Challenge to Symantec from Comodo CEO!

Is Microsoft Security Essentials a cut version?

 

it's like a standalone version of forefront. forefront without the management console is very, very similar to mse. aside from the client/agent framework of forefront, i'd say it's not cut-down at all.

 

Ive never heard of Forefront.

 

this is not true.
the latest pctools 8.0 use same definition from symantec (maybe vice versa too).
just install it and check its signature files.

 

Hello,


I'm not a COMODO user nor a fan of it. However, I just wanted to point out that Symantec is indeed good....as long as it's connected to the Internet because it's basically an “in-the-cloud” product as is McAfee [ anyone remembers ARTEMIS ? ].

If you disconnect your PC/laptop from the Internet for 3 MONTHS and thus, do not update Norton's virus definitions and put it to test against ZERO-Day malware [e.g. the links found at the famous web-site that all of you Wilders' users know about ] I bet many US$$$ that Norton is not going to fare so well.

I'm not saying that Comodo will do fare well either but I just want to remind people here that even when they [Symantec ] have improved over the years [ it took them several years since Norton 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 ]. I remember that the last version of Symantec products that ever run on my PC were Norton Personal Firewall 2001 and Norton Antivirus 2001. I dropped them as soon as they got bloated and I haven't looked back ever since. Still some of my past employers keep using Symantec Corporate AV version 10.1 [ on Win XP ] or Endpoint Protection 11.0.6 [ on XP and Vista/7 ].

I do not consider myself a power user nor a newbie but I'm the kind of user that doesn't like to be treated as a dumb person who needs to be taken by hand by my software because if it doesn't happen that way I'm going to fall victim of Trojans. I like to make decisions myself based on the information I get so I might allow/deny based upon it.


Regards,



Carlos

 

Plus Browser Defender and Norton Safe Web appear to share the same database to me.

 

I tend to prefer security software that doesn't come bundled with non-stop over-heated psycho-drama.

 

really sad to both good av saying things like this

norton is way good .. no doubt

but i cant ignore fact that comodo also is good
it is free and yet offers sloid protection

abt competition , we see that already i guess in various test

 

Sorry to say this but ThreatFire is a "dead" product, no update since last year and it causes major slowdowns on some computers.

 

Comodo makes great products, so does Symantec.

But where do you draw the line, one test, two tests, 10, more samples, more rootkits, determine who had the best removal, which testing organisation is best, who has the best follow-up email support, phone support etc?

Rather than a testing organisation, what's to determine a 10 year old kid, or an 80 year old grandmother would follow the same behaviour as the testing organisation content on measuring samples, would your regular user even click on a link marked .exe if they didn't know what it was, would they know what to do with each alert? Testing organisation fail. Testing organisations don't measure what all users do on the net, they just provide an indication of samples detected.

The bottom line is, even if Comodo won 10/10 times, this won't affect Symantec's revenue by one cent. Probably won't increase Comodo's either.

Pointless.

 

That's what you think, but from my experience, ThreatFire is far from dead. Last time i was mocking it up on MDL, it nailed everything but 1 thing. Some sort of russian ransomware since it blocked all the access to Windows and only having loads of text in russian and one field where it seems you had to enter some kind of code. Pretty much all the other security programs missed it as well.

As for the update, one is in beta stage just now. You have to understand that behavior blockers can go without updates easily for half a year opposed to standard antiviruses that require steady stream of updates daily if not more often.

 

agree 100%
so now theres no way u check as even tests dont prove anything ,, so what to do ??

 

maybe blindly trusting marketing like discussed in the other thread?

 

Tests from various sources (testing organisations definitely a key part, news websites) + over a period of time (months, years to achieve consistency) + user experience (forums - us here) + regular customer feedback (forums - sharing personal experience of parents/family/friends) + customer support (across the board, email, forums) + ease of use = strongest product.

About ThreatFire, produce a lighter version, charge $9.95 a year as it complements an AV, and sign me up.

 

Nice move by Comodo.

Given that CIS is being compared to Symantec(which is the best out there), many people will believe that CIS is a top product as well even though it has not been properly tested and thus will inevitably switch to CIS because it is free and effective.

Regards

 

Its good time to attack. Comodo in v5 have improved a lot. Also its IS is indeed more powerful in proactive defence.

 

Good luck to Comodo! They seem to forget how many end users deploy their product and what type of users use their product

Bet quite a few guys at Symatec are having a nice private chuckle about this!

 

Don't post this on Symantec forums because they will kill ThreatFire then

 

I'm not saying its not good, its just not supported because of Symantec. I hope the new beta will fix the slowdowns but still... few years later i doubt Symantec will close pc tools....

 

I think this thread is going to be an A vs. B thread...

 

The whole A vs B policy is total BS here. If we're not allowed to compare, then what is the forum for then? If someone is so damn alergic to it, make a separate subforum called "A vs B" and let users compare stuff in there, leaving this one clean of such threads. As simple as that.

 

It is because of the A v B policy that there is very little BS in this forum else it would have been tons as there was in the past and would be again given a chance. Couldn't be simpler so lets discuss the subject instead and leave the A v B comparing to others.

 

Right.

 

I was just telling Comodo's proactive defence is more powerful means more powerful compared to its signature detection. No A vs B.

 

This is a PR move by Comodo that Norton most likely won't answer. So without an answer Comodo can claim a victory although I doubt they ever expected a response. These are two different computer security suites that have two different target audiences. The normal Norton user would see a D+ alert and have a deer in the headlights look. The normal Comodo user would see the lack of configuration options in NIS and be turned off. There probably won't be many Comodo converts coming over from Norton....and vice versa.

I like the Comodo promo in a way- it keeps things interesting. It would have been more sincere had Comodo challenged Kaspersky's 2011 suite as it is more in line with Comodo than Norton. Maybe that comes at some point?

I think no matter what happens in the test results the spin doctors will be on full alert ready to rectify the losing party. There would be claims of testing bias by Comodo should they lose, I am sure. But having a security suite offered for free that is comparable to a paid product is nice.