Comodo CIS Bug fix policy

[Trident]

Then what's the problem? In other posts you complain about us making specious claims about Comodo, and in the next, it's a public forum where we can post what we believe. And then, you complain about statements made about Comodo - primarily because one certain individual made videos showing such.

So, it's okay to make such posts, but it isn't.

It’s ok to make personal statements, such as saying that Comodo is working on your system or that you are not experiencing any of the “officially documented” 70 or 500+ bugs.

It’s not ok to persistently claim that others, which have put a lot of hard work in their products, and keep doing so 24/7, are a “failure” or to claim that Comodo is superior to them. These are the sort of statements that would require proof, and a video where one sample wasn’t detected, sorry, but it doesn’t constitute for evidence.
The same prompt that Comodo issues in this case (which is presented as the “unique”, “unbeatable” security module), could have been issued by the “oblivious to malware” product as well, had it been configured to do so.
If that wasn’t possible, then we wouldn’t have this conversation.

 

[Chuck57]

Gotcha. It isn't okay that Comodo catches something in default mode while another superior product must be configured to do the same. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Trident]

Gotcha. It isn't okay that Comodo catches something in default mode while another superior product must be configured to do the same. That makes perfect sense.

We all know Comodo is not in default mode

There are no additional clarifications that Comodo or the “oblivious to malware product” = Eset to name it, were in default mode.

I am not an Eset fan, as proven by test labs times and times again, Eset performance is not on par with others.

Which makes me wonder why Comodo is even compared to Eset. You wanna prove how superior Comodo is but then you take a product that never shone with extremely efficient detection, we all know Eset is still based predominantly on machine-generated definitions and pre-execution heuristics.

But it is a fact that it can ask the user whether or not they want to allow executable to connect to the internet. What’s true is true, you can’t say that the white is black.

Furthermore, is this user-dependent prompt what you promote as “superior security”? Seriously?

 

[Chuck57]

We all know Comodo is not in default mode

There are no additional clarifications that Comodo or the “oblivious to malware product” = Eset to name it, were in default mode.

I am not an Eset fan, as proven by test labs times and times again, Eset performance is not on par with others.

Which makes me wonder why Comodo is even compared to Eset. You wanna prove how superior Comodo is but then you take a product that never shone with extremely efficient detection, we all know Eset is still based predominantly on machine-generated definitions and pre-execution heuristics.

But it is a fact that it can ask the user whether or not they want to allow executable to connect to the internet. What’s true is true, you can’t say that the white is black.

Furthermore, is this user-dependent prompt what you promote as “superior security”? Seriously?

I know nothing about ESET. Never used it, never looked at it.

I posted the Comodo video by PC Security Channel, 3 yrs old but since nothing is ever done to upgrade Comodo then the software should be current. Right? The guy on PC Security ran it default, and it stopped the several things he threw at it, AND he recommended it. The fact that you aren't partial to him is irrelevant. That's saying I don't like you so nothing you say matters.

 

[Trident]

I know nothing about ESET. Never used it, never looked at it.

I posted the Comodo video by PC Security Channel, 3 yrs old but since nothing is ever done to upgrade Comodo then the software should be current. Right? The guy on PC Security ran it default, and it stopped the several things he threw at it, AND he recommended it. The fact that you aren't partial to him is irrelevant. That's saying I don't like you so nothing you say matters.

I am not talking about Leo from The PC Security Channel, again, I got 0 interest towards this folk. It took his quite some time to build some sort of business, his videos have been around 10+ years, kudos for managing to succeed outside of this area, albeit this success being minimal and very much overdue.

Also, Leo did not state that other products are oblivious to malware or that Comodo is superior to them. He is reviewing this product in its own context, he doesn’t compare the product to anything else.

All these statements have another source.

 

[Decopi]

Also, Leo did not state that other products are oblivious to malware or that Comodo is superior to them. He is reviewing this product in its own context, he doesn’t compare the product to anything else.

With regards to Leo's video, and to prevent a repeated lie from becoming the truth (Goebbels), please allow me once again to complement your great comment above, with the same explanation I made yesterday:

It's a video from 3 years ago! By the way, in “cyber security”, 3 years equals 30 years! But curiously, I have dozens of negative videos and reviews about Comodo, also from ±3 years ago, so will Comodo fanatics accept them? When I present several negative reviews of this year 2024, Comodo fanatics ignore, minimize, and disqualify them. The same goes for the bug lists I submit, even officially acknowledged by Comodo in July 2024, already totaling over 500 unfixed dangerous bugs... all always ignored, minimized, and disqualified by Comodo fanatics.

Back to the video, Leo does not say that Comodo Firewall is the best choice. Leo recommends an external firewall.

