Comodo A/V

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by funnyfun, Feb 19, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NSG001
    Offline

    NSG001 Registered Member

  2. ellison64
    Offline

    ellison64 Registered Member

    In the expertreview link comodo has 30% fp rate.Has that changed?
  3. ellison64
    Offline

    ellison64 Registered Member

  4. lordraiden
    Offline

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Well all I can tell you is that I haven't experience a FP with CAV in one of my laptop in a year or so. Maybe a keygen/crack and stuff like that... :D but CAV has as a policy to detect this kind of soft.

    BTW I forgot this one: http://trsec.net/threads/trsec-2012-Ücretsiz-antivirus-testi-güncellenecek.948/
  5. ellison64
    Offline

    ellison64 Registered Member

    I think most avs detect that sort of stuff.It would have been interesting to see what the FPs were ,in that test and the AVC test.Unfortunatley i guess we will never know.
  6. Prole
    Offline

    Prole Registered Member

    It's been approx. 20 months and I think I have experienced maybe 4 or 5 false/positives.

    Also, let's stop and consider that Comodos AV engine is just a few years (3 ??) old and it's already very good.

    I have no complaints.
    Very light on my system as well.
  7. Cudni
    Offline

    Cudni Global Moderator

    ot posts removed
  8. Sevens
    Offline

    Sevens Guest

    I had one false positive with Comodo AV on my system, EAM and MSE had the same one. For everyday use by average user it does as good as anything.Now if your going to throw stuff at it trying to destroy it ,you probably can just like any one of them but the average user is never going to find that crap. With DefenseWall and Comodo AV I'm covered and my seven and five year old boys can play their kid game sites and never hear a word out of them except for some fighting.:D The only reason I'm not using it now is I don't need Defense+ and the sandbox with DefenseWall and I hate having it there shut off. If you don't want it to be pretty good then you better not try it.
  9. Victek
    Offline

    Victek Registered Member

    It seems to me that the purpose of testing security products is precisely to see how they can be broken. Now of them are perfect, but it makes sense to choose one that's more difficult to break.

    I don't see how an average user is somehow safer and so doesn't need the strongest possible protection. In recent years it's become clear that it isn't necessary to go looking for trouble. The malware is regularly being injected into legitimate sites. Almost all the people I've done malware cleanup for are "average" users who didn't intentionally engage in dangerous activity. If you're happy with Comodo AV that's great, but I think your reasons don't hold up.
  10. Noob
    Offline

    Noob Registered Member

    Based on the latest results posted . . . well it seems Comodo is improving? :D
    I'll give them the benefit of doubt for the AV part because i've always loved their HIPS modules :thumb: :thumb:
  11. Sevens
    Offline

    Sevens Guest


    I think the average user is alot safer. I'm just lucky? But I don't see all this malware your talking about. It's out there sure we don't do social sites that probably helps. The point I was trying to make is an average user could have it installed for months and never see it in action. Any of us around here couldn't stand to leave it alone that long.
  12. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    *Standing Ovation*

    Could not have said it better myself. I try to deliver that message to people but it's an inconvenient truth...like global...well we won't go there; this is a security forum! ;)

    As for CIS, I have a lot of respect for them automatically because:

    - They emphasize the importance of integrating (darn close to true) whitelisting into even "simple user" protection systems like almost every other major vendor does
    .

    - They offer a nearly ad-free, full blown suite for FREE. They aren't cutting out any firewall, no cuts on the whistles and bells...it's FREE.

    - They don't stop there. Their website is full of additional security tools, from Cleaning Essentials (highly recommended btw) to Secure DNS.

    Comodo is cool in my book, and any improvements to their AV just mean magic's about to go down...:thumb:
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012
  13. Rampastein
    Offline

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Knowing about their rather recent playing with their low-ish AV-C results and the lack of other professional testing done for CAV, I still wouldn't trust it. The firewall and D+ are very good for protection, but also very annoying when you're for example installing anything. And I'm running it at defaults.
  14. Rompin Raider
    Online

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Noob...you've always been a hips guy! :argh: :D :D
  15. Noob
    Offline

    Noob Registered Member

    Hahahaha actually in the beginning (Around 2009 when i registered) i used to prefer full blown suites (KIS, G-Data) but then i read about HIPS and decided to give them a try . . . since then i've been in love with HIPS :D :D
  16. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    yeah you'll never be cheated on...........HIPS don't lie.........
  17. Narxis
    Offline

    Narxis Registered Member

    Very good? I highly doubt that... It's average.
  18. Noob
    Offline

    Noob Registered Member

    Hahahaha who knows :D
  19. funnyfun
    Offline

    funnyfun Registered Member

    If you were running Comodos internet security, would the sandbox be strong enough to replace Sandboxie?
  20. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    comodo sandbox should be and can be used with sandboxie imho..........I used to do that when I had cis and sbie.......
  21. Noob
    Offline

    Noob Registered Member

    Sandboxie is a lot more granular and configurable, CIS Sandbox in it's current state IMO is still quite lame compared to Sandboxie. :D
  22. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    right :thumb:
  23. DIgiDis
    Offline

    DIgiDis Registered Member

    I've been using CIS 5 for over a year now and have not had 1 FP. My system is always clean and I use MBAM and HMP as second opinion scanners.

    I use Sandboxie for my browsers and if I have to do something that is risky I open a virtual machine and save the current state as something so that I can revert back to it afterwards.

    Technically, I don't think any antivirus software is even necessary if you use the Comodo firewall but the included AV doesn't get in the way and is just another layer of protection. Add Sandboxie for the browser(s) and use the Comodo sandbox for unknown stuff that just pops up and lastly combine all that with a periodic MBAM scan and an AV software gets even less important.

    From another angle, CIS has gotten so powerful and ridiculously easy to use that it just doesn't make sense to pay for security software anymore.
  24. Victek
    Offline

    Victek Registered Member


    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.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2012
  25. funnyfun
    Offline

    funnyfun Registered Member

    With both CIS and Sandboxie you still feel the need for a VM?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.