Comodo AV

@ Sher
Comodo Internet Security Premium.
Kingsoft Anti-Virus.
Hitman Pro(Second Opinion).
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.
You cannot run 2 AV! Choose one. You could keep Kingston AV and CFW, for example.
I had no problem with CIS and the Microsoft Updates today!!!
Cheers Comodo!

 

Kingsoft works well with Comodo, as the former is designed that way.

 

Yeah, Kingsoft AV works well with Comodo Internet Security as Kingsoft is designed as a companion to any other av. There have been no problems yet with them both.

 

http://kingsoft-antivirus.en.softonic.com/
Well, there have been no problems...seems Kingsoft interferes with some Windows Update, then it can run alonside another AV but bear in mind there SHOULD NOT BE more than 1 RP AV (the other one on demand). But I wouldn't even recommend that, too much security. Run a system light and simple and you should not have any problems!
P.S.: Can't possibly understand why someone with CIS impenetrable wall system would like to add Kingsoft...? It's redondant, no use at all, even negative at the utmost!
Would use HITMAN PRO as second opinion scanner for example...!

 

Based on my own personal testing so far, Kingsoft has been doing all the work, whereas, Comodo is just a sitting duck in the system tray. I keep throwing malware at them both for testing purposes.

 

Just try to download it from previous link but before scan the download link with Dr.Web web link scanner:IT JUST SAID "INFECTED" IMO. I guess it's FP, I don't think so!

 

By the way, if you do a good search of let say the Avast Web forum, it certainly recommends not to use this poor detection chinese vendor AV software! It's up to you! Comodo suite suits me well and unless you do bad choices like trusting a malware file, your system is unbreakable!!!

 

Kingsoft AV is not as bad as you think and is constantly improving. Comodo is not "unbreakable" because it has been bypassed several times before.

 

Exactly my point. Kingsoft has certainly impressed me a lot. Very efficient.

And no security product is unbreakable. They all get compromised. It's just the frequency to look at.

 

Most AVs will work with Comodo's FW/D+
But there are reasons to use the full suite (CIS) https://forums.comodo.com/firewall-help-cis/cloud-scanner-t84409.0.html;msg602938

 

Anything can be bypassed (even my beloved Sandboxie).
But if you tweak CIS to its higher (not highest, just higher) settings it will be very, very hard to bypass.

 

Then CIS is useless and it's better to use Kingsoft AV and Win FW,based on what you've wrote.

 

No really because with Comodo FW (FW+Sandbox+Cloud AV) without the AV you still have the Comodo Cloud AV.

Comodo Internet Security 6 will also include a Behavior Blocker, and a file rating system even if you don't install the AV component.

 

When will be see v6?

 

I know,thanks for pointing it out,but i was just a little bit...sarcastic.
Of course it's not useless,as i'm using CIS full suite myself on one of my laptops.

 

The cloud without the AV is useless, check post #60

 

At least you know that your PC may be infected, then you can fix it.
I think they will add quarantine in CIS 6 even if you don't install the AV

 

The Devs have mentioned that CIS 6 has quarantine without AV too.

 

For those of you having problems with Comodo's sandbox and the Virtual drive Q:/ and Microsoft Office Starter 2010 (here is to show how complicated is CIS to newbies, not that easy to deal with!) I found the solution read gdiloren in:
https://forums.comodo.com/format-verified-issue-reports-cis/defense-conflict-with-microsoft-office-starter-nbz-t70696.0.html;msg616412#msg616412

 

I've found 3 strange behaviours / bugs in Comodo AV. Can you confirm these on your systems?:

System: Windows 7 Professional SP1, 64 bit, clean install.
Software: Comodo Internet Security Premium 5.10.228257.2253.

1) First a mild one. If I perform a manual virus scan with Comodo AV, the "Ignore –> Once" command is repeated a lot of times. The number of repetition is apparently random. I haven't notice any rule for it.

2) If I choose the option to clean the infected file, and later restore it from quarantined items, the file is restored indeed to the original location, but I have no more permission to execute it. I can rename, move or delete it, but I cannot execute it. "Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. You may not have the appropiate permission to access the item." However: a) according to file's "Properties –> Security" that there are no problems with the permissions; b) the file isn't listed in Comodo's "Computer Security Policy –> Blocked Files"; c) and there are no policies to block the access of this file under "Computer Security Policy –> Defense+ Rules". Even the explorer.exe is a "Trusted Application" without any exclusion policy to block this file. Neither a system reboot doesn't solve the problem, so this behaviour is tied down somewhere, but I can't find it.

3) A very serious issue!: If the infected file is added to "Trusted files", and later is removed form "Trusted files", the infected file can be executed without any virus alert! However a manual scan recognizes the infection. So the infected file is executed without virus alerts, even though is removed from the "Trusted files". This extremely dangerous behaviour also persists after a system reboot.

 

Nice find on bug number 3

 

How was/is infected file added to the Trusted list

 

Thanks for the report homeless.

As good as CIS is, or for that matter a handful of other solutions, there is no complete solution available, only some that are "better" than others in some cases. They all have oddities, bugs, potential security flaws that one may never notice, etc. I have found that testing so many different AV's over the years, it does not seem to matter their features, the bells and whistles, all the comparisons. At some point they fail, and this is not likely to change.

Certainly many do a fine job, but if one is looking for that 'perfect' solution, it isn't found, even in those AV's that try and make one think somehow because they are bloats and monsters on ones hard disk with every feature known to the security world, they *must* be better. Truth is they are not, only in some instances they may offer a few advantages, but never 100% protection. 100% protection is a myth, but certainly there are some solutions that offer 95% + as far as detection, etc., with a small layered approach often closing the gap to maybe 98 - 99% for "normal" daily computing, not counting those who purposefully look for trouble as a means to improve.

Responsible computing habits must play a role, aside from any AV solution, and experience in real world, outside of controlled tests is to me much more valuable in grading the efficacy and performance of an application. It is good to put the applications through the fire so to speak, but in normal computing along with safe measures taken, many applications offer sufficient protection.

Once one weighs the strengths and weaknesses, which they all have, a compromise is generally made between detection and performance, never compromising security itself, just what performs 'best' and does not consume ones system to the point that simple daily productivity becomes a struggle.

100% protection and security is never connecting to the internet, and never sharing files, and possibly, never turn the computer on. All risks can simply never be avoided in real world computing, so we make use of what suits each persons need, learning from each other as we go along, and hopefully stay safe and corruption free.

Just a few thoughts from this tired brain. lol

 

@Breakfastofchumps & Cudni:
I've tested CAV with pseudo-viruses, pseudo-trojans from a lot of leak-tests. I've tried to probe every possible situation. Evident it's a rare situation to declare an infected executable trusted file, BUT there are many false positives in the case of Comodo Antivirus, so this is not an excluded scenario to mark them trusted, and after that – from some reasons – exclude from the database. Either way we take: bug no. 3 is a bug, even a severe bug. Bug no. 2 is also annoying.

 

you should post this in the comodo forum