And when “HIPS” is mentioned, same thing, it is presented as “a complementary add-on” to be used with other antivirus/malware... which contradicts Comodo fanatics, who claim Comodo is "the best and most complete unbeatable software on the market".

Now, regarding Leo's tests, in no case no virus/malware is detected, because Comodo Firewall is not an antivirus/antimalware, it is a simple dumb blocker... the one who determines if the file will be "blocked" or "allowed" is always the user. It is always important to remember that the blocker works with a list of “known” and “unknown” files, a list that in the past HAS BEEN PROVEN FAILED. But if an advanced user likes "blockers", Windows and other software can do better than Comodo.

Complementing, the video does not use any special settings... which contradicts the Comodo fanatics, who claim that Comodo must be used with specific untouchable settings.

Regarding the firewall, Leo fails to mention that 99.99% of Windows users do not need any outsourced firewall. And for those advanced users, it is important to remember that Comodo's firewall is frozen in time, it doesn't even allow to customize the Windows services, or the svchost etc., not to mention the dangerous bugs it contains.

At the end of the video, Leo takes even more care, and clarifies that it is NOT A REVIEW what he does, it is just his “thoughts about firewall”.

 

[Chuck57]

.23 second mark in the video, if you want a software firewall, "I recommend Comodo firewall, and I'll tell you why," and so on.

He doesn't say it's the best, but he recommends it, which says if it isn't the best why is he recommending it?
It isn't an antivirus. True. And personally, I would never use Comodo antivirus. It's only slightly better than nothing. On that we definitely agree.
I don't think any Comodo users say you MUST use such and such settings. We say that we USE such and such settings. If someone asks, yes, I'll tell them to set it to proactive and employ Cruelsister settings for a bit of added protection. But MUST use those settings. NO.
No, it isn't a review. It's simply a video telling people what he recommends, again at the 20 second or so mark in the video. Comodo Firewall.

 

[Trident]

@Decopi, it is very difficult on every Comodo thread to establish whether people genuinely misunderstand, they don’t really process the information provided as it should be processed, due to lack of expertise — which is perfectly fine, we are all constantly learning. Or, they just throw you hocus pocus, attempting to prove that “water is dry” by talking about totally unrelated, “surfactants and polycarboxylates”.

The only person I consistently agree with, this is @bazang , albeit answering in a circular way, his posts are credible and contain large dose of truth.

 

[Trident]

I don't think any Comodo users say you MUST use such and such settings. We say that we USE such and such settings. If someone asks, yes, I'll tell them to set it to proactive and employ Cruelsister settings for a bit of added protection. But MUST use those settings. NO.

Don’t make me go look for the post where it was said, if necessary, I will find them. I would rather not have to go through this “hell”, but if needs must.

Typical on Comodo threads. Something is said, then we turn around “no, we didn’t say this, we said that”. Lab tests are evidence that “Comodo is great”, but they are not evidence that others are great too (having the same result), others are “prone to failure” (bazang words) and “oblivious to malware” (cruelsister statement in the end of a recent video which as well, I can link if needs must).
It’s ok for Comodo to protect users via prompts and alerts, but it’s not OK for Eset to do so (chuck57 words).

Leo’s video is accepted as evidence, but Neil Rubenking’s result and review is discarded. No idea why Leo would he more credible, they are both literally in the same field. Leo relies on sponsorships, the other one is on salary with Ziff Davis, owners of Vipre.

Specially formed and shaped truths, once again, morphed as convenient, when convenient to prove a point, namely that “water is dry” and “black is not black, but it’s white”.

This is not from now, it has always been the case.

 

[bazang]

You didn’t, but others did.

And you said that “Comodo was consistently demonstrated to be performing better” when on the lab test, we see all the same results.

Because it does and I provided the links to the AVLab.pl test results. For example, the banking protection which Comodo performed better than other security software.

 

[bazang]

You didn’t, but others did.

Where and what exactly (post the exact words they said) did they say?

 

[bazang]

others are “prone to failure” (bazang words)

I never said that. What I specifically said was that "Comodo has been proven to outperform others." In English, that cannot be interpreted as saying "others are prone to failure."

 

[simmerskool]

Don’t make me go look for the post where it was said, if necessary, I will find them. I would rather not have to go through this “hell”, but if needs must.

Typical on Comodo threads. Something is said, then we turn around “no, we didn’t say this, we said that”. Lab tests are evidence that “Comodo is great”, but they are not evidence that others are great too (having the same result), others are “prone to failure” (bazang words) and “oblivious to malware” (cruelsister statement in the end of a recent video which as well, I can link if needs must).
It’s ok for Comodo to protect users via prompts and alerts, but it’s not OK for Eset to do so (chuck57 words).

