Which do you like better?

  • Total voters
    98
Status
Not open for further replies.

Zurchiboy

New Member
Pernsonal experience with comodo for me is that it provides storng protection vs unknown viruses if configured right, I do not know much about eset.
 
D

Deleted member 178

Zurchiboy said:
Pernsonal experience with comodo for me is that it provides storng protection vs unknown viruses if configured right, I do not know much about eset.
similar, If you set it properly, few malware will bypass it.
 

Seany007

New Member
In terms of overall protection I prefer CIS due to stronger HIPS, better firewall, sandbox and more advanced settings but for the AV I prefer ESET due to much more sophisticated heuristics and almost exclusive use of generic signatures.

I would use Comodo Firewall and ESET AV. If you can't... I would go just for CIS... But I won't use ESET on it's own...

Which is the best, in terms of:

-Overall Features? CIS.
-Detection? ESET.
-Removal? ESET.
-HIPS? CIS by far.
-User Interface? Both are good.
-RAM Usage? Both are good.
 

spywar

New Member
Sad to see no one talked about the Cloud ...

Comodo uses it a lot in fact without it, I will certainly not use it ...

Automated cloud based analysis system of new unknown files.
Comodo valkyrie, an excellent automated analysis system ... once you uplaud a sample make sure that all the 3 components finish their analysis.

Don't forget : COMODO Antivirus has been first introduced to CFP (which became CIS) October 23, 2008 (not long ago compared to ESET av..)
http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-internet-security-3553896424-released-closed-t28719.0.html

Now to reply to the OP :

-Overall Features? CIS.
-Detection? ESET.
-Removal? ESET.
-HIPS? CIS.
-User Interface? I really like CIS 6 as well as ESET's one although never used it.
-RAM Usage? CIS is extremely light, cannot judge about ESET.
 

Seany007

New Member
spywar said:
Sad to see no one talked about the Cloud ...

Comodo uses it a lot in fact without it, I will certainly not use it ...

Automated cloud based analysis system of new unknown files.
Comodo valkyrie, an excellent automated analysis system ... once you uplaud a sample make sure that all the 3 components finish their analysis.

Don't forget : COMODO Antivirus has been first introduced to CFP (which became CIS) October 23, 2008 (not long ago compared to ESET av..)
http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-internet-security-3553896424-released-closed-t28719.0.html

Now to reply to the OP :

-Overall Features? CIS.
-Detection? ESET.
-Removal? ESET.
-HIPS? CIS.
-User Interface? I really like CIS 6 as well as ESET's one although never used it.
-RAM Usage? CIS is extremely light, cannot judge about ESET.
Spywar I left the cloud out so you can talk about it :)

Can't wait for the Valkyrie integration :)
 

Gnosis

New Member
Pernsonal experience with comodo for me is that it provides storng protection vs unknown viruses if configured right, I do not know much about eset.
ESET rocks too.
Comodo needs heuristics set to high, BB set to untrusted, and everything else set to "safe mode". IMHO

Everything found needs to be quarantined instead of deleted until you get used to it.
 

spywar

New Member
Gnosis said:
Pernsonal experience with comodo for me is that it provides storng protection vs unknown viruses if configured right, I do not know much about eset.
ESET rocks too.
Comodo needs heuristics set to high, BB set to untrusted, and everything else set to "safe mode". IMHO

Everything found needs to be quarantined instead of deleted until you get used to it.
Not at all...
I installed CIS 6 on some average users' computers with risky navigation, and it seems that default settings are enough, even more with 6.1.
Heur set to high ? nothing more, only FPs (and then ppl complain about fps from CAV).
 

Seany007

New Member
Greatest strength and weakness in ESET? It's detection.

Strength because it has a good detection rate.

Weakness because they still rely too much on just detection (they can't detect everything nobody can) they need to develop new things or drastically improve what they already have such as HIPS.
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
If you are a bit more advanced user, CIS is a better option. ESET may have a little better detection rate and better removal but CIS have nearly excellent preventive features. Everything unknown can run without causing any harm to your computer if set autosandbox to untrusted. I tested a lot of unknown for Comodo samples in vm and in very few cases out of about 40 there were some traces left on the system that most probably could not cause any harm to the computer. If you run unknown samples using ESET most of them will run. This happens more or less with every other well known AV on the market (except Emsisoft that seems to do a very good job too or maybe Kaspersky IS if set application control to blocked) Also, no need to mention how good Comodo firewall is and how resource-light CIS is.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Auto/Behavioural-Sandboxes are a disaster waiting to happen. Running unknown programs and relying on them to protect you, your ID and your PC's health is bad practise.
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
Relying on the signatures/heuristics/generic detection isn't bad at all since that's main prime function for an AV.

And HIPS/BB/ and others are evolved from the times it needs better capabilities so the fully benefits when supervised to used well.
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
Earth said:
Auto/Behavioural-Sandboxes are a disaster waiting to happen. Running unknown programs and relying on them to protect you, your ID and your PC's health is bad practise.
My logic says it's needed in the case signatures/heur. won't detect the malware. Comodo has great detection and it's autosandbox restrictions do the rest job, it's not a matter of relying to Auto/Behavioural-Sandbox. Most other products have less effective Auto/Behavioural components.
 

cptredsox

New Member
There is nothing bad about Autosandboxes as long as they are configured right. A Auto Sandbox should never only Auto decide, it should always run unknown or suspicious files/programs, sandboxed, or a least ask before running an unknown file. Sandbox or Autosandboxing is a great way to improve layerd security.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
The way the Auto-Sandbox technology is portrayed to current and new users is done wrong.

So for the wider audience including new users, it's still bad practise to let users run unknown programs. If you don't know what you're downloading, why are you executing the program? And if you think the program will cause damage to your PC, why download it in the first place?

Without offending anyone, the Auto-Sandbox appears to fill the gap of something else.. :mytwocents:
 

House_maniac

Level 1
Earth said:
The way the Auto-Sandbox technology is portrayed to current and new users is done wrong.

So for the wider audience including new users, it's still bad practise to let users run unknown programs. If you don't know what you're downloading, why are you executing the program? And if you think the program will cause damage to your PC, why download it in the first place?

Without offending anyone, the Auto-Sandbox appears to fill the gap of something else.. :mytwocents:
Lol yea i know what you mean :p
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
Earth said:
The way the Auto-Sandbox technology is portrayed to current and new users is done wrong.

So for the wider audience including new users, it's still bad practise to let users run unknown programs. If you don't know what you're downloading, why are you executing the program? And if you think the program will cause damage to your PC, why download it in the first place?

Without offending anyone, the Auto-Sandbox appears to fill the gap of something else.. :mytwocents:
You 're examining in from another aspect, and I agree with you.. But computers tend to change so even more novice users will use them more effieciently and with safety. It's a route that has started from the start of home computing since years ago and goes on. Whether we like it or not the aim is that people should not think in order to take decisions for their computer functions except for the specific work/task they are doing. sorry for my English, i hope you get what I 'm trying to say :) )
 
Z

ZeroDay

spywar said:
Gnosis said:
Heur set to high ? nothing more, only FPs
No FP's in my experience with it set that way.
Then why changing it to high :D Do you expect better detection from heuristic engine ?
Perhaps that's a question for commodo devs? Why did they include the high setting in the first place?
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
Actually increasing the heuristics doesn't guaranteed high protection, in fact a matter of 0.001 %. (in my opinion)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.