Comodo CIS Bug fix policy

[Trident]

I never said that Comodo, or any AV for that matter is "oblivious" to malware.

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.

 

[Chuck57]

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.

Aahhh, I think I understand. Every post anyone makes about any software of any brand should be accompanied by a disclaimer. Of course, you and the others must abide by the same rule.

 

[Trident]

Aahhh, I think I understand. Every post anyone makes about any software of any brand should be accompanied by a disclaimer. Of course, you and the others must abide by the same rule.

There are generic disclaimers placed on top of various sections, which clearly state that certain content should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, statements are made, then people turn around and contradict themselves. This is how it always goes on every Comodo thread.

First, it’s stated that it performs better than everyone else. Then, as “evidence”, sort of like we are in court, some tests are being waved and published. According to the same tests deposited as evidence, again, not by me, Comodo has the same, if not worse performance than everyone else.

Then people turn around and say “I never said it was better” but simultaneously, continue to state that malware bypasses other AVs and Comodo is “unbeatable”.

It’s a lot of contradictions, although some of their statements, for example the revenue required to implement improvements, are right on point

 

[Chuck57]

There are generic disclaimers placed on top of various sections, which clearly state that certain content should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, statements are made, then people turn around and contradict themselves. This is how it always goes on every Comodo thread.

First, it’s stated that it performs better than everyone else. Then, as “evidence”, sort of like we are in court, some tests are being waved and published. According to the same tests deposited as evidence, again, not by me, Comodo has the same, if not worse performance than everyone else.

Then people turn around and say “I never said it was better” but simultaneously, continue to state that malware bypasses other AVs and Comodo is “unbeatable”.

It’s a lot of contradictions, although some of their statements, for example the revenue required to implement improvements, are right on point

If every Comodo thread should have a disclaimer, than EVERY thread about every brand ought to have the same disclaimer attached to every post. Generic disclaimers cannot provide blanket coverage to all opinions.

Lead the way, Trident. Show us you're willing to back up your belief with action, and we'll follow suit.

I am more than willing to add a disclaimer to all future posts I make, regardless whether Comodo or not, saying that such applies only to my laptop. Your results may vary. However, the same applies to you. What occurs on your computer, based on what you do with the software, is not necessarily relevant to me or others and that should be noted in your posts.

 

[Trident]

If every Comodo thread should have a disclaimer, than EVERY thread about every brand ought to have the same disclaimer attached to every post. Generic disclaimers cannot provide blanket coverage to all opinions.

These disclaimers are not needed on every post and every thread. Wherever they are needed, such as video reviews, they have been placed, feel free to open any review and you will see the disclaimer. It’s not something that I’ve made up, it’s there for everyone to see it.

I am more than willing to add a disclaimer to all future posts I make, regardless whether Comodo or not

You don’t need to add any disclaimers. This is a public forum, everyone comes and posts what they believe is the truth and it is the user’s responsibility in the end, to do their due diligence and draw the right conclusions. Neither you, nor anybody else has to “pre-chew” everything for the “almighty reader”.

But then with statements that Comodo outperforms others consistently, others being “oblivious to malware”, made based on one or 2-3 samples, without any further clarifications (provided later on after loads of poking around), as well as with distorted truths, we are not going to agree.

 

[Chuck57]

These disclaimers are not needed on every post and every thread. Wherever they are needed, such as video reviews, they have been placed, feel free to open any review and you will see the disclaimer. It’s not something that I’ve made up, it’s there for everyone to see it.

You don’t need to add any disclaimers. This is a public forum, everyone comes and posts what they believe is the truth and it is the user’s responsibility in the end, to do their due diligence and draw the right conclusions. Neither you, nor anybody else has to “pre-chew” everything for the “almighty reader”.

But then with statements that Comodo outperforms others consistently, others being “oblivious to malware”, made based on one or 2-3 samples, without any further clarifications (provided later on after loads of poking around), as well as with distorted truths, we are not going to agree.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.