Leo’s video is accepted as evidence, but Neil Rubenking’s result and review is discarded. No idea why Leo would he more credible, they are both literally in the same field. Leo relies on sponsorships, the other one is on salary with Ziff Davis, owners of Vipre.

Specially formed and shaped truths, once again, morphed as convenient, when convenient to prove a point, namely that “water is dry” and “black is not black, but it’s white”.

This is not from now, it has always been the case.

But (also) see @Shadowra's video (31 May 2024) various URL & 649 sample malware: (I for one consider @Shadowra's videos, unbiased and informative)

"Final scan :
Comodo : 0
Autoruns : 0
NPE : 0
KVRT: 0
Malwarebytes : 0
Final opinion:
Comodo has done an excellent job of correcting the major shortcomings of its Sandbox software.
The software reacts correctly and has protected the computer well."

CF containment / sandbox worked in that test and "protected the computer well" -- Chuck57 & others report the same experience on their computers despite others' reports of bugs & lack of development. Both can be correct. Use it, or don't. At least if you do try it and do not like it, you haven't lost any money. CF seems unique in the "debate" that it generates.

App Review - COMODO Internet Security 2025 Premium

COMODO is an American publisher, well known among computer geeks. The software presents itself as a totally free security suite, offering defensive shields: anti-malware, firewall, HIPS and a sandbox. Many people thought that the suite had been discontinued, given the very low level of product...

malwaretips.com

 

[bazang]

Leo’s video is accepted as evidence, but Neil Rubenking’s result and review is discarded.

Nobody here discarded Neil Rubenking's "review." Where is Rubenking's video evidence that shows the bypasses? You do know that Rubenking is not very well thought of in the industry, right? It does not matter that he is on the advisory board of AMSTO. He still is thought of as a joke in the industry. He works for a periodical that makes derives income from paid reviews of products. At least Leo produced and made available a video that shows what he did.

It's like this... "Show a pic or didn't happen."

 

[bazang]

First, it’s stated that it performs better than everyone else.

Nobody here ever said that. Not once. You are twisting peoples' words deliberately and adding your own agenda interpretations to what they said.

 

[Trident]

But (also) see @Shadowra's video (31 May 2024) various URL & 649 sample malware: (I for one consider @Shadowra's videos, unbiased and informative)

"Final scan :
Comodo : 0
Autoruns : 0
NPE : 0
KVRT: 0
Malwarebytes : 0
Final opinion:
Comodo has done an excellent job of correcting the major shortcomings of its Sandbox software.
The software reacts correctly and has protected the computer well."

CF containment / sandbox worked in that test and "protected the computer well" -- Chuck57 & others report the same experience on their computers despite others' reports of bugs & lack of development. Both can be correct. Use it, or don't. At least if you do try it and do not like it, you haven't lost any money. CF seems unique in the "debate" that it generates.

App Review - COMODO Internet Security 2025 Premium

COMODO is an American publisher, well known among computer geeks. The software presents itself as a totally free security suite, offering defensive shields: anti-malware, firewall, HIPS and a sandbox. Many people thought that the suite had been discontinued, given the very low level of product...

malwaretips.com

On his previous videos, Comodo failed though. But notice that even @Shadowra does not engage in making claims that Comodo is superior, that it has been demonstrated consistently to perform better than others, or that others don’t protect that well. These statements are what we are debating.

 

[bazang]

Comodo has the same, if not worse performance than everyone else.

In some tests yes, but in others it has consistently performed better than the well-known, brand name antivirus such as GDATA and F-Secure. It outperformed them in banking protections and fileless malware tests.

 

[bazang]

that Comodo has been demonstrated consistently to perform better than others

Because it has consistently performed very well at protecting the system without top AV module, without behavior blocker, without all the stuff the some people here say that it is missing.

You cite a single "test" by Neil Rubenking as a Comodo failure. OK we will use that. Compared to Bitdefender, Kaspersky, ZoneAlarm, Norton, and every other antivirus that has failed to stop thousands of malware in independent, credible, reliable AV lab tests. They also failed in thousands of tests performed by MT members in the MT Malware Hub. All of them have been bypassed thousands of times. You can "prove" that Comodo was bypassed only during a single test. Comodo was not shown to be bypassed a single time on the MT Malware Hub.

A child can understand this.

 

[simmerskool]

On his previous videos, Comodo failed though. But notice that even @Shadowra does not engage in making claims that Comodo is superior, that it has been demonstrated consistently to perform better than others, or that others don’t protect that well. These statements are what we are debating.

yes, agree re @Shadowra's video, but some hyperbolic posts, while textually accurate are perhaps out of context to some degree. I read it as performing the same, ie, 100% in that lab test.

 

[bazang]

Comodo is “unbeatable”.

Nobody here ever said that. Again, the problem is your interpretations of what people posted.