Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helmut" data-source="post: 1098248" data-attributes="member: 113650">These are the kinds of tips that make me a little unsure.How is this possible? By deactivating protective mechanisms to see what it can do and then reactivating these protective mechanisms to see how well a software protects the PC against it? If that were the case, it wouldn&#039;t be a problem, would it? Because the protective function would be there. Functions that I don&#039;t deactivate would mean that the protective effect of a software would be there. And of course (in line with the topic at hand), if comodo made it possible in this way, to allow - block, then the protection would be there (without going into other strengths or weaknesses).Once again, to avoid any misunderstandings here: just as I care about my teeth when I go to the dentist (it doesn&#039;t matter which one, as long as he keeps my teeth), I care about &quot;my&quot; protection. I don&#039;t care who protects my life, and up until now comodo has done this, it&#039;s not my fault! And if the software &quot;I&#039;lldoitallforyou&quot; can do it better, then it will be my bodyguard.To stay on topic, comodo has been very successful. I&#039;m not married to it, I could only trust it.I researched on the Internet to see who had been the victim of malware on their PC despite having comodo, but no search results despite various search entries. If I didn&#039;t want that as proof of comodo&#039;s security, but on the contrary, if I wanted it as proof that comodo is not infallible and can easily fail, then I would have fired them immediately.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helmut, post: 1098248, member: 113650"] These are the kinds of tips that make me a little unsure. How is this possible? By deactivating protective mechanisms to see what it can do and then reactivating these protective mechanisms to see how well a software protects the PC against it? If that were the case, it wouldn't be a problem, would it? Because the protective function would be there. Functions that I don't deactivate would mean that the protective effect of a software would be there. And of course (in line with the topic at hand), if comodo made it possible in this way, to allow - block, then the protection would be there (without going into other strengths or weaknesses). Once again, to avoid any misunderstandings here: just as I care about my teeth when I go to the dentist (it doesn't matter which one, as long as he keeps my teeth), I care about "my" protection. I don't care who protects my life, and up until now comodo has done this, it's not my fault! And if the software "I'lldoitallforyou" can do it better, then it will be my bodyguard. To stay on topic, comodo has been very successful. I'm not married to it, I could only trust it. I researched on the Internet to see who had been the victim of malware on their PC despite having comodo, but no search results despite various search entries. If I didn't want that as proof of comodo's security, but on the contrary, if I wanted it as proof that comodo is not infallible and can easily fail, then I would have fired them immediately. [/QUOTE]

Verification