PC MAG: Comodo Antivirus 5.0 Review

I really love the part when a not digitally signed program generates a pop-up and he says "I know it is secure, so I accept and, see it it installs with no problems"

You can set UAC to not elevate signed programs or install no signed drivers. UAC is as secure as Comodo's sandbox in auto mode, so why go through all this trouble?

 

The statement that HIPS protects the system from malware is a bold one. HIPs does nothing but ask questions about well...everything. You still have to answer that question and if you don't know what it is that's being asked, that program just became useless. There are much better ways to harden a system than Nanny McHips for ordinary users.

Would you like to submit post, yes or no? yes. Would you like the post to post on wilders.com, yes or no? yes. would you like to post dog avatar because it looks cute yes or no? yes. . Would you look to curl up in a ball and cry because I ask too many questions, yes or no? maybe?

 

just so u know they were testing Comodo ANTIVIRUS here... if Comodo's AV wasn't meant to clean, then what the hell does it even do? sit and look pretty? alert u of something but then do nothing about it? lol...

if i remember correctly, Comodo stated that they would have something along the lines of an AV that can compete with other major players, what happened to that claim? that was WELL over a year ago even tho they said they would have it within a year, so as usual, we get a load of bull**** excuses that are the usual from Comodo and Comodo users

"now that our AV turned out to be a farse, we will simply use the excuse that is was never meant to work"... its sad really.

 

But where is the acid like cleaning abilities which Comodo has promised since so long?

 

UAC does not have the white list and trusted vendor list that Comodo has, so it will be even more difficult for people to use.

 

Yes, you make a valid point. A useability test without some info on the user profile where the software is tested against, what does that tell you? You make the correct remark "even more difficult". I ask you is less than 'even more difficult" the same as easy?

A useability test normally follows the advice of the software and checks whether this results in the expected effects. Languy just ignores the advices (because he knows) and concludes that CIS 5 is user friendly (hope you understand how hilarious that is)

 

I understand what you mean.

This usability test is not accurate. CIS is definitely not ready for average users. In fact though I have never been infected when running CIS, I still cannot recommend it to any of my friends.

Regards

 

Sorry changed the text, because after reading it back, the sticky tongue could be incorrectly interpretated. So I changed the text to make clear I did agree with you.

 

Thanks.

 

Yep no problem.

Regards

 

agree, and they said NO rootkit would be safe

 

Ordinary users want zero pop up alerts with automatic handling/ cleaning of malware, with zero false positives( if possible), so CIS is not for them. No doubt in that. In fact it will be never for them as comodo is a product for a special group of users since its birth.


Seems their AV still offer a lot of work and time and may be many more versions before it can have a decent detection and cleaning .


For me i am not interested in AV part. I want the FW and HIPS and CIS is great for that. Addition of an auto-sandboxing feature with a white list is very smart idea indeed. If i am not mistaken, it's very similar to KIS restrictions. Sandbox of CIS is very different to SBIE. It's just a set of restrictions applied to unknown applications so they can't trash the OS.

I have always used Defense plus in paranoid mode for full control. The good thing about lates version is that instead of paranoid mode i can use it in default mode and still i am relax that no unknown malware wil be able to trash my system as it wil be sandboxed automatically. I was really tired of pop up alerts and making rules after rules but default mode without sandbox was not acceptable for me in older versions.

And i still turn on ProActive Paranoid mode for testing and analysing malware and POCs.

As far as white list is concerned, it needs time and resources to become decent enough.

Again still a thought that comodo might had been better acquiring licence from an establishede vendor and then improving it just like Fsecure but may be it costs them too much.

And lastly i wish comodo could become humble, mature and more professionl in their conduct and attitude. Sadly it does not seem to happen in near future.

 

Id rather have a clean system and prevent it from being infected (CIS) than have NIS and get infected and possibly be able to clean it. Its much easier to prevent then remove. CIS wins hands down.

 

Comparing apple and oranges? Both are fruits but they don't taste the same...some of us like one while others like the other. There's also those who like both or none of them at all.

May I suggest that we quit this comparison between Norton and Comodo? Coz that's not what this thread is meant for...

 

I was simply pointing out the fact that Norton claimed NO free AV could be a paid AV and this test proved Nortons claims false.

 

As always, it's ridiculously easy to tell who didn't read the linked article.

 

The article has no meaning what so ever. Its in the numbers.

 

Actually, it's the other way round. The numbers hide the fact that it's the reviewer who's doing the protecting, not the software. Which you would've found out if you actually read the article.

 

+1

 

Really? I thought the computer did everything on its own. Nothing is hidden there. Just someone who knows how to make decisions on their own and which the forum has pretty much come to a consensus that its in the users hands, not the softwares.

 

Why think, when you can read the article and know?

 

Or common sense tells you that a computer doesnt use itself.

 

I fail to see what your comment has to do with the issue at hand.

The truth behind the numbers is revealed in the article. If you insist on refusing to read just so you can cling on the comforting delusions that the numbers afford you, I suppose there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

There was no point in this discussion other than the fact that you pointed out the blatantly obvious fact that computer doesnt use itself and its the user behind the security suite after which I pointed out the fact that CIS is better than NIS and the numbers prove it. Your logic is second to none.

 

No, the computer doesn't use itself. But it looks like you're trying your best to twist that into meaning that security software cannot perform autonomously without asking the user to make every decision, when just about every competent security suite (a group which doesn't include Comodo, by the way) proves that dead wrong.

Really, the nonsense and logical distortions that the fanboys will stoop to never cease to amaze me.

Again, wake up to reality, please. The numbers prove nothing. The reviewer has gone to lengths to explain this in the article itself, which you repeatedly refuse to read. I'm no competent programmer by any measure, but I could ostensibly whip up a "security suite" in a few hours or so that blocks everything, both good and bad, and hence gives "100% protection". Does this mean it provides excellent security? No.

It's okay to love Comodo, that's your choice. It's less okay to choose to be deliberately ignorant, refuse to read, and cling on to deluded fantasies... but I guess that's your choice too.