Status
Not open for further replies.

Enju

New Member
It makes for some interesting viewing but I take these with a grain of salt.No Emsisoft ? and a product I have used for over 15 years does bad in protection and performance.Why would I rely on the information provided in these tests when I have not had an infection in over 15 years using that same security solution which did not do well in this test.
IMO stick with what works for you and don't let these tests cloud your judgement.
These tests are more oriented towards regular users who have no idea what they are doing, unlike you! I would even go as far and say you wouldn't have had any infections even without any security software installed.
 
H

hjlbx

It makes for some interesting viewing but I take these with a grain of salt.No Emsisoft ? and a product I have used for over 15 years does bad in protection and performance.Why would I rely on the information provided in these tests when I have not had an infection in over 15 years using that same security solution which did not do well in this test.
IMO stick with what works for you and don't let these tests cloud your judgement.
And that's all that matters... ;)
 

Exterminator

Community Manager
Verified
Staff member
These tests are more oriented towards regular users who have no idea what they are doing, unlike you! I would even go as far and say you wouldn't have had any infections even without any security software installed.
Yes I totally agree that these are geared towards the average user and I think that is why their test results are always under speculation as less than accurate and influenced by the vendors.
You are too kind :) I am not really that smart and by no means an angel so I think my security software has had something to do with my being infection free

And that's all that matters... ;)
Agree 100%
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
Its interesting where in the protection category are almost every products got the perfect score on AV-Test.org, however its pretty a smokescreen when we call it as Real World Test provide by daily user enthusiast test.

The score of Comodo...why?
The backbone of the feature are came from HIPS, BB and Autosandbox; unfortunately the best consideration for the test by most independent organization are primarily signatures/along of cloud reputation so the true performance of Comodo exist. But it doesn't mean a worst already, you have a lot of reference to search which Comodo can act pretty good despite of issues and bugs.
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
(...)
Comodo is "Old School" and its management can be way too laborious for the uninitiated. My CIS config keeps my system clean despite heavy malware testing. The defining factor is I know how to use it to its fullest capabilities... so, despite what Comodo says, CIS is best suited to techies and security soft geeks. That's it.

Bottom line: If you can do it, then CIS can do it...

Good - yes, Great - no, needs refined, Garbage - absolutely not
I like your posts, always very informative, but I cant say the same about Comodo :p

In my opinion Comodo and similar security tools are just toys for geeks to play; think about it, if you can respond and use it to fullest capabilities you dont need this kind of security in first place.

For this reason almost all "old school" security tools has been left in the dust, automatic behavior blocker/anti exploit/antivirus with cloud reputation software has much more value than HIPS/Traditional Firewall and likewise soft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kuttz
D

Deleted member 178

Qihoo is a confirmed cheat and should be regarded as a bygone be bygone. Have been saying this for months now, they only sell your profile and in return you get a so so protection level.
cant say better fluffy and fancy multiple engines, that afford nothing but make the system crawl.

in all seriousness Comodo's only plus point at this point is their Firewall which is rather good YET due its NON smart configuration it provides a placebo security effect because even techy guys get lost in the ocean of features.

Guess what? the settings of every package is horrible and Comodo is no exception yet the difference between lets say Norton and Comodo is that the settings within Norton DO WORK... something that cannot be said about Comodo...
except me , it is why i use it now... long time i didn't have so much fun by playing with all those options :D

@All think what you want to think but there are only a few brands worth mentioning in the List and Brands like Qihoo, Tencent and Comodo are certainly not worth it...
chinese products (in general (not only softwares) are so shiny that they break 3 weeks after :D



Comodo is capable of extraordinarily complex rules. This is way too much for typical user...
I will state this much: I will gladly put my customized CIS configuration up against any AV test lab.
me too lol , i sure i get 5 stars in AV-C :p

That's the point - CIS needs experienced user who is willing to craft his\her own rules and policies. That's something even "advanced" users won't even dare to mess with. Do it incorrectly and you have smashed, unbootable system.
happened to me yesterday lol, forgot to re-tick one option (after experimentation) in auto-sandbox and file rating :p

I am experienced CIS user - and, in my experience, CIS is just plain overkill for typical use. For it to be effective it requires too much manual administration and how it works is incomprehensible for average user. I use it because I genuinely like it; it is configured to behave (for the most part), is quiet on my relatively simplistic system, and it handles malicious files like no other AV that I can find. So for me, it personally works. That is not true for the vast majority of users - which is Nico@FMA's argument. And, unfortunately, that is Comodo reality...
same here , i just regret they revamped it in into simplistic and fancy ways for average users, CIS should have been left for tweakers :D


I tell it like it is - Comodo is very good in some respects, but at the same time, has a lot of issues that sow nothing but confusion with most users - and it is not intended to be a complete internet security suite. CIS is designed only to keep the physical system clean - and not stop malware from getting onto your system (which is the whole premise of AV-Test methodology).
i partially disagree with you on that , back to v4 / v5 , CIS moto was to keep malware out of the system via preventive components aka the HIPS at that time.

