Battle Avast Internet Security vs. Comodo Internet Security Vs. ESET Smart Security

[King Alpha]

Which among "THESE 3 SUITES" is better in terms of zero-day protection? AIS, CIS or ESS???

 

[technology]

Comodo Internet security

 

[Ink]

Better for you or someone with less PC and Web Experience? Are they a PC gamer, production editor, or a basic web user? Will they be programming or create new files? Will they be travelling a lot or using WiFi hotspots?

Just some factors, instead of saying "which is better".

 

[McLovin]

Basically what Earth said, need a bit more information then which one is better. As they are all good in their own way.

 

[King Alpha]

Oh yeah guys I forgot. Anyways I edited the question above.

 

[isuru1]

I think Comodo Internet Security is better

 

[Ink]

Most consumers should not have a problem with zero-day malware.

In any case;
- Avast has Software Updater that should notify you about vulnerable programs.
http://blog.avast.com/tag/software-updater/

- ESET (v7 Smart Security only) has a Vulnerabilities Shield

The Vulnerability Shield operates on the network level and protects against misuse of known vulnerabilities in network protocols.

http://www.eset.com/us/presscenter/press-releases/article/eset-releases-eset-nod32-antivirus-7-and-eset-smart-security-in-beta/

- Comodo has it's Auto-Sandbox which will Sandbox any unrecognised files at the default settings, unless changed. And assuming it's NOT listed on the TVL (-whitelisted malware-). Upon a sandbox reset (restart) benign malware files may still exist on your PC, since that's how it works.

 

[dch48]

I vote for Comoro.

 

[Littlebits]

All security products do terrible with zero-day detection, however UAC can block all of them if you know how to utilize it.

Most zero-day malware are just simple Trojans distributed by fake alert sites and very easy to avoid if the user is paying attention.

Others are just simple adware and toolbars that can be easily removed without requiring any special tools.

I don't believe it is important for a security product to detect obvious zero-day malware, the user has to educated themselves and learn how to avoid them. All zero-day malware has to be manually downloaded and executed by the user, if the user learns how to safely download then zero-day detection is not important. If the user doesn't learn that then there is no hope, sooner or later they will find themselves infected with malware that is not detected by their security products. Products like Comodo and other HIPS products are far too complicated for the average user and still will fail to protect them because they can manually disable them to allow anything they want to run.

Thanks.

 

[WalterWolf]

You can't compare paid vs free.If you want free security then use CIS or Avast + CF.For paid use AIS or ESS both of them will do good job but nothing is going to protect you if you don't use brain.exe.

 

[MikeV]

Comodo hips (if enabled) are very good, sandbox too (however it blocks many valid applications) Comodo AV is not so good
Avast has many defenses but sandbox can be sometimes confusing
Eset is the best of all these 3 according prevention.If you know what you are doing and you make the right configurations to the firewall settings then i think you will be fine.

 

[Amiga500]

Comodo hips (if enabled) are very good, sandbox too (however it blocks many valid applications) Comodo AV is not so good
Avast has many defenses but sandbox can be sometimes confusing
Eset is the best of all these 3 according prevention.If you know what you are doing and you make the right configurations to the firewall settings then i think you will be fine.

Your view on the comodo av is utter nonsense.It fares very well nowadays and used in conjunction with the other comodo defense mechanisms is more than adequate protection.

Thanks.

 

[Ink]

What's a fair view on Comodo Antivirus?

 

[Amiga500]

Its a lot better than it used to be but the av is just the icing on the cake and comodo does not rely solely on detection.

 

[nsm0220]

CIS for me

 

[BoraMurdar]

I choose prevention over detection.
For me Avast falls behind those two.
Comodo stands for good HIPS and Firewall for zero-day atacks, of course what LittleBits said, if you turn on UAC and if you turn on Smart Screen (Windows 8) you shouldn't have problems with undetected threats.
Good Security product should have a good Web protection where Comodo, for example, falls behind.
So, I stick with ESET, I am not saying that Comodo and Avast are bad, but just...
I tested ESET many times with zero day malware provided here on the MT and finding them on the internet.
Average detection rate of ESET was >90%, so that's really good, but I like the ESET Smart Sense Technology, it seems it can caught the number of variants of the same malware, the new variants.
Testing ESET with zero-day malware... and ESET shows detection notifications like :

- Variant of blabla trojan detected or
what I like the most,
- Probably a variant of blabla trojan detected
That's really great about ESET, and sometimes when ESET fails detecting threat while copying it to the HDD, it detects it when you try to run it, especially the new ESET v7 with Advanced memory scanner...
Waiting for Avast 9.
They are on the move

 

[MrExplorer]

I Will Go with ESET & if i had to choose other than ESET i will go for Avast Free as in free version also it gives awesome protection.

 

[Moose]

Comodo like BitDefender has given me too many headaches. For Example, False Positives, deleting windows files that should have been deleted in the first place. Customer Support can and will give you the run around. The
only think that I use is Comodo Firewall, because of the Hips! The rest of their software, I completely stay away!