Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
AV-C: Malware Protection Test (Mar 2019) and Real-World Protection Test (Feb-Mar 2019)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AtlBo" data-source="post: 809667" data-attributes="member: 32547"><p>I</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because they can use Comodo <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite116" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> and simply sandbox block all unsigned from the start lol (and live with the bugs and quirks and the rest :emoji_cold_sweat<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />. However, imagine if Comodo took signatures as seriously as say Avast or Kaspersky or Bitdefender. I really would like to see more interaction from the Comodo cloud as in with the marginal gray area of clean but unsigned software. And the tests seem to indicate in a way who is taking the fine line most seriously. This is a good thing to see from a-vs that don't have a sandbox to fall back on like Comodo. Also, it's a good reason to take seriously the tests at least as reference. Who is taking the software and usability the most seriously.</p><p></p><p>[SPOILER="More for the interested more on Comodo and value of tests"]</p><p>Example of unsigned is a program called mb-ruler. This is a very nice tool that puts a protractor on the desktop at the highest level of the screen. It can be used to measure angles and distances on the screen in pixels, inches, mm, etc. It will overlay picture editors, so it's a nice tool. With this type of little known software Comodo is not on the record and there are thousands of similar applications that could be whitelisted on the cloud. Don't know if Comodo whitelists some Nir Sofer apps, but perhaps isolated Nir Sofer apps like FullEventLogView could be evaluated and judged safe and whitelisted. I know it is auto-sandboxed normally even though it is signed (possibly by the dev himself idk). Again, these tests feed pressure into this area of software evaluation-:devil: This improves usability.</p><p></p><p>It's not malware signature detection what I am discussing (classically I suppose "reduction of FPs), but I would like to see Comodo specifically moreso known for taking marginal applications more seriously for evaluation. It's a perception I have I guess that Comodo doesn't do as much as they could from the cloud to whitelist. Also, user should know when the cloud is referenced, but that's probably a separate ticket with the Comodo forum (by 2025 maybe there will be a reply). Yet, I am imagining an alert explaining the whitelisting and then giving the user the option to sandbox the whitelisted app...</p><p></p><p>Comodo simply blocks, so it's not even submitted for testing. It's hard to know how seriously they take software evaluation. At any rate, the detection tests do seem to me valuable to see in this one sense, even while running Comodo, because there is healthy pressure placed on a company like Comodo to do better job of allowing unsigned applications that are safe. The fact that this one company doesn't study harder software for the tests and present their work in the tests means the protection could be viewed as inflexible and/or brickish, especially if it seems to be so in real world use. Sadly, this shows with Comodo during usage when compared to say Avast or other a-vs. Again simply a perception on my part. I know what to expect when I install Comodo...just hate having to decide whether to unbox with some unsigned applications, especially without knowing how the other companies handle the software (other than Forticlient). In the end, virustotal is too oftenly the friend here (not to mention perhaps VoodooShield if I could whitelist the script I run from time to time). Otherwise, it's hold the breath and unbox and restart the application without much information, except that Forticlient does/does not block the app.</p><p></p><p>BTW, signatures do not explain the relationship of possible malware with the internet. I wish this was a greater focus. Comodo gets a thumbs up from me for the presence of the firewall. It's easy to block an app from net contact with Comodo. Test results won't explain something like this, since most of the applications don't firewall as aggresively or thoroughly as Comodo. I do feel this is very important. OK, no false positive, but what does the installed application do that might be somewhat sketchy even if generally safe. Still, the tests help see who is working hard to evaluate software...</p><p></p><p>[/SPOILER]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AtlBo, post: 809667, member: 32547"] I Because they can use Comodo :D and simply sandbox block all unsigned from the start lol (and live with the bugs and quirks and the rest :emoji_cold_sweat:). However, imagine if Comodo took signatures as seriously as say Avast or Kaspersky or Bitdefender. I really would like to see more interaction from the Comodo cloud as in with the marginal gray area of clean but unsigned software. And the tests seem to indicate in a way who is taking the fine line most seriously. This is a good thing to see from a-vs that don't have a sandbox to fall back on like Comodo. Also, it's a good reason to take seriously the tests at least as reference. Who is taking the software and usability the most seriously. [SPOILER="More for the interested more on Comodo and value of tests"] Example of unsigned is a program called mb-ruler. This is a very nice tool that puts a protractor on the desktop at the highest level of the screen. It can be used to measure angles and distances on the screen in pixels, inches, mm, etc. It will overlay picture editors, so it's a nice tool. With this type of little known software Comodo is not on the record and there are thousands of similar applications that could be whitelisted on the cloud. Don't know if Comodo whitelists some Nir Sofer apps, but perhaps isolated Nir Sofer apps like FullEventLogView could be evaluated and judged safe and whitelisted. I know it is auto-sandboxed normally even though it is signed (possibly by the dev himself idk). Again, these tests feed pressure into this area of software evaluation-:devil: This improves usability. It's not malware signature detection what I am discussing (classically I suppose "reduction of FPs), but I would like to see Comodo specifically moreso known for taking marginal applications more seriously for evaluation. It's a perception I have I guess that Comodo doesn't do as much as they could from the cloud to whitelist. Also, user should know when the cloud is referenced, but that's probably a separate ticket with the Comodo forum (by 2025 maybe there will be a reply). Yet, I am imagining an alert explaining the whitelisting and then giving the user the option to sandbox the whitelisted app... Comodo simply blocks, so it's not even submitted for testing. It's hard to know how seriously they take software evaluation. At any rate, the detection tests do seem to me valuable to see in this one sense, even while running Comodo, because there is healthy pressure placed on a company like Comodo to do better job of allowing unsigned applications that are safe. The fact that this one company doesn't study harder software for the tests and present their work in the tests means the protection could be viewed as inflexible and/or brickish, especially if it seems to be so in real world use. Sadly, this shows with Comodo during usage when compared to say Avast or other a-vs. Again simply a perception on my part. I know what to expect when I install Comodo...just hate having to decide whether to unbox with some unsigned applications, especially without knowing how the other companies handle the software (other than Forticlient). In the end, virustotal is too oftenly the friend here (not to mention perhaps VoodooShield if I could whitelist the script I run from time to time). Otherwise, it's hold the breath and unbox and restart the application without much information, except that Forticlient does/does not block the app. BTW, signatures do not explain the relationship of possible malware with the internet. I wish this was a greater focus. Comodo gets a thumbs up from me for the presence of the firewall. It's easy to block an app from net contact with Comodo. Test results won't explain something like this, since most of the applications don't firewall as aggresively or thoroughly as Comodo. I do feel this is very important. OK, no false positive, but what does the installed application do that might be somewhat sketchy even if generally safe. Still, the tests help see who is working hard to evaluate software... [/SPOILER] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
