Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AtlBo" data-source="post: 760375" data-attributes="member: 32547">Understand what you mean but it&#039;s really that their cloud didn&#039;t update the blacklist after the human test.&nbsp; It was an &quot;unrecognized&quot; that was tested mechanically to be &quot;trusted&quot; and then by human to be malware.&nbsp; Yes at first it was trusted.&nbsp; This is true and a mystery in itself I guess.&nbsp; However, they had done the work to correct the trust rating, yet the file was not changed on the cloud to malicious.&nbsp; For me, I think the question is, &quot;Does this show that Comodo should work over their cloud?&quot;&nbsp; Looks to me personally like that might be the case.With regards to other companies, most of the security companies don&#039;t use a sandbox like Comodo, so it&#039;s different.&nbsp; They look for malware, blacklist them, and block them.&nbsp; Comodo sandboxes &quot;unrecognized&quot; that aren&#039;t whitelisted (&quot;trusted&quot; rating) on the cloud (by testing from human or computer).&nbsp; Files that are blacklisted on the cloud (from testing-human or computer) are then blocked via Viruscope (I believe Viruscope but maybe Valkyrie not sure).File shouldn&#039;t have ever had a Trusted rating but I agree with this:and this:Out of the 504 malwares that were run tested, 1 got by the sandbox.&nbsp; That&#039;s bad that one got by, but Comodo has a track record going back about 5 years I guess with great performance with blocking malware.&nbsp; All the while, it provides a satisfactory performance against false positives with the TVL (trusted vendors).&nbsp; This video from Leo should be a wake up to them though imo.&nbsp; Whatever is going on with the cloud, it looks bad when this happens.&nbsp; Maybe that&#039;s partly because it hardly ever does, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AtlBo, post: 760375, member: 32547"] Understand what you mean but it's really that their cloud didn't update the blacklist after the human test. It was an "unrecognized" that was tested mechanically to be "trusted" and then by human to be malware. Yes at first it was trusted. This is true and a mystery in itself I guess. However, they had done the work to correct the trust rating, yet the file was not changed on the cloud to malicious. For me, I think the question is, "Does this show that Comodo should work over their cloud?" Looks to me personally like that might be the case. With regards to other companies, most of the security companies don't use a sandbox like Comodo, so it's different. They look for malware, blacklist them, and block them. Comodo sandboxes "unrecognized" that aren't whitelisted ("trusted" rating) on the cloud (by testing from human or computer). Files that are blacklisted on the cloud (from testing-human or computer) are then blocked via Viruscope (I believe Viruscope but maybe Valkyrie not sure). File shouldn't have ever had a Trusted rating but I agree with this: and this: Out of the 504 malwares that were run tested, 1 got by the sandbox. That's bad that one got by, but Comodo has a track record going back about 5 years I guess with great performance with blocking malware. All the while, it provides a satisfactory performance against false positives with the TVL (trusted vendors). This video from Leo should be a wake up to them though imo. Whatever is going on with the cloud, it looks bad when this happens. Maybe that's partly because it hardly ever does, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification