App Review Comodo Cloud Antivirus Prevention and Detection Test (safe1st)

[safe1st]

Thank you
Have a good day everyone!

 

[CySecy825]

Prevention Works Great

And it is good to see that it blocked new Locky Ransom Variant

Now Font works

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Its a promising product but as usual they messed the very first release.

I tested it for usability for the type of software I & the family use on the shared laptop. I had selected sandbox setting "Run only safe programs". The usability was good. Only 2 software were blocked. What I didn't liked was when I selected "Dont block again" on the alert & started the blocked programs again, the installs started fine but 1-2 files were still blocked during installs so this could mess the installs of the program. What I would like or expected to see is that once you click "Dont block again" no further block should be there for the program.

As always liked your test. With autosandbox it was expected from CCAV/Comodo.

I wish there was a light firewall i.e not many features/options i.e like they have kept the whole CCAV light in features/options.

And ViruScope is like non existent or not effective. You tested with quite a lot malware but not a single ViruScope alert.

It seems ViruScope & Valkyrie are tough competition for Avast Deepscreen & Whatever their virtual machine thingy is. All the 4 are kinda in deep sleep right from the birth.

Lets see what all improvements/fixes/features they bring in the next version. Though I dont have now much hope with Comodo but CCAV I kinda like & so hope they really dont mess again the next release & give users an acceptable version.

 

[illumination]

Autosandbox works great as usual, would be nice to see the Av component in action though.

 

[kev216]

Very good test and good product. Especially the Sandbox did a great job. But I just want to see that Comodo improves its signatures. I know they are blocked by or running in the sandbox, but its just safer and more comfortable to have these files in your signatures, so that they are sure to be blocked, because if the sandbox fails ,there is malware running. Apart from that, this product is very good as no malware was left after rebooting.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Autosandbox works great as usual, would be nice to see the Av component in action though.

Valkyrie website is excellent detecting malware.
To implement Valkyrie in CCAV/Cloud successfully & seamlessly is they need to achieve.
They say this infrastructure, that cloud, etc... etc... is going on, dont know if they give false info.
Users are still clueless as to Valkyire is fully functional in CCAV or not.

 

[Rishi]

Good luck against phising sites .... other than that 4 stars to the sandbox only ...

 

[safe1st]

The detection rate tho... then run some malwares. but all of them run on sandbox...
I agreed with you @kev216
that why signatures is still important...

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

I hate the fact that their signatures are not good. In my opinion avira+autosandbox would be perfect

 

[kev216]

I hate the fact that their signatures are not good. In my opinion avira+autosandbox would be perfect

That would indeed be a nice combination.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Their signs, heur, camas, cloud, etc... detection technology always remained mediocre, they tried but couldn't get it.

But IMHO Valkyrie if correctly, seamlessly & successfully integrated in CCAV could change & up their detection game.

I have tested Valkyrie website quite a lot both old & new Valkyrie & always find the detection excellent.

This is the only detection technology from Comodo house that may be by mistake they stepped on & with stupidity, idiotic & may be little hardwork could bring it to a very long way & indeed in a very successful way.

Now its remain to be seen how they carry it forward further & if with the same infamous stupidity, idiotic & little hard work could they be able to correctly, seamlessly & successfully integrate it into CCAV or it will go to their hall of shame discontinued products like old Valkyrie.

 

[safe1st]

I hate the fact that their signatures are not good. In my opinion avira+autosandbox would be perfect

that awesome combo!

 

[jamescv7]

Comodo's mediocre signatures can be linked same as Norton's products since both rely more on cloud analysis and through their secondary components (HIPS or BB)

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Comodo's mediocre signatures can be linked same as Norton's products since both rely more on cloud analysis and through their secondary components (HIPS or BB)

I dont agree here.

Comodo signs are mediocre. But Norton signs are not medoicre...its smart database i.e important & not all local databases.

IMO Norton full databases are lot better than Comodo full databases. And Norton full databases are very good.

 

[jamescv7]

@yesnoo: Yes Norton have more matured database signatures (when it comes to overall analysis, avoid any erroneous detection) compare to Comodo, but in the other hand if we going to exclude cloud functionality hence shows where a product rely.

Some reviews conducted very long time to test Norton's signatures which occur to reflect the accuracy tends to lower compare when Cloud functionality turns active.

So the comparison may likely link cause both shows true power on cloud and secondary components.