Comodo Internet Security v.7 (2014) - what to expect in the new version?
- Thread starter BoraMurdar
- Start date
- Status
Totally agree with what Earth said, and BIG /SARCASM to Melhi when he said the same thing when people criticized CIS to lack a web filter !
comodo will be the new bloated suite, sadly; more and more i miss v5
- Apr 10, 2013
- 98
Same here, And it isn't bad. it blocks some stuff and a lot of stuff is coaught by the AV of sandbox.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
I totally agree, web protection is completely unnecessary the standard real-time memory protection should be able to block any malicious files or scripts even when they load into your temp folders. Web protection just slows down your page loading.
With CIS, the other HIPS features should be enough to block most threats except for vulnerabilities with Windows OS which can not be protected by any third-party security product. Comodo is becoming more of just paranoid fanboy's tool since Melih continues to add bloat requested by fanboys that is not needed like Comodo Cleaning Essentials for example. CIS suppose to have the best security protection compared to others products but that contradicts everything by adding a malware removal tool to it. If someone got infected while using CIS and needed to use CCE then something is wrong. Just using the HIPS features alone without the AV and firewall should block anything. If the user also utilizes UAC then then nothing should get pass it. Comodo fanboys will never be satisfied until everything including the kitchen sink is added to CIS.
Thanks.
i remember when many fanboys were excited like young virgins at their wedding night by the ubercloud features that Melhi "promised" , the one that supposed to include/share all the other vendors engines (forgot the project's name).
i still laugh when i think of it.
i try to think about the next demands of the fanboys... ummmmm... i surrender... too many stuff
- Nov 21, 2011
- 2,192
Yes Umbra what became of the mighty DACS innovation
P'raps Melih is keeping this one hidden for a while longer
P'raps Melih is keeping this one hidden for a while longer
I think for a company that does all this for free, we should be grateful for this powerful suite. I imagine as with most things built into the suite, the option will be there to disable if not wanted or needed..
Yes Umbra what became of the mighty DACS innovation
P'raps Melih is keeping this one hidden for a while longer
yes DACS , i think the concept simply doesn't work ; who will share freely their engine to make a rival stronger in this lucrative market
- Jan 28, 2013
- 319
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
I liked this post but for the second part with all due respectI totally agree, web protection is completely unnecessary the standard real-time memory protection should be able to block any malicious files or scripts even when they load into your temp folders. Web protection just slows down your page loading.
With CIS, the other HIPS features should be enough to block most threats except for vulnerabilities with Windows OS which can not be protected by any third-party security product. Comodo is becoming more of just paranoid fanboy's tool since Melih continues to add bloat requested by fanboys that is not needed like Comodo Cleaning Essentials for example. CIS suppose to have the best security protection compared to others products but that contradicts everything by adding a malware removal tool to it. If someone got infected while using CIS and needed to use CCE then something is wrong. Just using the HIPS features alone without the AV and firewall should block anything. If the user also utilizes UAC then then nothing should get pass it. Comodo fanboys will never be satisfied until everything including the kitchen sink is added to CIS.
Thanks.
Web Filter is useful implementation, it's absolute wrong thinking that it's completely unnecessary. Some web protection(s) include Anti-Phishing, alerting of malicious sites, or sites with unwanted content, no need for waiting for download to finish ( if file is big) for real time protection to catch it, sites that inject codes and could exploit your system vulnerabilities...
@BoraMurdar I disagree with your post.
Anti-Phishing / Malicious sites can be implemented straight into the browser and without the need of installing an AV. SafeBrowsing (Google) and SmartScreen Filter (Microsoft) both block phishing and malcious sites, better leave it to the Web Giants. Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox also implement the use of Google SafeBrowsing.
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/
A great example are Linux users, they don't need an AV and yet they are protected from Phishing sites. But if what you're saying, that would mean Linux and Mac users would be vulnerable to phishing sites. Of course that is completely untrue, as browsers have anti-phishing built-in.
Sites with unwanted content - Use parental controls, some routers have content filtering and ISP's may be introducing content filtering for families.
Maliciously injected codes - Your AV should be able to alert you, no need to block the whole site if it's affecting a single webpage. Also drive-by downloads are less common, most malware needs to be executed by the user.
Anti-Phishing / Malicious sites can be implemented straight into the browser and without the need of installing an AV. SafeBrowsing (Google) and SmartScreen Filter (Microsoft) both block phishing and malcious sites, better leave it to the Web Giants. Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox also implement the use of Google SafeBrowsing.
