Comodo AV better now?

Longer scanning doesn't mean it's catching everything. The kernel or the why the program was coding should be able to scan/detect/report at a good normal speed using some of the RAM as a buffer or use API-32-bit mode. Avira is slow, and sat there and watch it do my C where it only had the OS a few programs still took over 37 minutes if I use PC Tools SDAV on Intelli-Scan is quicker. If I use a full it will take 5-20 minutes to do a deep scan.

Comodo Internet Security Pro Free didn't let know class files to get started or launch. Other software if coded for the same class files types would do the same. ThreatFire compared to Defense+ still has false positive. ThreatFire found the threat prior and I was able to block it..

 

Comodo Anti-virus can be as light as it wants, but with very little testing ...I wouldn't even consider replacing my current Anti-virus.

 

Interesting Test: http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

Cheers,
Josh

 

I'm not sure how good this test site really is. I'd prefer seeing Comodo on AV-Comparatives. If it scores 96% there, it's actually good...

 

When Melih says he refuses to let his product be tested, rest assured he was only referring to reputable organizations that will uncover what CIS really is. He doesn't have any compunction against being tested by poky little sites like these, of course.

 

Rather than just immediately denigrating the site and it's results,perhaps some evidence of it's flawed methodology would be more constructive.

The results show Avira,A-Squared and GData at the top,the same as on pretty much every other test I've seen them take part in.On that basis this particular test appears representative of their general efficacy.I'd like to know solid reasons why the test has exagerrated Comodo's capability while seemingly following the normal trend for other vendors?

 

I see now that the Comodo strategy is to avoid the reputable testing organizations under the pretext that they're unreliable and their testing reveals nothing, while on the other hand advocating the small testers whom nobody has ever heard of before, but grades Comodo well, as accurate and legitimate.

Genius, I say. Sheer genius.

 

I'd prefer to see this too

Any AV company that hides its software away from somewhere like AV-Comparatives...doesn't gain my confidence.

Even if this small test has any indication of what it could do on a bigger test....It still shows Comodo to be behind the competition.

I'd use Avast or Avira over Comodos ropey solution anyday.

 

Ya, but my doubt is how deeply and fully Comodo av scans every file and the system in all his parts. I like Comodo HIPS, is on the of the best, but I can't accept the idea, often read in this forum, that his HIPS can solve the eventual lacks of the av: it's true, but I would want be sure about the av performances as av and not as component of a suite. And I think that must be a reason for Software Houses as Kaspersky or Avira have such scanning times: we are not talking about F-Secure or Norman, which always had long time to scan.

 

There seems to be a huge lack of objectivity (on both sides) with anything pertaining to Comodo.The other day some test on an obscure Chinese forum was posted ,showing Comodo AV doing poorly and this was immediately accepted by some as empirical evidence,here a test shows a decent result and that means automatically the testing is rubbish!
Comodo don't help themselves by not submitting to the established AV tests for certain;but they have submitted to this one and simply dismissing it out of hand without providing any valid reason is hardly an objective viewpoint.

 

Exactly.

Any test that can place Comodo at anything above 60-70% (and even that's being generous) is utter rubbish. This has nothing to do with lack of objectivity on my part. This has to do with facts. I posted that "obscure" Chinese test not because the results showed what I wanted, but because they were reasonably accurate as far as Comodo was concerned. Besides, they're not all that "obscure" - from what I can tell, they're pretty well-known on the Chinese side of the Internet, and PCSL probably even has some affiliations with them. The kicker is that they even publish their test samples, and anyone unhappy with the outcomes can download the samples and verify the results for themselves.

If Comodo's hypocrisy regarding AV testing isn't obvious by now and doesn't count as a valid reason to you, I really have nothing further to say. If they don't want to be tested, then don't. But if they're willing to flip-flop on the issue and selectively allow themselves to be tested anyway, it's quite telling they go for a site nobody has heard of before when there are so many reputable testers around; Comodo can even aim for VB100% first, if they're worried about bad results.

 

Your evidence for that statement is?

My point is that Comodo AV may or may not be any good but simply saying it isn't does not qualify as a statement of fact.What's it based upon,a feeling in your water? You still haven't given any valid reason why that test isn't accurate.Comodo's reluctance to be widely tested,while somewhat counter-productive is a separate issue entirely.

 

How do you prove to someone that fire is hot?

I don't mean to brag, but you apparently don't know as much about your favorite product as I do. Tell me what would constitute as reasonable proof for you, and I'll do it if it's reasonably within my power.

The test I posted before is a good one, I think. They publish their samples, though not to new, unregistered users at their forums. People are publicly invited to scrutinize and correct their testing.

You're missing the point. It's not bad just because I say so. It's because it IS bad, that I'm saying it's bad. My statement is not evidence of Comodo's quality - that's ridiculous, and I never intended it to be. But it is a reflection of a fact.

It isn't accurate because it presents a vastly exaggerated report of Comodo's detection abilities. Which part of that do you not understand? It's like you challenging me to prove to you that the Earth is round.

 

Clearly you have no evidence beyond personal opinion thanks for clearing that up.Facts are able to be backed up with evidence that's a fact for you.

Since it 'clearly exagerrates' the detection rate of Comodo,yet doesn't do so for Avira,A2,GData etc your assertion must be that somehow Comodo have sponsored this test.(odd how they didn't come top in that case).That could be the only logical motivation for them to skew the Comodo results.

