Battle CIS 5 or KIS 2011

[Jack]

CIS 5 or KIS 2011.

I will go with KIS 2011 in Interactive Mode. :diablo:
Reasons will follow, now I have to go to work

 

[LoftedAphid86]

I'm using CIS 5 and I voted for it. Although this one is close, Kaspersky comes with an expensive price tag and Comodo's free.

 

[Chiron]

CIS 5 or KIS 2011.

I will go with KIS 2011 in Interactive Mode. :diablo:
Reasons will follow, now I have to go to work

Okay, you have peaked my curiosity.

I wait for the explanation.

 

[LaserWraith]

I demand reasons!

 

[Watasha]

I like some things about KIS, parental control being one. As I've said before the main argument against CIS is popups which have been fewer & fewer with each release. I have heard some users say KIS can be a bit heavy, I've never used it so I don't really know apart from the info I've garnered from reviews. The bottom line is, until someone shows me a legitimate bypass of CIS I'll just have to keep voting the same way.

 

[Valentin N]

I voted for Comodo; I get the same protection if not better than KIS/ Kaspersky Pure gives but for free with Comodo Trust Connect (CTC),Comodo Backup (CB), Comodo Antispam (CAS which I have't tried), Comodo Disk encrypt (CDE) and CTM 2.9b I get Kaskpersky pure ++ for free

CIS need parental controll and maybe "web shield" and it's complete

Regards,
Valentin N

 

[Watasha]

CIS need parental controll and maybe "web shield" and it's complete

Regards,
Valentin N

Are you talking about a site scanner similar to AVG Linkscanner or Mcafee Site Advisor?

 

[bogdan]

Probably something similar to avast's web shield.

 

[Watasha]

I don't think a web shield is needed as much as a boot time scanner. We also have to walk a fine line between essential features & bloat. Comodo acts on execution I believe, many people ask about a P2P scanner, mail scanner ect. but the difference is really when the file is scanned.

 

[bogdan]

Web shields are simple to implement and can be an extra layer of defense. On the other side malicious links usually go down quickly. As for all the shields, the thought that the file never touched your hard-drive can be reassuring but they also scan based on signatures so you might not consider them extra layers of defense.

 

[Valentin N]

CIS need parental controll and maybe "web shield" and it's complete

Regards,
Valentin N

Are you talking about a site scanner similar to AVG Linkscanner or Mcafee Site Advisor?

Comodo will integrate their Site inspector and CIMAS in the next CIS if I am not mistaking and comodo is working on a parental control.

 

[bogdan]

Where are unrecognized files submitted? They are analyzed by a team of people or is something automatic (like CIMA)?

 

[Chiron]

Where are unrecognized files submitted? They are analyzed by a team of people or is something automatic (like CIMA)?

Both. They are first checked by CIMA.

If not found suspicious they will then be passed to the AV department, which will analyze them based both on when they were submitted and how many computers have that particular file sandboxed. After this they should be added to either the whitelist or the blacklist (unless they don't qualify for either).

At least that's the way I remember it being explained.

Hopefully that made some sense.

 

[bogdan]

If not found suspicious they will then be passed to the AV department

I thought is the other way around since it makes more sense (at least to me). Files found suspicious get passed to the AV department to produce a signature if this is the case. There is also a privacy issue here... if using cis with default settings a programmer will send all his apps to Comodo.

The help file only mentions white/black lists and CIMA for the 2 cloud settings you can disable in Defense+ Settings -> Execution Control Settings. Disabling those 2 settings the file doesn't get submitted.

 

[Chiron]

If not found suspicious they will then be passed to the AV department

I thought is the other way around since it makes more sense (at least to me). Files found suspicious get passed to the AV department to produce a signature if this is the case. There is also a privacy issue here... if using cis with default settings a programmer will send all his apps to Comodo.

The help file only mentions white/black lists and CIMA for the 2 cloud settings you can disable in Defense+ Settings -> Execution Control Settings. Disabling those 2 settings the file doesn't get submitted.

Sorry, you're right. My post was confusing.

If the file is found suspicious then you will get the cloud behavior warning. The file will then be sent to the AV department for analysis.

If CIMA does not find it suspicious then it will also be analyzed, but it will not be moved to the front of the line.

Does that clear thing up?

 

[bogdan]

Yes! I also decided to search through the help file My bad.

 

[bunyip783]

Although they'd both perform flawless to a certain extent, I'd probably prefer CIS just because it's what I'm used to. For most people I would recommend Kaspersky, though, just because I can imagine they'd find it easier to use.

 

[Dejan]

With my experience, I would prefer CIS because it relies more on it's HIPS module then KIS does. Plus it's free and offers most of the features KIS does, including more. CIS for me (actually, I don't use it at all, but yeah ).

 

[techgeek88]

KIS all the way. Best security out there. Period.

 

[Jack]

KIS is awesome (like you I'm a KIS fanboy) but to be fair KIS on standard settings can only offer a 98-99% overall protection (real world) .....
CIS will probably average around 99,5% ( since the HIPS is more intensely used)