Comodo is "Old School" and its management can be way too laborious for the uninitiated. My CIS config keeps my system clean despite heavy malware testing. The defining factor is I know how to use it to its fullest capabilities... so, despite what Comodo says, CIS is best suited to techies and security soft geeks. That's it.
True
 

Nico@FMA

Level 27
Comodo is capable of extraordinarily complex rules. This is way too much for typical user so Comodo developers optimize CIS for the least amount of alerts so as not to overwhelm users.

To make matters worse, the CIS user-interface is all manner of confusing quirky behaviors (bugs). Add to all of this a problematic combined Cloud service - and it just ain't good for the average user.

I will state this much: I will gladly put my customized CIS configuration up against any AV test lab.

That's the point - CIS needs experienced user who is willing to craft his\her own rules and policies. That's something even "advanced" users won't even dare to mess with. Do it incorrectly and you have smashed, unbootable system.

CIS is not for amateur night - and at the same time - the AV-Test is not designed to comprehensively test Comodo nor any other AV for that matter. There are those that know precisely what I am talking about - because they understand what AV-Test evaluates and does not evaluate.

So those are some of the facts - and just won't change until Comodo refines their product = fixing bugs, eliminating questionable features, making CIS management\administration more user-friendly, etc.

I am experienced CIS user - and, in my experience, CIS is just plain overkill for typical use. For it to be effective it requires too much manual administration and how it works is incomprehensible for average user. I use it because I genuinely like it; it is configured to behave (for the most part), is quiet on my relatively simplistic system, and it handles malicious files like no other AV that I can find. So for me, it personally works. That is not true for the vast majority of users - which is Nico@FMA's argument. And, unfortunately, that is Comdo reality...

Anyhow...

I tell it like it is - Comodo is very good in some respects, but at the same time, has a lot of issues that sow nothing but confusion with most users - and it is not intended to be a complete internet security suite. CIS is designed only to keep the physical system clean - and not stop malware from getting onto your system (which is the whole premise of AV-Test methodology).

Comodo is "Old School" and its management can be way too laborious for the uninitiated. My CIS config keeps my system clean despite heavy malware testing. The defining factor is I know how to use it to its fullest capabilities... so, despite what Comodo says, CIS is best suited to techies and security soft geeks. That's it.

Bottom line: If you can do it, then CIS can do it...

Good - yes, Great - no, needs refined, Garbage - absolutely not
Your comment is sound and valid yet one needs to realize that being able to add complex rules is not a geeky thing.
For example why would anyone go trough the trouble to add complex rules to CIS while for example, Kaspersky, Norton, Sophos and ESET are capable of exactly the same rules, just as strict and rocksolid with just one switch?
Most people do not realize that Comodo does not offer anything different then most other brands, the difference is that Comodo requires extensive knowledge in order to get a unfinished product working and then hope for the best, while packages from Norton and others offer the same protection (bottom-line) but require virtually zero config, just plug and play. Another thing is that most users have a router/modem from their ISP which comes standard with a hardware based firewall provided by brands like Cisco, Juniper and Palo Alto which beats ANY software firewall hands down.
So having a Norton IS, Kaspersky IS, ESET IS (Or any flavor for that matter) will provide pretty much the same level of security, the only difference is that lets say Norton is not bugged while with Comodo you have to see day by day if things are bugged broken or otherwise.
No disrespect to Comodo as their product (Framework wise) is sound, but virtually none of their products comes close to being properly finished and maturely developed compared to lets say other brands like the ones above.
And again being able to add your own rules is really not that special as each of the names above you can add your own rules and make things as strict as you would require.
The whole hype about Comodo and their firewall is long past glory as their firewall is literally the only thing sound in their whole CIS package, and this pure fact is reason enough to advise users to go with a different package that does not have all the problems and issues.
I see rarely a Norton, Kasperky or ESET user in Malware removal help, since their security usually does the trick, yet the amount of CIS users asking for help is staggering across virtually all known communities like: MT, Wilders, Bleep and Nucia.
That says something i think.

I personally would be the first to embrace Comodo if and only if they stop releasing 50% finished products and really would start ironing out the bugs in their flagship products. I mean do not get me wrong their concept is sound no argue there....
Its just the end result, its to little, to less and not matured enough and totally unstable as is being shown time after time after time.
Thats not making Comodo look bad but these are facts that cannot be said about other brands.

So i would change this: Good - yes, Great - no, needs refined, Garbage - absolutely not

To

Good Hell No Average Yes
Garbage partly...

But then again each one can have their own opinions and idea's and that's ok so if CIS works for you (or anyone else) then fantastic don't fix something which aint broken, yet i personally would NOT (With a big N) advise anyone to install CIS.
 
