Battle Comodo's Auto-containment vs any other free security software

[Nagisa]

I'd like to just give the avast (free) as an example here. Avast has a behaviour blocker and also its antivirus module is relatively stronger to comodo's. But, there will be times where both of them can't succeed to find the malware. At this time, theoryically, a sandbox can isolate the virus without interfering the program itself. I don't know if there is significant performance loss at this point, though. Even if we press the "Run unlimited", we have a strong HIPS module, doesn't we?
I have never seen the HIPS module in action at the malware tests on youtube, so I can't say a definite thing, though.

I think either there is a problem with Comodo which I don't know yet, or it's just underrated.

 

[shmu26]

The truth is that I feel lucky with Comodo, everyone says it has mistakes and I do not doubt, but it does not affect me for years.

There is somebody in another thread who is trying to find himself the lightest combo. He decided to use Webroot and Cylance. I feel bad for him, because Comodo firewall is as light as can be, and is 100 times stronger protection. And it's free.

 

[AtlBo]

I guess I will end up either with a comodo FW or Forticlient with tweaked settings + OSArmor. I'm bored with Comodo, so I will try FC + NVTOSA.

How is its performance impact on the system btw?

If you are referring to F-C, it's light on the system except during scans with the exception of the GUI. It's like the Avast GUI...very heavy. But with F-C and the config tweaks, I don't find much need for opening the GUI anyway. Don't mind the scanning being a little bit heavy. It was me who scheduled them, so...

You might feel a little bit bare without a sandbox, but no doubt for me, F-C with its web filtering and a-v is strong. This is as long as @ForgottenSeer 58943's a-v hardening is in place:

FortiClient 6.0.0 (Windows)

Release Notes: https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/4458/forticlient-6.0.0-windows-release-notes.pdf Ps: Sorry for not copying and pasting here, when I do this, the formatting of the text gets all changed. Thanks!

malwaretips.com

post 15

 

[show-Zi]

For me the bug in comodo is like a broken sock. I do not care much if I wear shoes.

 

[oldschool]

For me the bug in comodo is like a broken sock. I do not care much if I wear shoes.

So you go barefoot? :barefoot::barefoot::barefoot: Nothing is perfect!

 

[shmu26]

So you go barefoot? :barefoot::barefoot::barefoot: Nothing is perfect!

I think that @show-Zi meant like this: it doesn't matter if you have a hole in your sock, when you are wearing shoes. Maybe I'm smoking something, but that's how I read it.
Maybe the OP will come back on line and set the record straight...

 

[imuade]

Comodo was great until Windows 7, but it gives headache to many people on Windows 10.
If you like default-deny, just use @Andy Ful Hard_Configurator and add whatever AV you like.

 

[show-Zi]

I think that @show-Zi meant like this: it doesn't matter if you have a hole in your sock, when you are wearing shoes. Maybe I'm smoking something, but that's how I read it.
Maybe the OP will come back on line and set the record straight...

You are a great decipherer!!!!

 

[Andy Ful]

Comodo was great until Windows 7, but it gives headache to many people on Windows 10.
If you like default-deny, just use @Andy Ful Hard_Configurator and add whatever AV you like.

Comodo Firewall in CS settings is also the simplest default-deny protection on all Windows versions not supported by MS (Windows Vista, Windows 8, and some old Windows 10 compilations). No Windows updates = no Comodo problems. I would also recommend disabling updates to the new Comodo versions, which can sometimes crash the old systems. The user should also consider switching to SUA + marking script Interpretes as Unsafe + removing most vendors from TVL.

 

[17410742]

genuine Question: if Comodo Cloud AV sandboxes every file it does not recognise & monitors its behaviour too - why use anything else if this is free? - why even bother using a layered protection or even their paid-for products?

browsers can be automatically ran inside a sandbox (ie Sandboxie)
Default Deny (VoodooShield)
with added virus detection & removal.

its essentially a lockdown AV & its free - its a close to 100% as any AV out there would be - or am i mistaken here?

 

[amico81]

I'am a user of comodo cloud av

 

[LDogg]

CCAV + VoodooShield + Syshardener sounds like great all rounded protection for users. Opinions?

~LDogg

 

[17410742]

CCAV + VoodooShield + Syshardener sounds like great all rounded protection for users. Opinions?

~LDogg

why would CCAV need to be paired with VS? - all unknown files are already on default deny & sandboxed.

syshardender is always welcome in any security setup. lol

 

[shmu26]

genuine Question: if Comodo Cloud AV sandboxes every file it does not recognise & monitors its behaviour too - why use anything else if this is free? - why even bother using a layered protection or even their paid-for products?

browsers can be automatically ran inside a sandbox (ie Sandboxie)
Default Deny (VoodooShield)
with added virus detection & removal.

its essentially a lockdown AV & its free - its a close to 100% as any AV out there would be - or am i mistaken here?

1 The autosandbox function of CCAV is essentially the same as that of Comodo Firewall in Proactive config. (Please note that Comodo Firewall is a free product.) Autosandbox is good protection for file-based malware, whether you use CCAV or CFW.

2 The behavior monitoring of both products is weak and not to be relied on.

3 Autosandbox is like default/deny. So you don't need Voodooshield.

4 A modern, updated browser does not need to be sandboxed, and furthermore, sandboxing it will not help very much against today's browser exploits. But if you want to sandbox it, you can do that with CFW, you don't need Sandboxie.

5 CCAV is buggier and heavier than Comodo Firewall, and it provides less protection and less configuration possibilities. But it is more compatible with other security software.

 

[bribon77]

2 The behavior monitoring of both products is weak and not to be relied on.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I've tested malware having Emsisoft and Comodo Firewall installed and it's been faster Comodo in detecting Malware.

 

[shmu26]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I've tested malware having Emsisoft and Comodo Firewall installed and it's been faster Comodo in detecting Malware.

Did Comodo detect it through the behavior monitoring, or through a different module?

 

[bribon77]

Did Comodo detect it through the behavior monitoring, or through a different module?

Deny by default

 

[shmu26]

Deny by default

That's what I thought. The deny by default of Comodo, which they call Autosandbox, is strong protection. I like it.
But their behavior blocking, AKA Virusscope, is not impressive.

 

[bribon77]

That's what I thought. The deny by default of Comodo, which they call Autosandbox, is strong protection. I like it.
But their behavior blocking, AKA Virusscope, is not impressive.

Let's see when you download the malware any AV if you do nothing will detect it before Comodo... but if you click on the malware Comodo is a light

 

[Nagisa]

I had made a test with CAV (not CCAV), and I found its detection is very fast. But I didn’t like the detection ratio though.

Malwares are were from the thezoo/ytswf github page. I had scanned 175 executable files and the results were like that:

Qihoo 360: 100
With Bitdefender/Avira sig. : 105-106
Webroot: 120
Comodo: 80-90
Win Defender: 50-60

I don’t remember the exact number though.

 

[LDogg]

Comodo is light, thinking of using their full product next year (free IS) when Zemana has ran out of protection.

~LDogg