Well I’m glad that the way you were treated (being called names because Comodo did not work as a reputable AV should) is funny to you. As you clearly have no problem with that, I’ll just let it be.
CIS 2025 is now LIVE!
- Thread starter rashmi
- Start date
Not trying to quote the Godfather, but it was not personal. It was just a funny statement. Everything is good. If the worse thing I have to worry about is someone calling me names, I've got it made.... I'm not a woke/liberal kind of guy. So words can't hurt me, nor can ideas or opinions, even if they differ from my own.
It's a bit off-topic
To be honest, with all the discussions here, but mainly through further research on the Internet, I've started to waver in terms of protection against cyber attacks.
The methods used by cyber criminals have become more refined and sophisticated. Even open source no longer offers security, on the contrary.
However, am I too uninteresting for cyber criminals or too well protected? Am I really well enough protected all round and, above all, fast enough?
I've been considering Bitdefender and Norton as possible successors to comodo. Is comodo still a match for the new methods used by cyber criminals?
It's like changing the lock on a door that has prevented every break-in and resisted every attempted break-in up to now. Why have some people fallen victim to ransomware, viruses, rootkits, data theft, and account emptied, and I haven't?
When compared, comodo usually performs poorly or even the weakest. Comodo no longer takes part in tests or prohibits a test. The AV software still achieves pitiful values and others also have containments, such as the Stealth mode.
I am now really unsettled by the ever "improving" methods of cyber criminals, which also include AI, which they will also use. In this test (Recent Results In July 2024 » AVLab Cybersecurity Foundation) , 100% was also achieved, but the times are not particularly good.
The only argument, and not the worst one, is the experience with Comodo so far.
Bitdefender and Norton are both incredible!
Norton is a perfect all-rounder in terms of quality, protection, price and offered features.
Protection-wise it is strong, not the strongest.
Bear in mind that some of these features are there “to register presence”, for example, I did test the Identity Restore Specialists (Vodafone merged my credit files with somebody elses all their debts appeared on my file).
I very much hope that nobody will need the help of these “specialists”. Of course for me, it was just a test.
Bitdefender is a very fast growing company. From the major AVs, they are the newest. They’ve got many patents, specially in the field of machine learning/AI and according to their official statements, most of the staff employed is researchers and developers and not bureaucracy-related.
Their business solutions are quite-strong too, protection-wise, they are better than Norton.
They lack the polished feeling that Norton manages to hook consumers with.
Also consider:
- Kaspersky with default-deny and IDS
- Check Point/ZoneAlarm with threat emulation and CDR
- DeepInstinct with exceptionally effective static analysis/NGAV
- Avast in hardened mode (for home users). Although their hardened mode covers only executables
- Restriction of LOLBins as the Ms official advise for 20+ years has been, disable it if you don’t need it.
- Personal training and improvement of threat-recognition skills.
I've used Comodo Firewall for decades and, same thing, never been infected. In those years, I've removed it and tried others, such as AVAST, AVG, Kaspersky, Norton, and a couple that no longer exist. I ALWAYS return to Comodo FW, because it's light on the system, it works, and all you do is install, set Proactive and the couple of clicks to enable Cruelsister's settings, and it's done. Nothing else needed.
I most often run with Firefox in containment, but even that isn't necessary. What more does a person need? You don't need to write rules, no need for any tinkering. In a couple of minutes, the FW is all set up and there's no need to even open the software again, other than to empty the container IF you use containment.
IMO, Bitdefender is over engineered, to intrusive on a PC =s glitchy, issues, settings not being saved etc. I would rather give up (sacrifice) some of the perceived, or genuine protection (BB) for stability and reliability. Maybe I've spent to much time on that forum (2007 - 2024), and have become jaded with what I've seen and had to help members with. I feel for those who are coming from Kaspersky (stable, wonderful settings, more usable UI and windows) to BD. Maybe BD free version isn't so bad?
Yes, they do, but those vendors subsidize their "free" consumer versions with revenue from those users that pay for the consumer version.
Other vendors also use their "free" versions as a gateway to get users to pay for it.
I never said Comodo is profitless. However, its consumer version is, indeed, profitless.
No other vendor uses enterprise or commercial product revenue to support a free consumer version.
Software product management based upon a "shared codebase" is not how things are done in the industry. Each product version is treated independently from other versions as their own profit or loss centers. Revenues, expenses, resources - everything - is tracked and apportioned separately, right down to the accounting and bookkeeping ledgers. The only ones that do not do this sort of product management are those that do not know how to do it. Comodo does and has used this standard model from Day 1.
