Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 1053466" data-attributes="member: 67091">With all due respect, Comodo&#039; AV is offered as a stand-alone feature. Therefore, any average-Joe may install the AV under the (wrong) belief that the AV is good as the Firewall is. At Comodo&#039; webpage there are no alerts informing users that the AV must be used as a complement of another feature.But even if you&#039;re right (and I&#039;m wrong), facts are facts, and the fact is that Comodo&#039; AV is (at least) not good. Calling it &quot;trash&quot;, &quot;not good&quot;, &quot;insufficient&quot; etc,&nbsp; it&#039;s just semantics, nothing changes the fact that Comodo&#039; AV is not good. Even the sole fact that Comodo&#039; AV may work only as an addition of another feature... is terrible bad. You&#039;re right, it&#039;s great the freedom to use Comodo&#039; Firewall with another AV. But most of the average-Joe doesn&#039;t understand that, and I repeat, Comodo&#039; webpage induces the use of its AV as a stand-alone.By the way, the only real useful Comodo&#039; feature is the Containment. Comodo never was well known for its other features.That said, please I request you not to take me wrong, I do love Comodo&#039; Firewall, right now I&#039;m testing its new version, and I&#039;ll will test all next betas and final releases.And personally, I don&#039;t really care if new Comodo is old Comodo. Also I don&#039;t really care if new Comodo still has tons of dangerous bugs.I only care about the Containment feature. If it works... fine for me!Unfortunately, old and new Comodo present Containment failures.Until Containment is not fixed, it&#039;s irresponsible to hip a dangerous security software.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 1053466, member: 67091"] With all due respect, Comodo' AV is offered as a stand-alone feature. Therefore, any average-Joe may install the AV under the (wrong) belief that the AV is good as the Firewall is. At Comodo' webpage there are no alerts informing users that the AV must be used as a complement of another feature. But even if you're right (and I'm wrong), facts are facts, and the fact is that Comodo' AV is (at least) not good. Calling it "trash", "not good", "insufficient" etc, it's just semantics, nothing changes the fact that Comodo' AV is not good. Even the sole fact that Comodo' AV may work only as an addition of another feature... is terrible bad. You're right, it's great the freedom to use Comodo' Firewall with another AV. But most of the average-Joe doesn't understand that, and I repeat, Comodo' webpage induces the use of its AV as a stand-alone. By the way, the only real useful Comodo' feature is the Containment. Comodo never was well known for its other features. That said, please I request you not to take me wrong, I do love Comodo' Firewall, right now I'm testing its new version, and I'll will test all next betas and final releases. And personally, I don't really care if new Comodo is old Comodo. Also I don't really care if new Comodo still has tons of dangerous bugs. I only care about the Containment feature. If it works... fine for me! Unfortunately, old and new Comodo present Containment failures. Until Containment is not fixed, it's irresponsible to hip a dangerous security software. [/QUOTE]

Verification