Challenge to Symantec from Comodo CEO!

Well, thing is, a company that talks crap with a product that fails is inherently much more interesting than a company that talks crap but makes a product that actually works...

 

Can you prove that Comodo fails for everybody? or we need your special imagination?

And like usual you are wrong, Comodo/Melih didn't say anything bad about Norton. Norton said that you have to pay if you want to be safe, and this is crap like the web popups telling you that you are infected.

 

One thing is what you understand and another what the people say.

No, disabling the sandbox is a very special case for people like you, that dont want to learn. The rest of the people can use the sandbox if they use Comodo.

 

It's easy; Comodo is a product that leaves it up to the user to do the job that the user installed it for in the first place. Simple observation and logic, no imagination required (I'm pretty bad at imagination, actually).

Don't want to learn? But... but... didn't you just say that I didn't need to learn anything?

My dear lad, may I suggest you take a break and calm down so you can decide what to spin to others, and be consistent about it...

 

I deleted my post before I knew you were quoting it. Deleted for its scolding tone, sorry. You know that the software has problems, you don't need me to tell you that, or how to conduct your campaigns. If I don't want a stomach ache, I'll just not read any of these sorts of Comodo threads.

 

Norton alerts for the exe's not very common even if they are safe, do I have to delete them?
All the AV's need the user intervention some more other less, I already explain you how to deal with the files detailed. Resuming, If the file run in the sandbox, is not whitlisted, and if does not work and you want to be sure that is safe, upload it to VT or any other method, like what is the source of the app.
You are still ignoring that Comodo is not for everybody, a lot of people is able to deal with Comodo without any problem, if you don't understand it is not my fault. A lot of people uses sandboxie or similar programs, even karsperky and avast AV's designed for any person include a sandbox, of course they are able to understand what is a sandbox and how to use it, and you dont.

I though that you already know how to use Comodo, are you talking about a product without having any idea how it works or how to use it? please dont make us lose our time.

 

At least you could explain to EICE how do you deal with sandboxie. Or how a sandbox helps in the security of a system.
Accoring to EICE software like sandboxie is totally useless. Why somebody will spend time programming a useles software?

 

The challenge is largely irrelevant. 5 years down the line, Symantec will still be one of the biggest security companies with one of the biggest revenue streams and profits, and Comodo will still be irrelevant to the majority of the security market.

Comodo will not be able to penetrate the market with an inferior or even superior product for a vast and varied amount of reasons.

 

i'm sure that someone, somewhere will find a reason why it's not a true "comparison" and that it's just a test of detection rather than protection, etc, ad infinitum.

 

Only the people that dont read the title of the report. That depends which kind of AVC test, dynamic test, Retrospective/Proactive Test or On-demand Comparative. The first one is more about protection it measure the protection that the full product gives, the other two are more about detection of the AV component.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests

 

No you shouldn't. Except that that is a design flaw that the virus lab seeks to fix, whereas Comodo's false positives are just how it works. Oh wait, they're not even false positives at all, it's the user's fault for not being able to tell whether the files are safe.

OR you could just upload it to VT and not bother with Comodo's ding dang doodles.

It's really amusing how you argue yourself blue in the face about how ignorant I am and how I'm not understanding you, when you're doing an outstanding job yourself of showing just exactly how and why Comodo is useless and unnecessary.

 

So I have to ignore all the norton alerts or just some of them? do you throw a coin to the air?


Yes you are right, you are ultra intelligent and Karsperky, Avast, Comodo, Sandboxie and many other security products that uses a sandbox are for stupid people, they are so stupid that they know how to use a sandbox, and all this companyes plenty of security experts are stupids because they have invested money in develop a sandbox, it is quite clear. Meanwhile you spend your money unnecessarily.

 

Please keep the discussion objective and without becoming personal. Thank you all

 

Reading all this reminds me that I can pretty much just run a light AV, like Avast or AVG along with Sandboxie. It would give me pretty much the same protection as Comodo, without all hassle getting my programs to work.

 

Bingo ^^

Wish others here would understand that!

 

Good points by all sides/parties....I think each of us is entitled to our own individual opinion. Whether or not Comodo is 'ready' depends on which target market you're looking at and your own personal experience with it - that counts a lot seeing that our experience with a product (be it good/bad) affects our interpretation and judgment of it. And how we praise/criticize it. And whether we would recommend it to others - be it friends, online forum members or even 'noob' users.

Ultimately, one must not forget that what works on my system may not necessarily work for you. And what works for you and your way of computing may not be the same as mine. As long as there's a brain_RC.exe, you can bet that the head and tail of a coin can never meet.

Comodo or Norton, annoying or install-and-forget setup, marketing/propaganda or facts, whatever your argument is - one thing remains the same...you make the choice of which to install and use on your PC.

 

Of course not. Why would you install an antivirus product just to ignore its warnings (unless that product was Comodo)? My point was that Norton was designed to produce accurate warnings, even though it may not be absolutely perfect. Comodo, on the other hand, was designed to make you throw a coin to the air.

You might want to realize that Sandboxie has always been and continues to be a niche product, while Kaspersky and avast! actually have competent antivirus engines and signature databases. Comodo, having failed at creating a effective product, tries to mask their incompetence by generating a lot of hot air about how their product delivers unparalleled protection. Their system is absolutely ingenuous when you pause to think about it. "Oh no, a virus slipped past? It's not our fault, you didn't use our product right."

