Comodo AV better now?

The situation will change when avast! 5 hits the net. It should arrive around june/july. I'm quite certain it'll rock the AV world (from the info i gathered from ALWIL team).
Thats what i was saying to Melih. Sure you're improving Comodo, but others are not standing still either.

 

And that includes the bad guys as well. The Comodo of today may have made great strides against the malware of yesteryear, but when measured against today's malware scene... they're still right where they used to stand, unfortunately.

 

Not to sound like a fanboy here but they have made great strides. I have used many AV's and some I like and some I don't but Comodo is closing the gap on the big boys in the AV world. They are not there yet but closing in.

Ice

 

Hi Ed

As you know I have good contacts with some Comodo Developers and with some Administrators/Moderators as well ( You were once such a good contact ). And from what I was told in confidence, that was defenately NOT the reason why he was removed from the Mod Team.

Greetz, Erik aka Red ).

 

Thanks Erik, just unfortunate timing then. My limited visibility seemed to indicate a shift of a lot of the work to the newer and less experienced mods these days (more easily influenced? ), and he was someone who had been around for a while.
Regards, Ed.

 

Here you go again with the flaming, would you care to back up that opinion with a few facts?

 

My dear fellow, not everything that disagrees with your pro-Comodo biases are flames. It was just a fact, plain and simple.

http://bbs.kafan.cn/thread-450322-1-1.html

 

Wish I could read Chinese as it doesn't make much more sense translated by Google lol.

 

Any proof that Comodo is closing the gap on other Anti-virus? Seems to be a lack of testing.

 

I can't either, but it's not too hard to figure out. Sum up the 2nd and 3rd columns, divide them by the 4th, and you get the detection percentages listed in the 5th column. Seems like the testing is carried on a day-to-day basis.

It's a universally accepted gospel truth and needs no proving. Expect all statements to the contrary, however, to be met with vigorous demands for evidence.

 

Seems more like spreading rumours to me Eice, you need to do better than that to be convincing.

 

*sigh*

Well, it's none of my business what you choose to believe. I've presented the data, and if you insist on continuing to live in la-la land, I'm not here to preach to or convert you. As someone who has a fairly good idea of Comodo's abilities, I'm just here to answer a non-fanboy's honest question of whether he should go with avast! or Comodo.

 

While I would agree with you in the sense that avast! is a better choice (oops! Type A vs. Type B thread, anybody?), you appear to give absolutely no credit to COMODO for their work: completely scrapping AV v2, spending months coming up with v3, improving v3, all the while having to keep their firewall up-to-par. Furthermore, you appear to have forgotten the thread title and poster's original question:

country2: It's improved, but supposedly their new & improved heuristics are coming in v3.9. I had no troubles with CIS 3.8, but then again I'm a pretty cautious computer user and don't go looking for trouble.

Now, I await all the accusations of me being a COMODO fan boy; that seems to be the general trend here .

 

No the CIMA heuristics are not coming until version 4.

Seems neither Eice nor I know where it is up to, but he is determined to spread fud whereas I am an optimist.

Mind you at my age that becomes important, as I cannot wait forever. Mmmm there is life away from the computer.

 

They've mentioned ease of use is a goal for some future version as well. Is v4 that milestone? Will automatic quarantining of found threats be default by then?

I simply never see a reason to not automatically fix known threats or detections through accurate heuristics unless it could affect something else (for example, Norton asks the user in that case, so he or she can make an informed decision). FPs are another thing - those should obviously never even appear in a finished product, so that can't be an argument against it IMO. Then every company can simply temporarily disable automatic cleaning for betas that have changes to detection functionality.

 

This is true. There are really no authenticated AV tests that I'm aware of. Only my small independant tests and some others like removemalware.com etc. I only make the statement that they are closing the gap in that some malware samples I had, their first iteration would not recognize them but now it does. They seem to add more to the AV like heuristics and such but until they get into AV compartives and such, one will never know.

Ice

 

Does anyone get a bit tired of hearing how good the next version will be? We need protection NOW! Running against some of the standard test programs would at least help quantify how hard you need to work D+ for the various AV options, and whether the CAVS might be an option for other Firewall/HIPS combinations. And the next version of all these security programs will be better-as, unfortunately, will the malware. The malware will also not wait for the next release. WABOS.