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/
A great example are Linux users, they don't need an AV and yet they are protected from Phishing sites. But if what you're saying, that would mean Linux and Mac users would be vulnerable to phishing sites. Of course that is completely untrue, as browsers have anti-phishing built-in.
Sites with unwanted content - Use parental controls, some routers have content filtering and ISP's may be introducing content filtering for families.
Maliciously injected codes - Your AV should be able to alert you, no need to block the whole site if it's affecting a single webpage. Also drive-by downloads are less common, most malware needs to be executed by the user.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
@Earth
We would be very boring if we all think the same.
The things I express here are opinions that will work in hands of non experienced user too. Give me only latest updates, Windows defender,Windows Firewall and UAC enabled and I would probably stay protected and uninfected. In other hand, I put Avast Free with heuristics set to high and enabled hardened mode to my friend's pc, but he still got himself infected (in 3 days) with AOL, Babylon and some stupid screensaver which I needed 4 tools to remove it completely...
In fact Web protection should be a part of Real Time protection and never to run separately. But there are users that just clicks everywhere, commercials, ads and warez and stuff and they are numbered... To get yourself "phished" you have to be... really... but, chrome's and IE's phishing signatures sometimes comes much later than BitDefender's, Kaspersky's or ESET's for example. Some parts of Firewall's in some suites comes to filter pop3, imap, and of course http protocols and still is classified as Web Protection.
When CIS 6 came out I tested it and when other (ESET, Kaspersky) blocked some Java exploits but CIS failed, I was not sure the affect or symptoms of infection but in any case...
I have also conducted and watched some tests where signatures for Web protection comes before Antivirus real time got it. Think it was Bitdefender or some of his derivatives. So after turning off web filter computer got infected by rogue AV (UAC was off. it irritates people)and the same page was blocked by web filer when it was not turned off in the first place.
I just don't like bloat or security overlapping, chocking the system or be paranoid.
In the time when malware technology is so sophisticated it's better to be more careful than too confident.
We would be very boring if we all think the same.
The things I express here are opinions that will work in hands of non experienced user too. Give me only latest updates, Windows defender,Windows Firewall and UAC enabled and I would probably stay protected and uninfected. In other hand, I put Avast Free with heuristics set to high and enabled hardened mode to my friend's pc, but he still got himself infected (in 3 days) with AOL, Babylon and some stupid screensaver which I needed 4 tools to remove it completely...
In fact Web protection should be a part of Real Time protection and never to run separately. But there are users that just clicks everywhere, commercials, ads and warez and stuff and they are numbered... To get yourself "phished" you have to be... really... but, chrome's and IE's phishing signatures sometimes comes much later than BitDefender's, Kaspersky's or ESET's for example. Some parts of Firewall's in some suites comes to filter pop3, imap, and of course http protocols and still is classified as Web Protection.
When CIS 6 came out I tested it and when other (ESET, Kaspersky) blocked some Java exploits but CIS failed, I was not sure the affect or symptoms of infection but in any case...
I have also conducted and watched some tests where signatures for Web protection comes before Antivirus real time got it. Think it was Bitdefender or some of his derivatives. So after turning off web filter computer got infected by rogue AV (UAC was off. it irritates people)and the same page was blocked by web filer when it was not turned off in the first place.
I just don't like bloat or security overlapping, chocking the system or be paranoid.
In the time when malware technology is so sophisticated it's better to be more careful than too confident.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 210
Hi, I have to say this version of comodo is much better then the a couple of their last ones I even have this set with hips clean pc and must say im not getting any of there popups just goes silent now does there web filter work right now, that im not sure I read on how to do it from Umbra but when I did it I could not go on the internet Im sure it was my bad I tried everything he showed which was excellent and thank you by the way. but why should the user do it Comodo should add this daily into there updates web protection for the user. and I have virus scope enabled and no slow downs .the gaming mode does not make sense it should automatically recognize a full screen program and go in protection and quiet mode. and privdog does have its problem with ie11 when searching in address bar it seems to freeze and it does not hold the settings you put in like block all adware and do not track so disabled in ie11 works great in firefox and chrome and it would be awesome if comodo would update in real time with pulse updates like Avast and Norton instead of sitting at 90 percent for a few then update signatures. but there sure getting better each version.
On the subject of the webfilter, i used CIS successfully for years without it, and if i was to run version 7 now, i would probably disable it.. It was one of the reasons i loved CIS, was no webfilter to slow down browsing.. The fact that CIS projected their protection on the memory and important system files worked for me, no infections in all that time running it that way.
Sadly, Avast , Comodo , and many others took the road to be bloatwares ; now you have some vendors like Emsisoft , that take the opposite way, only needed features and no crap.
- Status
Similar threads
