No need to hardened mode, just install avast free av and set CFW to proactive config (disable HIPS). Set FW alert frequency "low"
Then, enjoy your secure life. You will not like 360's FPs. Avast has good features for free in their free software.
Both Avast and Qihoo are very good products however I personally advise you to take the advantage for Avast on your system, over Qihoo.
As noted previously in this thread by other members, Qihoo may pop up some false positive detections. Over time, this may become very irritating. While, Qihoo is a good product and does have a nice detection rate, if you are not someone to know how to determine if a file is malicious or not (or a valid detection, generally speaking) then I highly advise you to use Avast over Qihoo. This is because, if you get a detection from Qihoo which you think is a false positive when it really isn't (seen as a lot of people mention the false positive reputation which seems to be hanging down on the train here), then executing that detected object may cause damage in a number of ways, for example, it may: download more malicious items (Trojan Downloader), infect the Master Boot Record (Bootkit), spread iteself over a network (if you have one) (Worm - of course it doesn't have to spread over a network to be a worm but generally speaking with the term "spread"), inject code into running processes (Injector) and other things.
A way around this, however, is to check the detection on a website like VirusTotal, to find out what other vendors think of the file, after analysis. Of course, if you end up with a FUD sample... It's bad luck and it's your bad day.
A secondary alternative, around this, is to use an online Sandbox service and to then check the recorded information on the sample from the process behaviour which was monitored whilst it was executing. Services like this include:
A third alternative, is to install a sandbox on your system like Sandboxie and to then execute the sample there (in it's isolated environment).
And, a last alternative, is to use a Virtual Machine to test samples, and after infection revert back to a snapshot which was created before you started testing files on before execution on your main system.
Using one of the above alternatives (or the VirusTotal one and then one of the sandbox ones put together in one big technique) could be very effective for checking out new programs you are unsure of executing on your system.
Just so you know, Qihoo actually has a Sandbox. On the side note, Avast has a feature called DeepScreen which will analyse the sample whilst it executes (seperate from your system being at risk, do not worry) and then will determine if the threat is unsafe through the analysis results recorded whilst the sample was running.
I personally feel that Avast is more stable overall, as a product, and is simply more polished and matured than Qihoo is. The reason I believe this, is that I see less encountered BSOD crashes whilst using Avast than people using Qihoo. Through the use of my own test results over time, I can also see the same pattern.
A BSOD may not have actually been created by Qihoo itself, but a conflict between malware it is trying to remove from memory (for example, there is something called a CRITICAL PROCESS in Windows. If a process is executed into memory and then sets itself as a critical process, Windows will prevent it from being killed from memory without Windows having to be shut down. However, if this process is then forced to be killed from memory, the system will result in a BSOD crash).
However, after my own experience of testing over time (I frequently test new products) and other peoples crash experiences, I believe Avast is more stable in it's own way compared to Qihoo.
Of course, after mentioning this, Avast does have crashes, too. In the past, it has removed somesystem files on some systems which were owned by people I have spoken too before and have known. And this did cause issues for them. However, it's not a "common" thing. Just thought, I should mention this. It would be unfair for me to point out the bad of Qihoo and for me to say how I do not believe it is as stable as Avast without mentioning this bad factor which has occured in Avast, previously.
Qihoo is a good product, though, and there is no doubt about this - I am not saying it isn't.
Qihoo does have some decent features, as does Avast. Everyone has their own opinions on the security software, in which they like. Only you can truly decide which product out of the two you prefer.
Both products have a large, positive userbase. As in, both products have a lot of positive, happy users. In my opinion, I would have chosen another security product to protect my system (paid, not free), however the choice you provided was Avast and Qihoo, therefore I will not mention another product specifically in this reply (unless asked too, by the OP).
Before I end this, every Antivirus has some false positives.
From prior experience using Comodo I can tell that a lot of questions will go unanswered until you try it out on your specific system.
Sometimes there are problems, depending on a bunch of issues which are almost impossible to predict. In the end, to get Comodo FW and another AV to work together on the same system you might have to exclude Comodo from monitoring the AV, and the AV from monitoring Comodo.
To me it makes no sense as I would just use Comodo Internet Security in its entirety. Comodo's sandbox and virtual kiosk, used with discipline, is secure enough...even with Comodo's AV.
I do not know why it isn't actively promoted on this forum, but if you want to supplement Comodo's AV then you can simply add a desk top icon for whatever 3rd-party scanners you desire and then use it within the sandbox or virtual kiosk to scan downloads. I always suggest EEK as you can use a Custom scan profile to scan a single file or folder. Granted, it is a manual process as opposed to a real-time automated one. However, when Defense+ is active then it will likely auto-sandbox the vast majority of malware and/or HIPS will alert anyways.
Alternatively, you can simply use the VirusTotal uploader or the VirusTotal FireFox plugin (VTZilla) within the sandbox or virtual kiosk. This combo is more powerful because of its simplicity.
You're not going to know which combo will work best on your system until you try both.
Comodo Internet Security is maligned a lot ... unjustifiably. Granted, it can be overwhelmingly confusing for the novice, the learning curve is long and steep, and the bugs are maddeningly frustrating.
All this aside, its configurability is phenomenal.
Importing a malicious URL black-list greatly improves it...which very few are aware that this can be done. It is just that everyone is accustomed to this sort of thing being automated. The hassle is in gathering the list(s), importing them, and then keeping them up-to-date.
Using Hardened Mode from Avast is yet considered to be a risk where it could determine any mistakes of marking programs to be unknown immediately, its also equivalent to Application Privilege of Kaspersky thus design for experience users to test it.
But for better protection concept well its the signatures, alongside of heuristics and other components like BB to determine its awareness of the file to be detected as threat.
Hardened Mode is likely a backup option when all components bypassed.
