Challenge to Symantec from Comodo CEO!

Enough said. That guy is certifiable. He has a long documented history of this kind of stuff.

 

I read it the same way.

+2 - im also still bugged with loads of popups even in v 5, so ill give it another year to develop.

 

Really? That sounds really cool. How do I know it's safe, though? Is Comodo going to pop up a message and tell me that it is? What if the program I'm trying to run doesn't work properly in the sandbox?

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, I also seem to remember that their AV is best described by a 4-letter word that starts with S...

 

While I don't like Symantec's bashing of free products, I have also often seen Melih/Comodo bashing their competitors. At the same time I see some security companies cooperating with eachother, without any bashing of other products of the industry. And I'd rather stick with them if possible, as long as they give as good protection as these "aggressive" companies.

 

As far as I know they will be participating before the end of this year.

Melih is just making free propaganda.

 

I'm not going to lose my time explaning how, you can start a new thread if you are interested, Comodo is not for everybody? yes and? What if Norton does not tell you that the file is unsafe?
How do you know that all the software that you have installed is safe? Norton told you?

 

If you are using online armor, as I can see in your signature, It's really giving online armor to you less popups than Comodo? I mean you dont use Comodo because according to you has many popups but you use online armor.
Remember when you installed onlinearmor the first time, not now that is trained.

 

Getting back on topic

Melih is a "character" and knows how to play the game, which is exactly what it is. I'm not saying i agree with all he's said and done, but lots of people seem quite happy to use his software inspite of that

He's either Very confident of winning, or extremely foolish/arrogant !

How about if Symantec had a FULL test done against Comodo, and they turned the tables on Melih I wonder what he'd say then !

Actually i don't see any legal reasons why Comodo couldn't have the FULL Comodo v Symantec/Norton tests independently done, and publish them. So "if" there aren't any, why doesn't he ?

 

Let me copy paste this to Melih

 

Feel free to go right ahead

 

http://forums.comodo.com/general-di...-comodo-ceo-t62041.0.html;msg437869#msg437869

Done, waiting to see what happens xD

 

It's really simple case here.
Comodo may say that nothing can het through , but with alerts from D+ and auto-sandboxing. Okay, nothing wrong with that.
But that's not user-friendly and many good programs got sandboxed.
CAV is FULL of FP's , I scanned all drives full scan with norton , it found 4 items and quarantine it.
Same scan with Comodo but without that 4 items which were in quarantine, and it found more then 50 items (ALL FP's for sure, 100%)
There are no 'maybe's , but's, we don't know, you decide stuff' with Norton , if it's bad it will be blocked and that's the end of story.
With Comodo you're busy all the time ...

 

Those fp's were keygens and cracks? I mean the policy of almost all the AV companies is include the keygen and cracks (even if they are "safe") as malware.

 

Well i guess it's put up or shut up now

 

Why yes of course. That's how antivirus products work. If they don't see anything wrong with a file, that means they think it's safe.

My question was why would I need Comodo if I have to know which files are safe to run or not. Surely that's a rather simple question that can be answered in a single post, instead of an entire thread?

 

Sorry I didnt know that Norton have detected and will detect the 100% of malware.

To run the files in the sandbox that you are not sure if they are safe.
How Comodo knows if a file is safe/unsafe? AV, Cloud AV scanning, CLoud Behaviour Blocker, Cloud Whitelist, Local Whitelist, D+.
How do you now if a file is safe or not, or how you can suspect that a file is not safe? Here is when you need to open a new thread.

 

Of course not, I have maybe 3 keygens/cracks (for Revo, TheBat and VMware) , that's it.

But never mind, I love Comodo, I was using it for years, just think that Norton works better in every way.
But that's not Comodo's fault, they just have more $$$ and they are selling their product while Comodo is free.
I think that Comodo would solve all their problems if their suite would work internally, I mean if it's unknown file and there is no signature for it, run it in sandbox and see what it does, if it's doing something malicious, block it and delete it.

 

what does this discussion have to do with online armor?

my sig CLEARLY tells what I'm testing and nothing else. what ever goods or bads I have with online armor, there's no need for that here. I'm also testing comodo but just haven't updated my sig. but again what does this have to do with this tread and my comment - please enlighten us

 

Neither did I, actually. But I daresay it'll actually perform the task I purchased it to do instead of pushing the job back at me.

I really don't want to sound mean, but despite all this it still doesn't know whether iTunes and Matlab are safe to run?

And learn how to do the job I installed Comodo to do in the first place?

This is the product that's supposed to provide better protection than Norton? By leaving everything up to the user so that the blame also rests on the user when something goes awry?

 

You said

I already told you:
It's giving online armor to you less popups than Comodo?

If you think that is offtopic just send me a PM.

 

I spend the money in other things, and I'm equally safe. The people have different priorities.

I said that I use software like Matlab, I didnt say that Matlab was not in the whitlist.
Read again my post about itunes, you didnt understand it.

You dont have to learn nothing, I already explained you, go back and read it again,... and now read it again....
Is quite clear that you dont understand how Comodo works or you dont want or you have never use it, or like I said like 20 times and you keep ignoring, COMODO is not for everybody. Ask to the people in the forum that not use any AV on real time how they protect their systems.
So if you dont want to run it inside the sandbox, run it out of the sandbox that's all, Comodo will tell you if is safe or not like norton does.

 

I am pleased to hear that Comodo will participate in the AV-Comparatives tests. As a consequence, the “challenge” by Comodo is pure puffery, since the desired comparison is already scheduled to occur.

 

From your comments about Comodo so far, it seems like you need to be knowledgeable enough to not need it in order to use it. As far as I can see, you'd be just as safe with or without it.

So the reason you suggested me to ask questions a new thread is for me to... learn nothing?

If that's the case, I think it goes without saying that Comodo is going to fail at its job of protecting the user far more than Norton will.

 

I told my opinion about Comodo, and suddently U begin talking about Online Armor which is clearly stated in my thread as been tested (And yes Online Armor has some popups but I still wanna test it, like with Comodo, Kaspersky, Norton, Mcafe, AVG and all the others). U should be sending my PM's for offtoping But clearly U dont see that, so no need to try to tell U again. I wont be reading in here anymore, so If U dont get my point, read post 102, 118 and this one till U do get it

 

As I said many times in this thread I understand that some people find Comodo annoying because is more intrusive than a traditional AV. I understand that Comodo is not ready to be used by everybody.
And like I said I prefer to talk about the claim of symantec "only full paid suites will protect you", than about Comodo or what Melih says.