attacks. Some people are even afraid to say yes to Windows Update or security software updates because they can't determine what's legitimate and what isn't. Regarding your family using CIS remember they have you as a resource if they have questions. In the working world there are I.T. departments to help ordinary users. Home users really need more support from professionals, but they would have to be willing to pay for it.

[DIgiDis]

^^ Actually I was a noob when I found Wilders 5 or so years ago and learned what I needed to know about security here. I hope most others have done so as well. Keeping a Windows machine clean, lean and mean is not so hard and there are a lot of great programs available that do a great job.

I am a big proponent of learning proactively and staying ahead of potential computer threats, so I occasionally peruse this forum to stay on top of my security options. On the other hand, I also think that people have to learn from their mistakes if they are not willing to be proactive. Luckily computer viruses and malware are not fatal. Computer literacy has to go far beyond learning the basics of MS Word and how to access Facebook. I just think it is a requisite of Windows that a minimum of computer security savvy must be obtained or suffer the consequences. Norton, Comodo, ESET, Kaspersky, Avast and all others can try to be as user friendly as possible but all fail to be 100% capable of protecting un-savvy users and today there isn't a a clear winner in user friendliness between them.

[funnyfun]

Originally Posted by DIgiDis

I use VMs for testing programs before I commit them to my main machines. This keeps things cleaner on the main machine and provides for a great risk free testing environment. I do video and music production and need my computers lean and mean.

I am a long-time Sandboxie user after dealing with a nasty infection on my wife's computer. Sandboxing the browsers has kept all our computers sparkling clean.

I wonder if Sandboxie is all one may need? Ive never had a problem while useing Sandboxie by itself. However people smarter then i have said its not enough protection on its own, but ive never heard of anyone actually being infected.

[lordraiden]

Originally Posted by Breakfastofchumps

Personally I wouldn't trust comodo as far as I could throw them, I've just uninstalled comodo firewall for that reason among others. The av is weak in comparison to the free av's it's competing with.

Yes we all can see that you unistalled Comodo Fw because some invented reason, thanks for share it.
And in your opinion the AV is weak compared with avira, avast...? sorry but the tests don't agree with you

______
And about sandboxie, using the manual CIS sandbox fulfill most of the needs of security of an average user, if you want something more advanced sandboxie is a better option, but both sandbox offers the same protection.

[3x0gR13N]

Originally Posted by lordraiden

And in your opinion the AV is weak compared with avira, avast...? sorry but the tests don't agree with you

Depends on how you define a "weak AV". If you consider a high FP rate (over 500 FPs on AVC) as one of the characteristics of a weak AV, then yes CAV is inferior to avast and avira, at least according to AVC.
...that's all I'll say on the matter, as the thread is yet again succumbing to emotions of certain members towards a particular AV.

[Montmorency]

Originally Posted by lordraiden

sandboxie is a better option, but both sandbox offers the same protection.

Do they?

I remember when Comodo AV completely messed thousands of systems and the official response was "a member of our staff made a mistake".
I remember when Comodo Time Machine caused more destruction than most viruses and the issue was ignored and CTM was discontinued.
I remember when Autoruns was blatantly used without permission but Comodo insisted it was their own code.
I remember other situations with Sysinternals, the BoClean situation, the Softpedia situation.... I could go on...

If we compare this with the professionalism, attention, kindness ot Tzuk (the developer of Sandboxie) we'll have two different attitudes; and those are reflected in the respective products.

I would always trust a serious man and mistrust a sad excuse for a clown.

[Breakfastofchumps]

Tests don't agree with me?? what tests?? From what I've read comodo failed avc miserably. To the point where comdos ceo resulted to insults.

[Breakfastofchumps]

Originally Posted by 3x0gR13N

Depends on how you define a "weak AV". If you consider a high FP rate (over 500 FPs on AVC) as one of the characteristics of a weak AV, then yes CAV is inferior to avast and avira, at least according to AVC.
...that's all I'll say on the matter, as the thread is yet again succumbing to emotions of certain members towards a particular AV.

Got it in one thank you. I'm not saying that cav isn't heading in the right direction I just think comodo av has a way to go before it can compete with the top free av's.

[trjam]

been about 3 years now, how much longer do they need.

[Cudni]

Comodo AV has come a long way from when it first started. It has overcome most if not all of the issues it was plagued by and is ever improving. Slowly but surely it is becoming part of pantheon of good AVs. We have however reached a saturation point in this thread necessitating its closure. As always I thank you for your comments.