 

CIS D+ component alone already catches everything your setup (OA 3.5 full, Avast! 4.8, Prevx Edge, MVPS Hosts, Windows Defender, SAS/MBAM offline, Acronis True Image) can catch + probably more and the firewall is as good if not better than OA..

So what's the reason for bashing CIS for its security? "we need security now".. what a load of crap.
The AV ain't the best. I admit that.. But you are still protected against everything with CIS since its other components are superb.

The AV in CIS is unessential really. SInce CIS already has a 100% catch rate. Far better than any AV known to man.

=S

 

Hardly bashing to ask how good CAVS (or anything else) is at this point vs sometime in the future-I have no knowledge of that, and think that whatever the situation is is probably OK as long as users understand it and can deal with it. And decide whether to use CAVS now or wait a while. Certainly the party line is to avoid any impartial testing of the AV by itself, but faith based security is not for everyone. Obvious question Comodo refuses to answer, even though the tools are available: How does the AV compare to the ones we are familiar with at this point? And the answer immediately switches over to defending D+. But some think a HIPS or other such tool should augment whatever AV is used, not replace it. Of course OA and Outpost and a bunch of others also have a fine HIPS component that should work just as well as D+ (another unsubstantiated claim). Giving users a little current data might help them make decisions on what configurations they feel most comfortable with. Not everyone seems to feel comfortable with unsubstantiated claims for D+. And it is "protection" we need now, BTW.

 

I agree with you about the AV..
But disagreed with the claim that CIS somehow do not offer protection NOW, it does since it got D+, the firewall and so on.

It's true that we can't tell how good or bad the AV component is since it rarely gets tested..
But all points to that it don't have as great detection as the big ones yet ex. Avira.. But protection is still there thanks to D+!

 

Sorry, I did not mean that CIS doesn't offer protection now; just that ignoring how well CAVS does that now and instead bringing up future capabilities, other components, and avoiding quantifying experiments is unsatisfying, and a disservice to the users. And really doesn't answer the OP. What I would expect to see is the story unfolding proving how CAVS is approaching the big boys in AVS protection, and when you add D+ and all the other neat features, you do even better. Instead we get too much faith and trust stories, instead of impartial testing and peer review. Not just a Comodo problem; I don't take Vlk or Mike Nash or anyone else as a substitute for demonstrating/proving it where they can, but they seem much more willing to go outside and to try to explain their rationale.

 

Do you have any proof of this? Somehow it seems unlikely that D+ is better than another top HIPS, a BB, multiple signature scanners and an image backup program.

But most people (especially average users) don't have the knowledge the answer correctly 100% of the time Defence+ pop ups.

 

It seems like not only are you denying the data, you're determined to pretend that they don't even exist as well.

Oh well. To each his own.

The fanboys can exploit the general lack of knowledge about how badly Comodo performs to chant how it's "catching up with the big boys", but there are people out there who are capable of performing their own testing and arriving at the facts. A smart move by Comodo to run away from testing, but not everyone's going to fall for it.

D+ catches nothing. All it does is ask the user about anything and everything, and it's up to the user to do the catching. Imagine hiring a security guard who runs up to the office and asks the manager every time a customer enters the store and tries to take a step anywhere. And of course, when malware is stopped, it's all thanks to D+, when malware slips through, it's all the user's fault.

For the purposes of computer security, HIPS has always been a failed model, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

It really don't matter how well those other HIPS preforms. Since CIS already catches 100%, you can't beat 100% but you can score as well..

If someone claims they got some kind of sample able to totally bypass CIS then stop trolling and send it to me.

True. But most people got some kind of malware installed without knowing. With CIS you at least get alerts for anything unknown. And won't have to relay on the flawed AV technology that catches like 20-40% of the new threats..

While its true that D+ is a bit more "dumb" than a "BB" its also true that D+ is harder to fool. And D+ just don't alert "about anything", even if that was the case before. I welcome you to try the latest CIS beta, and see for your self how chatty it is.. Lot's have changes, ease of use has been greatly improved without lowering the security.

 

Well said..... It's a pretty ridiculous way to run a computer....