COMODO Internet Security 5.3.174622.1216 Released!

check vipre threads, i criticize them for not having published tests consistantly, i dont care bout K7, dont care bout immunet either (but as said already they dont use their own engine only so the engines they do use are already tested) and emsisoft has already explained that testing costs money (AV-C) as Noob explained

Comodo has money and is not a small company so they have no excuse, other than fear of a bad result which shows a lack of confidence.

Furthermore, other vendors that choose not to get tested also dont go around with a cocky attitude saying how great they are and that they are better than the competition, i like to see proof to backup claims like that and Comodo's provided none.

 

Comodo did the last year two sponsored test at least, that I know, you can find more information in their forums.
Comodo is in VB100, so the av was tested several times the last year. This is one of those tests: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

Do you understand that the av's does not choose to be tested, most of the times are the testers who choose the products that they want to test?

If Comodo is not in other tests is because they are only interested in the Dynamic ones (real conditions), and they choose not to spend their money in other useless tests.

Jajajaja you must to be kidding, no the other vendors says that their products are bad, only the evil people of Comodo says that their product is good.

Please the next time before start to say lies again about Comodo inform you better first, so you will not make the ridiculous with every new post:
PCMag protection test, CIS is the best one:
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/23/0,1425,sz=1&i=235761,00.jpg

Norton vs CIS: http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/Symantec-versus-Comodo.pdf

Dynamic test comparative, Comodo wins: http://www.ekaitse.ee/EKAITSE_TORJETEST_2010_ENG.pdf

Another one and Comodo is again the best one: http://sashland.de/portal/2010/06/12/der-grose-sl-portal-malware-test-2010/#more-5315

So if they say that Comodo Internet Security is better than the competition protecting your computer it's because they have different test to prove it and nothing saying the opposite, well only some uninformed people.

You will never see nobody saying in Comodo forums that CAV is the best one, well you can say it, but even Melih will have some laughs with this affirmation.

 

Comodo Internet Security is really impressed me about ram usage and general protection. But Comodo Antivirus hasn't got browser protection yet (I mean "http://" scanner), maybe it isn't a big deal, but it's a problem for me, i didn't feel confident when i surfing, indeed. Because of that i returned to Avast Home again. Defense+ and firewall parts are fantastic, i can easily say that, in my opinion.

 

AV-C does have dynamic tests and it is paid so ur wrong again (Comodo has to pay to be included so it is ther choice) just for an example

and am i the only one who remembers Melih saying Comodo AV will be as good as everyone elses within 1 year, WELL over a year ago? lol

and again, none of my comments have been about CIS so lets stay in context, its been about the AV, plain and simple, so dont get carried away.

 

Sorry but you are wrong, according to AVC you need to be (pay) tested in the main AVC tests to be tested in the Dynamic ones, it is even written in the reports.
Also they have a quota of AV's, so if a new AV want to come in is not just a matter of money.

Jajaja now you recognize your own lies

First you say that Comodo says that they are better than any competitor

Now seems that Melih said a year ago, or maybe 2 or 3 or never that hopefully they will have an AV as good as everyone elses within 1 year.

I see another lie or a huge difference between what you think you write and what you really write.

Sorry but you are wrong again your comment was about Comodo as a vendor and not only about the AV, a little part of his main product.
As you can see the context of the sentence is about what the vendors do or say.

 

I'd rather not lock this thread for going off topic and on some tired tangent. Try to agree to disagree.

 

some vendors paid for being tested internally/separately in the dynamic test (as well as other tests) last year. but i can not disclose which vendors were (or were not) tested internally/separately, as internal tests / single tests are usually under NDA (so please do not ask me, as I will not answer anyway).

 

But in order to appear in the official Dynamic test the product have to be already included in the main tests? right?

 

yes, correct. To be inside the report with the other products its needed to apply / be in the yearly test-series. Otherwise it was a separate report (with results which can be compared with the results in the official/big report, for which any vendor can/did apply, not just the 20 from the main tests).

 

This is like a broken record… MRG did not change the methodology in the test. We tested all the products and gave feedback to the vendors before publishing the results. We told Comodo they had failed and discussed the reasons with their directors. Comodo argued that they should have passed and that they did not agree with our findings and asked us to change the results before we published. We explained why we classed CIS as having failed and said we can’t change the results of our tests.

In the published test we detailed examples of what constituted a fail and used CIS prompts as an example. Comodo then published false accusations that we had changed the methodology. The results of the test were not changed, CIS was given a fail in the pre-published version and a fail in the final published version.

Because of the way Comodo behaved over this issue and the fact that nearly all discussions concerning this company end up being unprofessional, aggressive and accusatorial we feel they are not yet ready to be included with the other vendors in our tests.

It is interesting that a select few people here still try to damage our reputation. The fact of the matter is, MRG is recognised as one of the most innovative and effective testing organisations and has contracts with many of the leading security vendors. We also take time to help support several smaller vendors and supply many of thousands of malware samples every day to vendors like Malwarebytes, SAS, Trojanhunter etc. – all for free, when other organisations charge over €10,000 / year for this service!