 

Ahh, what would I do without my daily dose of Comodo fighting? I'm not even sure why Melih would even issue ANY challenge against even a decently known competitor. I mean, his products are used by, hmm, let's see, about as many users as Opera has? Everything that company, under his infinite wisdom, creates is absolute junk that destroys systems more than anything, until it's been through at least 4 release versions and God, I can't even count the betas. All that aside, it's true Comodo and just about all HIPS-type products aren't usable for the majority of users. That doesn't make ALL users stupid, it means that MOST HIPS-type products are too damn complicated and cause too many problems for most to bother with. Why the hell should anyone use something like that when they can just fire up even the free version of Sandboxie, tweak it a bit, and be just as if not more protected, without all of the pop-up and FP hell?

Has Comodo ever even let a professional organization test it yet? Or is Melih still thinking he's some sort of wizard who can't go wrong and doesn't feel the need to prove anything? And no, I don't mean Masoutec, screw that, means nothing.

 

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2009/07/04/symantec-its-dangerous-to-rely-on-free-antivirus/

See the date... July 4, 2009
If only people actually cared to research a bit they would have known this is old news... also 103 Responses.

 

Old news and if anyone read the article, what he is saying is you need a layered approach to security. Using a free AV and nothing else gives you little protection. Folks on this forum understand that and many of you use multiple freebie products, but the average Joe has ABC free AV that the tech geek down the street gave him and thinks he is totally protected.

 

Well, I did not want to get dragged into this thread [discussion] but I wanted to express my personal opinion about what I have read here. That's after reading every single post written here.

I have noticed that as soon as a Comodo thread is started, some malicious and hateful people who happen NOT to use that product AT ALL start diverting the purpose of the thread to fit their own hidden agenda. They know how eager are here to lock these kind of threads so they keep provoking and steering the pot so the discussion gets heated and the thread is finally locked.

That's being very unethical and very unprofessional.

As far as I know, Comodo is a frigging FREE product whereas Norton is PAID.
They are doing their best and, as a gesture of civility we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Norton was just awful during versions 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. It took them 6 versions [ a.k.a. 6 YEARS ] to get it right after 6 failed attempts. Many of those that today, praise Norton were the main critics and haters in the past. What an irony !

Norton, in my humble opinion assumes that everybody is stupid or newbie because they do not have a modular installation. If you choose to install Norton Internet Security 2011 you have to install it all or nothing and, with all the pre-settings Symantec has chosen [although, some of them can be changed or adjusted latter to suit your needs].

Comodo, on the other hand, has a modular installation where you can choose to install the Firewall only, the AV only or the whole suite.

Comodo has a HIPS and, as far as I know at some point ALL the HIPS are going to prompt you to make a decision about something sooner or latter. I have used Threatfire, Online-Armor [HIPS], ZoneAlarm Pro [ that has a rudimentary HIPS], Kaspersky [they call HIPS active...something, I believe], and with all those I have been forced at some point to make a decision about something the AVERAGE JOE wouldn't know what to answer.

Comodo would not the best but I bet it is not the worse software ever made.
When I don't like a software I simply DO NOT USE IT. PERIOD ! Therefore, if you do not like Comodo or the attitude of its CEO, just DO NOT USE IT. Why does this have to be so difficult?

I still remember a thread that was about Comodo being run in a VM and a poster started a FUTILE discussion about if it couldn't be run using Microsoft Virtual PC. The whole thread was just diverted to that and the Mods gladly locked it, so in the end that user that started that silly argument for the sake of arguing got what he wanted.

I think this thread is also doomed to get the same sad end. I enjoy threads here at Wilders where I can learn something from people supposed to be the experts but I'm seeing that those people just love trolling and arguing for their own pleasure.

Again, if you don't like a software and you are UNWILLING to use it just move on and do not use it. I do not use Comodo and didn't even use it when it was just a pure Firewall a while ago but I respect the efforts from people that at least build software and give it away for free. I just read here with the sole purpose to learn something new from people that I assume know a lot more than I do about these kind of subjects. That's why my post count is just 230 posts in more than two years hanging out here.

Does anybody know about an Anti-Virus named CA Anti-virus? That one is a paid one and I bet if fares worse than the average AV out there.

So, why don't give those guys at Comodo the benefit of the doubt to see if they can make it right? Don't they deserve it? Are they so “evil” that only deserve to be attacked and crushed here?



Thanks,




Carlos

 

This is not entirely true. The AV and FW install both force D+ and Sandbox. So you get 75% of the package even with it's "modular installation" as you call it.

Also, I do not see anyone acting "unethical and very unprofessional". In many threads I have defended CIS/Comodo/Melih. But I have to also be honest about its flaws.

 

I never cease to be amazed at just how wound up some folks get over what is just a bunch of ones and zeros after all.You'd think that they'd just caught the boss of some rival AV company in bed with their wife by the steam being vented.

 

well they were given the benefit of the doubt, they wer given the benefit of the doubt maybe 2 years ago when they said how amazing and perfect their product would be within ONE YEAR and wen someone doesnt fulfill on their claims like that, this type of stuff happens.

 

Did you read my post about how many times it took Symantec/Norton to get it right after becoming bloated back in 2002-2003 ?

How much are you paying to use Comodo ? US$ 69.99, US$ 59.99 ? It's free, isn't it?

They laid a promise to be the “best software” in two years and they did not deliver...right?

Dump them and move on. There is plenty of free solutions [ and paid ones ] out there to stick just only with one software solution. Right?


Thanks,


Carlos