COMODO Internet Security 5.3.174622.1216 Released!

i dont take it as all i need to decide, but it showe confidence in ur product if ur willing to have it tested outside of ur control, and when u make blanket excuses as to why not to get tested (even after ur concerns have been adressed like AV-C's dynamic tests now) but go on to say that ur product is just as good as everyone elses if not better (claims Melih has made) it doesnt really put much value in the claims

it wuld shut a lot of peep up if he finally got it tested, my thinking is they have been tested, but didnt like the results so chose not to be included in the full AV-C tests with all the vendors

and Comodo is not a poor company...

 

It's peculiar that Comodo does not take part in any tests with high requirements such as Westcoasts Lab. Furthermore Comodo does not want their product tested in neither AV-C or at Malwareresearchgroup.com. They also haven't passed Westcoast Labs certification. Any vendor with a high level ambition would at least take part in a certification process.

Comodo systematically refuses to take part in any serious tests. Time after time do we see evangelists from Comodo claim that's not true. But, I rest my case.

On the other hand, I've played a bit with D+ and it provides an excellent dynamic protection with close to 100% protection ratio (I've tested D+ against thousands and thousands of samples). It's also as light as can be and has an extremely small footprint on disk I/O. I really don't see why Comodo doesn't want their product tested; I think they're afraid to fail or come out bad and thus not being able to surf on the fanboys of the Internet anymore. The overall protection of the CIS is indeed excellent (thanks to the cloud based sandbox), but the regular AV, which someone mentioned in a few posts before me, is just utter garbage. Look at Virusbtn.com and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The latest versions of CIS have been unpleasant experiences. There are too many pop-ups compared to a three months older version which worked just as fine protection-wise. I will not be testing Comodo again.

 

Sorry, I think you are way off base here. I have tested the AV against a lot of samples and it does as good, if not better than other AV's I've tested the same samples with.

The AV in Comodo started off poor, but it is very strong now IMO.

Sure seems to be a lot of hatred or people annoyed with Comodo for some reason. Not quite sure why all the hate? The company provides a quality suite for free and people still like to take shots at them for some reason.

 

i only commented on the AV.

 

Which is a quality portion of the suite IMO.

 

Everyone has their own opinion about the AV.

Just to throw my .02$ here.
IMO the Comodo AV isn't the best but it does quite well.

 

I've always like comodo, but same like shadek,
I find it strange that they exclude them self from big independent tester

 

I have had no problems with its AV and i think past 6mths it is the most improved part of their suite....
It seems like it was with Norton,people go with what others say.................

 

It's like this with every AV product that gets a lot of mention around here. Eset, Kaspersky, Norton, Comodo, Avast...

"look at this test", "look at that test", "well my personal test.."

 

No place for "hate" but "annoyed" I can relate to.
Comodo is a paradox.
Comodo CIS 5.X package is good and useful for people who take the trouble to understand how it works.
Comodo CEO is (insert your own assessment here).

 

COMODO IMO is a great security app.. the av component surely needs more concentration.. have shown great improvements already...IME its very hard I repeat very hard to get infected when comodo is installed given you are not trying to get infected to begin with rofl even if you turn off the av

 

Quite honestly, Comodo doesn't need focos on the AV. They need to ditch it. Even with D+ you'll have a close 100% protection rate. The Comodo classic AV is so bad that it drags the whole product down and it doesn't provide any additional protection that you don't already get from the other components of the suite. It's just as you say Kernelwars, it's hard to get infected on purpose even when throwing thousands of samples at D+, using the out-of-the-box settings.

It is my belief, that Comodo would have a lot to gain if they choose to ditch the AV; then they could claim they're a true cloud vendor. That's what the customers are asking about these days as "being in the cloud" is the modern phenomena.

 

According to the westcoast labs website, Comodo were certified on 26-07-2010.

 

Seems like I haven't been completely updated. Albeit, the certification is not platinum but the lowest degree of certification. Thanks for enlightening me!

 

No, I'm not new, but looks like you are lying again, I dont see either emsisoft, immunet, vipre, k7, and many other av's appear in many test, does mean that they also refuse to be tested?

Also taking into account that you dont need to ask permission in order to test an AV is quite clear that you dont know what are you talking about.

The problem btw MRG and Comodo is MRG's fault they changed the methodology in the middle of the test, other products like spyshelter and keyscrambler and others does not want to be tested by MRG either. But according to you seems tha MRG is the only group that make legitimate AV tests.

 

Not at all. MRG have done some large tests in the past, but there are several other independent tests. I think most of us agree that Comodo were acting childishly with the whole MRG incident (you probably won't though). As to why Emsisoft and Immunet aren't tested; they're using licensed engines which aren't developed solely by themselves.

To stay on topic; Comodo should ditch their classic AV module and revert back a few months regarding the D+ module, that had less pop-ups with the out-of-the-box setting. That worked flawlessly and the protection was indeed astonishing.

 

This looks strange though. I'm using latest version without any problems. Have you reported the issue over at comodo forums?

Thanks,
Harsha.

 

Well I really dont care, he says that Comodo refuses to be tested by any legitimated AV tester, and he is not showing any proof, so what is clear is that he is trolling.
Also I would like to know since when you need to ask permission to test and AV, the decision of not publish the results of Comodo was taken by MRG, they could publish the results anyway and Comodo does not have any right to request not being tested.

 

No, because I didn't feel like using Comodo anymore. I won't bother putting time into projects I'm not 100% in for. There was a large difference in pop-ups comparing v 5 to v 5.3 though. If anyone's up for it and noticed the same thing I did, feel free to refer to this thread here at Wilders when posting at Comodo. The programmers behind Comodo are very welcome to contact me here on Wilders.

And besides, why risk being banned (I have the same username at Comodo forums as I do on Wilders, I don't want to risk getting a bad reputation there) for just posting something critical on their forum? (oh what an outrageous reference! )

 

Any serious testing organisation will take the vendors wishes into consideration. That's why we see AV-C use non-standard settings when testing products; simply because some vendors ask to be tested that way.

 

I dont understand how you can get more popups with 5.3 that 5 since there are no changes related with this, only the constant increase of the whitelist.

And dont worry I have criticize Comodo many times in their forum, arguing with Melih and the MOD's and I'm still alive.

 

That's good to know.

I really can't tell why I got more pop-ups either.It was however the impression I got from it that made me leave Comodo to peace. That and the fact that Comodo does not whitelist safe files you send manually to them (I've sent over a 100 .exe files from games on Steam which never got analyzed over the months I tested Comodo).

 

Yes, I dont know why Comodo has the strange policy of not whitelist games.

 

Comodo CEO is the Antivirus companies nightmare.

Comodo AV is good. But not the best. In my opinion Eset or Kaspersky have better engines. In any case, I prefer Comodo over the rest.

Regards.

 

If i remember correctly, EAM is not tested a lot because they have to pay fees and they said since they were a kinda small company, they prefer not to.

Anyways, we know that EAM performs very good on those tests