Anyway, I won’t bother replying to any of your posts, just wanted to clear up the untrue statements you published about our company.

Regards,
Sveta

 

In Comodo forums you can find both versions of the documents with differences in the methodology. But dont worry I dont care who were lying since I already read both parts and none of them can proof nothing.
*

 

I am not sure whether it is a top AV or not. But it is definitely detects a lot higher than 1 year old one used to do. (though i must agree it has a bit fp problems)
I've came to conclusion based on (PS. I usually test 10-12 malware samples a day from MDL.)
Cloud scanner on my system and
CIS on my friends system
PS. This is my personal opinion based on above usage and not necessarily same for all.

offtopic - If i remember correctly (per comodo forums) CAV should be tested by AV-C this year. I will try to point the link here if i found it

Thanks,
Harsha.

 

Hey,

I wouldn't want to delve this much into this topic but, although I'm not a Comodo fan nor have been a user of this particular product in the past; once I read they had added support for IPv6 on its firewall I wanted to test it on a Win 7 Pro spare PC at home and I'm quite impressed by it and its Defense+ [D+] module.

It's very, very quiet. Almost silent. It's only given me THREE [3] alerts so far: corresponding the first one to one instance of svchost which I allowed since this is a process that correspond to MS Windows; the second alert was related to DKService trying to act as a server which correspond to Diskeeper 2010 and, the last one corresponded to an installation of WinRAR since the .exe installer of this application is NOT digitally signed [I still wonder why].

Other than the alerts mentioned above, Comodo FW has been very, very quiet on this system. In fact, I wouldn't notice it's there if I hadn't seen its red icon with the white C in the center on the system tray.

D+ is very powerful: I can witness this. I gathered about 57 malicious .exe files from MDL and mac0de/database and none of the executables could install anything on the system because they were blocked by D+ and the “CLOUD”, which surprisingly works even if you only install the firewall component of the suite.

Now, about the AV, I can't say anything since I did NOT install it nor tested it but based on a friend who happens to run the whole suite on his laptop the only downside of the AV is that it has to wait until you try to EXECUTE a malicious file to detect it and it does NOT block the .exe installers because the lack of HTTP SCANNER. It loos like Comodo AV doesn't scan files downloaded from the Internet like NOD32, or Avast! do [which have HTTP SCANNERS and can block malicious downloads before the are saved to disk].

May be that's one of the reasons why Comodo AV has been scoring too low in regards to detection [when it comes to files downloaded from the Net]. When you execute the malicious files, it might be too late to prevent infection, because NO anti-virus, NONE AT ALL, can detect 100.00% of everything, some malicious .exe could go undetected and release their nasty playloads making you need MBAM, SAS or Hitman Pro to clean whatever Comodo AV let past through.


Just my 2¢...



Carlos

 

Absolutely agree but here it comes D+ with Sandbox and (depend on your paranoia level Partially limited/Limited/Restricted/Untrusted/Blocked) that file is harmless even it's executed.

 

1 major flaw for me - no button to clean the sanbox container.

 

There is a little new change in CIS
http://forums.comodo.com/news-annou...he-ciss-tvl-t67932.0.html;msg483765#msg483765

I dont know exactly what this means but I guess that is a change to improve or facilitate a future improvement to solve the problems of CIS with some certified rogues.

 

It's depends which version of the sandbox you tried the last time, take a look to the changelog
http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/release_notes.html
But from 5.0 to 5.3 there are no new features in the sandbox

 

Thanks, I read that comodo has reduced signature size that is awesome, what is it now?

 

80MB now

 

They are working on reducing it to minimum

 

80MB is the download. Then after install is about 130MB.

 

They do reduce it, but it always grows back
Anyways, when they started this i remember the DB was around 90MB so it's an improvement

 

I'm running the latest Comodo IS .1236 in VM. The av download, as I recall, was 83MB.

So far, in just a couple or three little tests with 12 or 14 malware each, nothing got through. D+ caught most and the antivirus a few. I'm impressed enough that I'm thinking about installing it on my laptop. Runs very light, with no slowdown at all.

I'm not sure how the sandbox works yet, whether it runs every time you open the browser - things like that. Also not sure, since I'm running Google Chrome on my laptop whether the sandbox is needed with Chrome having its own, or if there would be a conflict.

All in all, I like this newest version of Comodo. It's got everything I want all in one package. It's free, it's light, and it seems to work as advertised.

 

Nice report there, yeah CIS 5.3 is very light and smooth now.

BTW, the sandbox works by creating a files system and registry virtual environment.
First it checks if the Digital Signature of the file is in the trusted list and if it is then it is trusted, if it's not signed or the vendor is not in the list then it is sent to the cloud to perform a check and if it returns negative or unknown then it is run in the sandbox.

I would recommend some setting on CIS 5.3 for better protection

 

should i enable IPv6 filtering?