P.S. As for my favourite product,I've used Avira AV for years.

 

Clearly you aren't willing to take me up on my offer. Tell me what would constitute as proof, and I'll show it to you if reasonably within my power.

 

A reasonable level of proof that Comodo AV is substandard would be a mean average from maybe 10 independent tests.

Now please accept my challenge and offer proof that the test in question deliberately manipulated their results to favour Comodo.It must be deliberate since by your figures 60-70% (lets say 65%) those results show a 31% discrepancy,far above any standard margin of error.

 

I doubt there are even 10 reputable independent tests in this field, let alone 10 of them that Comodo has dared to participate in.

Why should I argue your claim for you? That's your own responsibility.

I never said the results were deliberately manipulated; those were your words. I also never tried to pretend I knew why the results were so wrong; but when it comes to AV testing, incompetence often plays a very big factor in skewed results as well.

 

My claim? You're getting forgetful,Ive made no claims about how good Comodo AV is at all.You're the one making the claims and therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

Also that's a complete non-answer regarding those test results.Since all the other results fall into a similar detection level to those in other separate tests then such an anomaly for one single product must be deliberate deception.How is it that they were competent in testing everything else but not Comodo? You did try and pretend you knew why the results were so wrong simply by stating it as a fact,which is a demonstrable proof .

 

Like I said, 561 posts ago, the AV seems to me that its getting better only because recognizes a small sample of malware that I have now with this latest version. So their detection rate, I believe is getting better. They are adding some features to its AV engine also. But until Comodo participates in all these legit AV testing sites, people will always say its not good enough or it is good enough. I think we need to wait and see the results when and if Comodo participates. I really wish them the best because it will only make the internet a safer place. Also, other AV vendors will step it up with their products. The end-users have a win win situation.

Just my .02cents
Ice

 

The point has been made to Melih by numerous people that avoiding these tests for whatever reason is counter productive.

 

Just because I said the test results are wrong, means I am accusing them of being deceptive? Come on, now. Is it really necessary for you to be so rampantly dishonest?

Here's an analogy for you: I know things fall down when you let go of them. Does that necessarily mean I know about gravitons, that gravity is a second-rank tensor field, the gravity inverse-square law, etc.? No.

Similarly, though it's easy to see that the test results for Comodo are way off the mark, does it necessarily mean I know all about how and why that mistake came to be? Have I ever claimed or even implied that? No. As far as I'm concerned, they may simply be well-meaning yet incompetent testers. For all I know the mistake was due to a typo. On the contrary, it was you who started off the whole chain of conspiracist theories in an effort to discredit me.

Do you really have to resort to such lies and incredulous leaps of logic, and defend Comodo even at the price of your own integrity? A hint just in case the answer escapes you: the answer is not yes.

I'm not telling you to prove Comodo's excellence. I'm telling you I don't need to prove that the test was deliberately deceptive, since I never made that claim. So if you really feel so strongly about burden of proof, may I suggest you take your own advice.

 

I really dont get why all this hate for comodo, to everyone who doubts comodo's detection, why not just check matt rizos' review of it on youtube, even if it wont tell perfectly what the product is capable of, it would give a general idea of the detction.

From that test, comodo did quite well, and i am sure it would be better, i have seen superb improvement in 3.9 release, and with the 4.0 release they would reach quite a standard.

 

Oh yeah, Matt's tests are really something to take on. Not that they aren't interesting to watch and they nicely show how products work, but thats pretty much it. He tested CIS by scanning the files and killing the remainings with D+ part by hand (by terminating and blocking processes). Sure he can do it, but i'm not sure average joe can. Maybe blocking explorer.exe/winlogon.exe and efficiently locking himself out and rendering PC useless even more than it was.
You can't test one product by just scanning files and other one by scanning files and cleaning the rest by hand just because the program offers that functionality. So AVIRA or avast! can also add terminate and block feature and expect to get perfect score just because it'll have it and because reviewer will be able to use it. If you perform tests, they have to be consistent.
Because comparing apples with oranges makes no sense.

 

Again you're totally failing to provide any evidence for your assertions other than some kind of mystical feeling that the tests must be wrong.Also you failed to answer my question as to how these well meaning incompetents managed to test all the other products and gain results that fit in with normal patterns yet fell to pieces when testing Comodo.Evidence that's what I want.Just one relevant corroboration that doesn't rely upon obscure references to Gravity or the sun.
If you know those results were wrong that means you can demonstrate how and why they're wrong,so please provide that proof and stop evading the question.If you can't answer then fair enough that'll just show your "fact" was in reality personal opinion.

Comodo has increased it's signature base from 1 million in January to 3.3 million now,that must surely have increased it's detection rate from tests performed months ago.Anyway that's my final word on that particular test until I see any tangible evidence of it's catastrophic failure.

 

You still don't get it.

Just because I don't understand the physics behind gravity, doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say things fall down if I let go of them. If I don't understand gravitons, does that mean things falling down is merely my opinion?

Similarly, I don't need to know how and why the guys behind this test farked up so badly, to observe the simple fact that Comodo's results are way off-course. Your conspiracy of deliberate deception certainly is one possibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to accuse them of that yet.

You're making the assumption that the rest of the world, including the bad guys, is hanging around waiting for Comodo to catch up. That is a very flawed assumption.

Besides, no offence meant, but... if your knowledge of antivirus technology is still at the stage where you believe that signature count means anything, I think that pretty much sums up how educated your opinion is.