Software to Compare
CCAV 2019
Avast Free 2019
Comodo Antivirus 2019
Other 2019

LDogg

Level 33
Verified
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

I don’t remember the exact number though.
Comodo's model for their protection isn't built on detection ratio, their focus is on sandboxing/containment. As can seen when you run malware most of the unknown .exe (et al) are sandboxed straight away and later blocked, Comodo IS Free is a very solid and light piece of software, covering many layers.

~LDogg
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
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.
Qihoo with Avira and Bitdefender have very good detection rate. But you must wait the firts time 24 hours to give you the latest signatures
 

Nagisa

Level 5
Verified
Qihoo with Avira and Bitdefender have very good detection rate. But you must wait the firts time 24 hours to give you the latest signatures


I thought that installing the AV engines and then updating the signatures would be enough. The signatures were 1 or 2 day old but this is normal as far as I know. I will be wait for a day after I installed the qihoo for testing.


I think the results are bit weird. I would expect better for them overall. I will test again in a day or two. Also I will try to run all the malwares while only the HIPS enabled. I was already knew that this product takes most of its power from its other components. no need to critisizing ;)
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
I thought that installing the AV engines and then updating the signatures would be enough. The signatures were 1 or 2 day old but this is normal as far as I know. I will be wait for a day after I installed the qihoo for testing.


I think the results are bit weird. I would expect better for them overall. I will test again in a day or two. Also I will try to run all the malwares while only the HIPS enabled. I was already knew that this product takes most of its power from its other components. no need to critisizing ;)
Only weekend Bitdefender signatures delayed one day. Use the two engines only with custom scan.
210393
 

17410742

Level 4
As @Nagisa said, the AV component is weak. It is one of the weakest you can find, actually.
are we judging protection on signatures? - its 2019 not 2009. :ROFLMAO:

AV detection rates based on signatures are the weakest & most redundant form of protection in any security software.

Signatures have not been the primary source of detection since CyberHawk & Prevx.

Now with automatic sandboxes, HIPS & behaviour monitors > I wouldn't even care if my security had 'zero signatures'
 

mellowtones242

Level 2
Verified
are we judging protection on signatures? - its 2019 not 2009. :ROFLMAO:

AV detection rates based on signatures are the weakest & most redundant form of protection in any security software.

Signatures have not been the primary source of detection since CyberHawk & Prevx.

Now with automatic sandboxes, HIPS & behaviour monitors > I wouldn't even care if my security had 'zero signatures'

This is what I'm saying, we need not waste time worrying about signatures.
 

LDogg

Level 33
Verified
I understand some may find the CCAV to be weak, but in various tests I've seen on YouTube, forums, articles etc, I've seen detection rates at 97.6% when scanning, the ones that missed were sandboxed then blocked by Virusscope or other component. I'll agree Comodo may, not have the best signature, but this is one subject which is not the focal point for any Comodo product, it's more prevention than detection.

~LDogg
 

mellowtones242

Level 2
Verified
I understand some may find the CCAV to be weak, but in various tests I've seen on YouTube, forums, articles etc, I've seen detection rates at 97.6% when scanning, the ones that missed were sandboxed then blocked by Virusscope or other component. I'll agree Comodo may, not have the best signature, but this is one subject which is not the focal point for any Comodo product, it's more prevention than detection.

~LDogg

Exactly and if you were not able to prevent which is a very very slim chance of happening restore from a backup which I am sure everyone is exercising a good backup strategy.
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
are we judging protection on signatures? - its 2019 not 2009. :ROFLMAO:

AV detection rates based on signatures are the weakest & most redundant form of protection in any security software.

Signatures have not been the primary source of detection since CyberHawk & Prevx.

Now with automatic sandboxes, HIPS & behaviour monitors > I wouldn't even care if my security had 'zero signatures'
 
Top