Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1100332" data-attributes="member: 99014">But additional pointers in the test, still proved that others are first, blocking a lot more malware very easily, in the pre-execution phase and second, if they allow anything to execute, react quicker. So even this test cannot serve to prove Comodo superiority, it simply proves that on a scope of 350 samples, Comodo offered acceptable protection.But others had the capability to offer the same protection in a much more efficient manner.I am talking about the AV-Lab.pl test, many other tests, Comodo has dropped, usually with a lot of drama around this event.Xcitium uses similar settings to CS Comodo.Be honest, you say you never had problems with malware, we accept that. But in reality, how many potential incidents were stopped by Comodo, how many times it contained something and this turned out to be malicious. Does the number exceed 5?It is, this is what I’ve been debating. Allowing malware to run is absurd! Every “specialist” will tell you that, nobody will ever advise you to execute malware, even in local sandboxes. If you show a video where malware is allowed to run sandboxed and then a firewall prompt blocks the connection, 4/5 will be laughing at you, the fifth one will probably go away.Well this is the choice-supportive bias I explained in a previous post. People get satisfaction from not following the masses, not installing what everyone else installs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1100332, member: 99014"] But additional pointers in the test, still proved that others are first, blocking a lot more malware very easily, in the pre-execution phase and second, if they allow anything to execute, react quicker. So even this test cannot serve to prove Comodo superiority, it simply proves that on a scope of 350 samples, Comodo offered acceptable protection. But others had the capability to offer the same protection in a much more efficient manner. I am talking about the AV-Lab.pl test, many other tests, Comodo has dropped, usually with a lot of drama around this event. Xcitium uses similar settings to CS Comodo. Be honest, you say you never had problems with malware, we accept that. But in reality, how many potential incidents were stopped by Comodo, how many times it contained something and this turned out to be malicious. Does the number exceed 5? It is, this is what I’ve been debating. Allowing malware to run is absurd! Every “specialist” will tell you that, nobody will ever advise you to execute malware, even in local sandboxes. If you show a video where malware is allowed to run sandboxed and then a firewall prompt blocks the connection, 4/5 will be laughing at you, the fifth one will probably go away. Well this is the choice-supportive bias I explained in a previous post. People get satisfaction from not following the masses, not installing what everyone else installs. [/QUOTE]

Verification