D

Deleted member 178

The whole hype about Comodo and their firewall is long past glory as their firewall is literally the only thing sound in their whole CIS package,
i cant disagree lol


So i would change this: Good - yes, Great - no, needs refined, Garbage - absolutely not

To

Good Hell No Average Yes
Garbage partly...
i will say :

good ? depends ... Average ? depends... Garbage ? depends ... :D
 

JakeXPMan

Level 15
Verified
It makes for some interesting viewing but I take these with a grain of salt.No Emsisoft ? and a product I have used for over 15 years does bad in protection and performance.Why would I rely on the information provided in these tests when I have not had an infection in over 15 years using that same security solution which did not do well in this test.
IMO stick with what works for you and don't let these tests cloud your judgement.
perfect statement ... nothing to add.


i will say i find it odd that Avira always out scores "everything" YET, not on YouTube tests, leaving a system infected. Same tester found AVG and Avast clean of viruses.
 

JakeXPMan

Level 15
Verified
I forgot to say that I will still use AVAST Free. I don't care about AV-TEST or AV-Comparatives, I do my own tests :)
And I will listen those and ignore the *testing* which shows several AV as perfect {ooooo / ooooo / ooooo} "scores", which is unlikely they can get perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kate_L

Kuttz

Level 12
Verified
In my many time experiences COMODO CIS is in general a crude, buggy, cumbersome security suite with an average malware detections cannot offer sufficient protection at this age. There are many alternatives to COMODO both free and paid that offers far more protection which are effective, simple and easy to use security softwares. Comodo CIS offers pseudo bulletproof security.
 
H

hjlbx

In my many time experiences COMODO CIS is in general a crude, buggy, cumbersome security suite with an average malware detections...
@kuttan I wholeheartedly agree, but with right settings one can essentially create anti-executable with firewall and virtualization. This is whole reason I use CIS. It combines everything I desire in one package and In that config it is solid on my system.
 

OokamiCreed

Level 18
Verified
Trusted
I can't take these test seriously. Not by any company. Even the AV vendors themselves don't tell the whole story or show accurate results when comparing their own product to others (but why would they? It's bad marketing for them - they all just want some money). As for the average user looking at this, it can be a bit misleading. One could think that if they have top scores in protection, they will never be infected. Even regular old browsing can get you infected nowadays. I believe the average user shouldn't look at these test... totally misleading.

I also believe file detection is kind of obsolete now and zero day components, two way firewall, and web protection (that can scan elements in pages as well as report to the user of already known infected pages, like Kaspersky) will rule the day. If Comodo had great web protection... it would be amazing. They got that zero day and firewall down already for a while now. Don't judge Comodo for its file detection... it's supposed to be that way. They focus on what actually matters. They also have a sandbox which most don't. Also a really nice feature that I'd love to see in every vendors product.
 

JakeXPMan

Level 15
Verified
@kuttan I wholeheartedly agree, but with right settings one can essentially create anti-executable with firewall and virtualization. This is whole reason I use CIS. It combines everything I desire in one package and In that config it is solid on my system.
Very good knowledge to have, and for a safe user which knows malware, CIS should be a good idea.
To a casual PC user the firewall settings will likely be on default, and the best of Comodo Internet Security wont be realized.

I'm wondering since the Comodo Antivirus has a sandbox and HIPS, how is it that the Comodo Firewall is still needed to be fully secure? Shouldn't the sandbox settting enable a stop to the malware from being able to change or damage system files?
 
H

hjlbx

Very good knowledge to have, and for a safe user which knows malware, CIS should be a good idea.
To a casual PC user the firewall settings will likely be on default, and the best of Comodo Internet Security wont be realized.

I'm wondering since the Comodo Antivirus has a sandbox and HIPS, how is it that the Comodo Firewall is still needed to be fully secure? Shouldn't the sandbox settting enable a stop to the malware from being able to change or damage system files?
@JakeXPMan

There are malwares that can disable CIS sandbox and HIPS... rare, indeed, but there is no denying it - it does happen... and malware can insert file(s) onto system. So firewall is last line of defense when malware makes outbound connect to call home.

Make sense ?

Plus, CIS does not have boot-time scan. AE config will block all Unrecognized files at startup...

I have 3-layered block config: auto-sandbox, HIPS and firewall.

It is important for CIS user to keep File Rating list always current... which is a manual hassle sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
The score of Comodo...why?
Out-of-the-box it's awful. It's like a kit car: assembly required and not all the parts fit so you'll have to work around it or supplement it with your own parts. It's also requires far too much user intervention...we already have UAC to play the nagging mother-in-law role and we see how swimmingly that works (in the real world, not theoretical and not in a lab).

Qihoo is a confirmed cheat and should be regarded as a bygone be bygone. Have been saying this for months now, they only sell your profile and in return you get a so so protection level.
No, only evidence found was against Tencent and the other two (Qihoo and Baidu) were only accused but not cleared even though it was specifically announced that there was no evidence of cheating on their part. cf. http://malwaretips.com/threads/av-comparatives-real-world-protection-test-march-–-june-2015.48405/#post-411019

Mass media: where rumour > fact
 
H

hjlbx

:D Propaganda and media hype... or is it Uganda and medium height ?

@Umbra , @Nico@FMA , @OokomiCreed , @sithlordadler

These debates are such fun... and, more importantly, make one - at least me - think...

Thanks !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: sithlordadler
Status
Not open for further replies.