I have been managing large software, enterprise and government IT projects for decades - from solicitation all the way down to close-out. That includes budgeting, accounting, expense allocation and tracking, etc. What I am stating is how things are done except at smaller companies and one-man shops that do not have the resources to do it any other way.
The paid version includes only two things - priority support and a warranty. That is it. It is fully explained to the purchaser what they are getting for the money that they are paying.
After installing CIS, the user can purchase a CIS support\warranty ("premium" version) for as low as 5 Euros. So there is no real revenue through this mechanism to make whatever improvements you and @Decopi think necessary.
No evidence is required. With any product, it is the product owner who gets to decide what features they want to put into the product - regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Melih has stated over the years many times on the Comodo forum - so many times he sounded like a broken record - why he will not improve the AV module. As far as phishing and web protections the product provides the user the capability to subscribe and import the same blocklists that Kaspersky, Bitdefender, and every other "premium" security software publishers uses.
The user has to upload the file; Valkyrie does not automatically upload files. Windows Defender does do this and not all of its telemetry can be disabled, even when it is "disabled" when another antivirus product is installed on Windows.
The tests have been available online over the past 15 years. You know where to look. You can keep trying to discredit the methodology and results integrity of both individual testers and labs, but it is not going to work.
Hey @cruelsister keep producing those Comodo vids and post them here. It upsets particular members here a lot. Besides you get to show users how to avoid 99% of the product issues that a few individuals complain about here at MT.
NOTE @cruelsister : No one that complains about CIS and CFW being so buggy, such crap software, full of protection feature gaps, etc - none of them has ever produced a viable, legit pentest result that proves what they are saying is correct. They only mutter personal opinions and speculation. Why? Because they have an agenda.
@Andy Ful 's POC was completely legit. He did not show the results of a particular software failing because he did not want to deal with the developer being outraged and all the troubles that developer would bring to this forum.
You say that you have no issue with CIS quality, yet you categorize it as "garbage."
That's exactly my experience too. Up until now, Comodo has protected me and my PCs reliably. I'm particularly worried about the AI, can Comodo still keep up, or is their strategy sufficient: I don't trust anyone for now.
I'm really open to all advice and grateful.
Also a strong argument.
Last edited:
Same here pretty much set and forget once installed via CS`s advised settings.
Regards Eck
I don't know enough about AI other than that I don't like it. I always think of the movie Terminator. I certainly don't knowingly carry on conversations with any AI anything. There's something odd, or peculiar, or strange about talking to a machine. I try to limit my discussions with non human entities to my cat. At least she's a living creature.
As AI improves, I don't know whether Comodo can keep up. Can ANY antivirus or anti-malware maker keep up? Honestly, can WE keep up?
I once had this experience with Norton. But it was a very long time ago.
For me, such a person is no longer a discussant. When you imagine what the N**iS did, how they treated people! An extremely disgusting, reprehensible comparison! Melih - N**i, not averse to a world war III, torturing people
Last edited:
In general, blocking threats as early as possible is always recommended. Any solution that allows you to run malware (be it contained) and then dwells on this malware, desperately trying to take a decision if it should be remediated or not, exposes your system and information to a risk, and is not optimal. Ask a few IT professionals and they will tell you the same -- even executing malware on virtual machines without the proper hardware enforcement measures in place is not recommended. Maybe it will be fine for a while, maybe not for a while, but for 5, 10,15 years,. One day, disaster will happen. The aim of cyber security is to act pro-actively, not reactively.
It is also recommended to apply additional security at the door, which in terms of sophisticated attacks, most frequently is your email inbox.
In some cases, allowing the malware to run may be necessary, as attackers will always target pre-execution prevention methods first.
Although many attempts to evade pre-execution analysis would fail, some would succeed.
Behavioural blocking systems, containment (there are different implementations of that), traffic control would reduce the potential damage.
This should be the last line of defence.
Once malware has managed to run, without proper, very resource-intensive forensics analysis, often made impossible due to lost attack artefacts, no business or individual can guarantee that your information and system are not compromised in any way. Unless you have deployed some sort of attack investigation previously (such as EDR) and even that's not guarantee. If anyone is making claims how "malware is executed and system is 100% safe", these people are simply dishonest.
In some very complex attacks (that will not target you), just downloading the file subjects it to various parsers (icon viewers, preview generators) and this has been enough to exploit Windows vulnerabilities, without the file ever having to be executed. However, this is extremely rare but outlines the importance of more robust methods.
@bazang Dude I told you many times that I understand your arguments and accept them. Not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand what I'm saying. I do not want any improvements in Comodo -- I do not use Comodo.
