COMODO Internet Security 4.0.135239.742 Released

MMm yummy. eye candy.

 

Alas the eyecandy there tend to block me very quickly

You're right about DriveSentry though,it was astonishing to see just how many folks had questions when the gorgeous Katie was around.

 

are there any issues with CIS4 and malwarebytes pro?

 

here are some themes for CIS you can use just extract and place in the themes folders

the download it on post 157

named themes.zip

https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackc...42-released-t52402.0.html;msg374669#msg374669

 

Or if you don't like them you can download any .msstyles files and rename it to .theme. Credit here.

 

Well could you upload it? I'm not a member there and not planning to be active there.

 

Here you go.

I uploaded it for a friend. Hope the link still works. Lemme know.

PS:- And thanks a lot Brocke, fr the posting abt the themes. I like the default theme, but sometimes its have options.

 

Comodo doesn't catch ****!

 

Wow thanks for the fascinating and indepth review of comodo internet security. I'm sure your mother would be proud.

 

Since my testing thread was shut down, I thought I would post in here because some had asked me to test Comodo Antivirus against some malware links. This test was performed to see how the AV portion of Comodo could hold up, so Comodo was installed, updated (virus defs) and D+ was disabled. I realize some will say, how can you disable an important part of the product like that, but it was done to see if the AV portion has gotten better, as many feel it has never been that strong.

A small sample of malware was used; 10 links garnered from various sites. The links were posted on those sites that day. After the 10 links were followed and the resulting programs/executables run, anytime a Comodo prompt was shown, the Clean action was clicked. Malwarebytes was run at the end of the 10 links being followed. The option chosen was Quick Scan in MBAM.

Results

The system was extremely slow and barely usable. Popups were coming from all over the place, including rogue AV popups in the system tray, browser windows popping up out of nowhere, new copies of IE shortcuts on the desktop appeared out of nowhere, Chinese had been made the default language, the browser was completely hijacked (could not go anywhere that you typed in - using IE) and when Malwarebytes was downloaded, it would not install unless it was run as admin. The malware was stopping the install of MBAM.

After MBAM was run, the report stated that the system was infected with 111 infections. Personally the AV in Comodo doesn't come close to anything I would recommend as the result was extremely poor.

 

Yikes. Thats pretty bad. Igster do you know if boclean is part of the AV or part of the IS. In other words can I just leave out the AV and add a better one.

 

I don't know for sure. Someone with more experience with Comodo might be able to say I guess.

 

Part of AV.

 

damn. I like the firewall because it doens't slow down my connection. I use OA now and I like the web shield and keylogger protection. If comodo had that I would switch.

 

TheIgster......that was an interesting test you performed there but seeing as how I have never known a person who used CAV as a completely standalone product, it doesn't hold much relevance. CAV is and was designed to be a part of a bigger security suite. AIS has a great AV and a joke of a FW, the AV carries the system right? CIS has a great FW and an AV that could use some work. Same thing except CIS's AV is stronger IMO than many other security suite's "weak link". CAV is a part of PROACTIVE system, you tested it as a REACTIVE product. D+ is an invaluable part of the system therefore disabling it cripples the AV and doesn't allow it to function as it was designed. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I don't get virus' with CIS, therefore there isn't anything to clean. CAV is getting better, as it should and needs to, but please be sure to realize that in many cases you're testing watered down versions of a product in a way that it was never designed to perform. Many users may get the idea that stats from a crippled CAV mean that CIS as a whole isn't good, which just isn't true.

 

I believe that Igster was asked to perform a test on CAV only. So any slander against him is unwarranted.

 

Not only was my statement not slanderous, but you implying that it was tells me that you don't seem to know what "Slander" means in the first place. I think that I was very courteous if anything. Furthermore, why would anyone want a test performed that told them absolutely nothing about the product in question? Either way, my statement is still valid, maybe more so at this point. If asked to perform a test of no value, inform the user asking for the test of the uselessness of said test and move on to the next one. Problem solved.

 

I don't know all there is to know about CIS admittedly. But, with that being said, with D+ enabled, wouldn't every single link be stopped? Pretty difficult to test the AV portion if everything is stopped. Not to mention, what if the user decides NOT to stop it? What if they think what they are downloading is fine? Can they not ignore the D+ prompt and allow the action?

I was asked by several to run a test with just the AV enabled to see how it performs. It performed poorly.

 

Slanderous "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

"that was an interesting test you performed there but seeing as how I have never known a person who used CAV as a completely standalone product, it doesn't hold much relevance"

Sounds kinda malicious to me.

For the point, yes the test is relevant because 1) Someone was curious as to the ability of CAV to detect malware 2) CAV can be installed alone so it doesn't remain a "proactive system"

Problem rectified.

 

TheIgster......That's kind of the thing that makes it hard to test Comodo products apart from the rest of the suite (aside from maybe FW). It's almost like Lego bricks, they all interlock to help each other, when you take one away you may compromise another. I just don't want someone judging CIS from a CAV test, I'm sure you understand. I usually enjoy your tests and was dissapointed when they closed your thread.


kjdemuth........If you think "It doesn't hold much relevance" is "Malicious" I guess you'll just have to get over it. You can be politically correct, I'll be honest. If stuff like that offends you then you must walk around in a permanent state of umbrage.

 

Yep, fair enough. I would think that people would not judge the entire suite by just my test. Folks just asked me to test the AV alone, so I went ahead and did. I was disappointed when they closed the thread as well.

 

yeah they AV will and should be redone in version 4.1 adding Behav-Blocking and better Cleaning.

 

I believe that this is right only for the av: the Comodo av needs the HIPS to ensure a fully protection, but Defense+ and the fw are very good since a long time.

 

I didn't say that it offended me. I was only pointing out that there subtle ways of getting your views across. Especially since the test was done on someone else's time. If you need to I can make change for your 15 cent word.

 

Interesting how you've changed your tune, in just a matter of days no less.
On Page 13 of this very thread you were agreeing with someone how good the COMODO AV is now, but now you say it's unfair to test only the AV.