- Apr 25, 2013
- 5,356
Shared Antivirus
The antivirus protection in this suite identical with Comodo Antivirus 8. You can read that review to get full details, but I'll summarize here.
Most of the labs I follow don't include Comodo in their testing. It did manage 16 of 18 possible points in AV-Test Institute's three-part antivirus test, which is good. However, Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 and Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) both managed a perfect 18 points in that same test.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo detected 83 percent of the samples and scored 8.3 of 10 possible points, putting it a mere fraction behind Bitdefender Internet Security 2015. My Comodo contact pointed out that the software's automatic sandboxing feature doesn't kick in for files already present when the product is installed. I followed his instructions to test in such a way that auto-sandboxing would have a chance, but doing so didn't change the results.
Comodo's performance in my antiphishing test was utterly dismal. It hardly detected any fraudulent websites. In fact, its detection rate came in 94 percentage points below that of Symantec Norton Security, which consistently aces this test. My Comodo contact advised that the suite should do better at antiphishing and malicious URL blocking, so I reran the phishing test. After one new round of testing, I found no appreciable difference, so I didn't continue.
Tough Firewall
The firewall component resisted all my attempts to disable it programmatically, the way a malicious program might. It also successfully put all of the test system's ports in stealth mode, and fended off all my Web-based tests. Please read my review of Comodo Firewall 8for the nitty-gritty details.
Like ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall 2015, Comodo doesn't attempt to detect exploit attacks at the network level. The standalone firewall did precisely nothing when I attacked it using 30-odd exploits generated by the CORE Impact penetration tool.
I frequently find that the antivirus component in a security suite will handle at least some of the exploits by wiping out their payload files, so I reran this test on the suite. Comodo wiped out the payload for 14 percent of the attacks, but that's all. The firewall component in Quick Heal AntiVirus Pro 16 likewise doesn't attempt to block exploits, but Quick Heal's antivirus detected over 40 percent of the malicious payloads.
Performance Testing Surprise
This suite just includes antivirus, firewall, and a few bonus security tools, so I was surprised to notice that its installation occupied over a gigabyte space on disk (determined by measuring free space before and after installation). I was even more surprised when my boot-time test averaged over 40 percent longer with Comodo installed than with no suite.
I repeated the test twice more, averaging 100 reboots for each test. The results hardly varied. Booting up the system took 42 percent longer with Comodo installed. Looking back at results for earlier Comodo versions, I found similar results—I had simply forgotten.
A script that moves and copies a huge collection of bulky files between drives took 27 percent longer with Comodo's real-time protection active, more than double the current suite average of 12 percent. Another script that zips and unzips that same file collection took 13 percent longer. The average for the zip/unzip test is 11 percent. It's possible you might notice Comodo's performance impact, especially when it comes to boot time.
Sub-Ratings:
Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.
Firewall:
Antivirus:
Performance:
Antispam: n/a
Privacy:
Parental Control: n/a
Full Article