Last edited:
It's quite possible in a few more years the malware scenario will be an AI war between "intelligent" malware and the resident AIs on servers and our own personal computers. Interesting times are coming.
I've stopped using Xcitium and moved on to Kaspersky Endpoint in default deny mode.
Would you consider Xcitium full of bugs also?
Xcitium from what I see on their forums, is actively updated and because it is pushed to "Enterprises", I would bet that care is taken to ensure stability and reliability.
Comodo's long-time users, like me, who have been submitting bugs, feedback, and wish lists since the beginning, remember both the bugs and the developers' responses and positions. I have had conflicts with staff members, like Buket, regarding the timely release of CIS-related matters. Umesh, the CCAV developer who played a key role in CIS advancements, was exceptional. Since Umesh left, CIS developments took a downhill turn following the discontinuation of CCAV. I have always agreed with the Comodo bugs and issues without any arguments. 73, or whatever number, the list includes both feature improvements and bugs, some of which Comodo has addressed, but none have a significant impact on Comodo defaults. There should be no usability or security problems for Comodo defaults or CS config users.
Turkish
The main driving force behind development has always been money. More specifically, the lack of any revenue or profit within the consumer CIS\CFW product line.
As far as the management of Comodo's various software products it was Haibo Zhang that directed everything until he left in 2020.
Basically, Haibo brought Melih's "pet projects and experiments" from idea or concept to working products with various degrees of success. Melih has stated many times over the years - publicly posting this stuff ad nauseum - that he does not care about bugs. Software has bugs and he is not going to spend the money to fix them all in a product that he gives away for free.
Discussing this would be long so I will just sum it up as "Don't be paranoid." Thanks to @oldschool for his endearing euphemism.
You do not even need AI. Just write a fully contained malware in a script language such as VBS and PowerShell. After all these decades, it is still possible to bypass a lot of security software using script interpreters.
AI, ultimately, will be used by nation-states and hacktivists to do much worse than infect your system. It is going to be the thing that will bring-down national infrastructure for months or years. Just think of it - AI takes out your nation's electrical grid. Damages critical components that take 6 to 12 months to procure and replace. Once that happens you will not need to worry about an infected system. You'll have much greater problems.
Stop worrying about AI and learn how to create a fire without matches and forage for food.
OK, but you have a problem with "fanbois and fangirlz" telling and showing the world why they like Comodo, right?
@cruelsister and others that "promote" Comodo are not misleading anyone nor doing anyone any harm.
People that like Comodo are enthusiasts and hobbyists just like any other group that has affinity to a product or thing - such as Dell, Fortnite, Corvette, sport team, etc fans.
@Decopi 's claim that there are pathological Comodo fanatics here at MT "manipulating others" to use CIS or CFW and thereby harm those users is plain peak unhinged nuts.
Did you read his\her\its wall of rage & rants?
Trying to stop people like @cruelsister and others from "showing off" their favorite security software is just plain wrong. The other software that suffers the same issues as CIS and CFW is Webroot. And you are the victim of how that fanbase handles criticisms.
I am for the facts. Can Comodo be improved? Oh yes. A lot. Is it "garbage." No, it is not. Are the "insane Comodo fanatics" misleading users and directing them to some user experience apocalypse? No, they are not.
@cruelsister says comparatively very little and yet people read huge amounts into what her intent behind her videos is. My read is that she makes vids that demonstrate that it works better than other software. I guess what really bothers others is that she is able to make videos that show bypasses of other security software and then shows the same malware is successfully contained by Comodo.
She did say "I will use it until I can prove to myself that it no longer works." That's like the rest of us saying we'll sharpen a knife when we notice it has gotten dull. She is prepared to "switch camps" should it be necessary. She is no fool. She just wants to protect her data and, for the past 10+ years, her own testing of a bunch of products (including 100s of tests that never were made publicly available) convinced her that Comodo is the best option.
My guess is that @cruelsister is financially well-off so she is not cheap. It is not a matter of not wanting to spend the money on a security software. It all comes down to her own test results; she does not need any others to tell her what works and what does not. She's figure it out for herself. So that is where I think a lot of her motivations and intent to produce the vids.
You may also like...
-
New Version 12.3.3.8152 Available for Comodo Internet Security 2025
- Started by rashmi
- Replies: 41
-
Three Unpatched Vulnerabilities Plague Comodo. Documented Online.- Started by Trident
- Replies: 348
-
Windows 11 Patch Tuesday December 2025 (KB5072033, KB5071417)- Started by silversurfer
- Replies: 11
-
-
Microsoft fixes Media Creation Tool broken on some Windows PCs- Started by Brownie2019
- Replies: 1