Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1100258" data-attributes="member: 114717">Decopi and Pico are both on public record here at MT stating that Comodo, and in the case of Decopi, that [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] and the &quot;Comodo fanatics irresponsibly and immorally mislead the public.&quot;I never said that Comodo, or any AV for that matter is &quot;oblivious&quot; to malware.What I said specifically is that nobody has ever supplied an in-the-wild malware - a real malware, one that does real harm to the system and not some digitally signed PUP that, when executed, does nothing - that bypassed Comodo containment.No. Nobody needs to choose. [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] &#039;s videos are valid. So are Leo&#039;s PC Security Channel assessments and reviews. Next there are many tests of Comodo going back all the way to the 2010 era that were credible, performed meticulously by industry experts, and they showed that Comodo achieved the stated primary goal of any antivirus - to keep the system clean and protect the integrity of the data on the system.[USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] is trustworthy. Leo from PC Security Channel is trustworthy. [USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER] is trustworthy. AV Comparatives is trustworthy. AV Test is trustworthy.All the bugs in the world do not matter if a security software achieves its stated purpose which is to protect the system and the data on it. It does not matter if the technology is the equivalent of Stoneage era flint stones. Microsoft still supports and deploys ancient technology such as software restriction policy. Why? Because it just works despite the list of bugs and issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1100258, member: 114717"] Decopi and Pico are both on public record here at MT stating that Comodo, and in the case of Decopi, that [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] and the "Comodo fanatics irresponsibly and immorally mislead the public." I never said that Comodo, or any AV for that matter is "oblivious" to malware. What I said specifically is that nobody has ever supplied an in-the-wild malware - a real malware, one that does real harm to the system and not some digitally signed PUP that, when executed, does nothing - that bypassed Comodo containment. No. Nobody needs to choose. [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] 's videos are valid. So are Leo's PC Security Channel assessments and reviews. Next there are many tests of Comodo going back all the way to the 2010 era that were credible, performed meticulously by industry experts, and they showed that Comodo achieved the stated primary goal of any antivirus - to keep the system clean and protect the integrity of the data on the system. [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] is trustworthy. Leo from PC Security Channel is trustworthy. [USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER] is trustworthy. AV Comparatives is trustworthy. AV Test is trustworthy. All the bugs in the world do not matter if a security software achieves its stated purpose which is to protect the system and the data on it. It does not matter if the technology is the equivalent of Stoneage era flint stones. Microsoft still supports and deploys ancient technology such as software restriction policy. Why? Because it just works despite the list of bugs and issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification