comodo seems to dont care about exploitations going on on cis. when people talk about it there are always some defending and trying to make the subjects fade away in the wild, like cruelsister trying to implicate that the problem that permites the poc to bypass cis and xcitium is related to some kind of flaw in windows uac... so, why botter with it anymore? thats the point. right?
DecimaTech explained the Comodo/UAC flaw, which is well-known to Comodo staff. If you think other AV vendors are eager to patch all known flaws, you will be disappointed.
Furthermore, despite this incompatibility, you can hardly find a stronger solution than
@cruelsister settings + safe mode HIPS + some hardening via Script Analysis (of course there can be some with similar strength).
Comodo has some important advantages for non-enterprise users:
- It is rarely a target of criminals.
- It uses auto-containment and most solutions do not.
If you will see malware attacking your personal computer, it will not be the sandbox bypass, except when you are a celebrity, dissident, or VIP. If something might pass by your Comodo protection, it would be via DLL hijacking or a similar fileless (non-EXE) technique. Even then, you will have a fair chance to stop the attack flow because many attacks starting from fileless vectors, still use standard methods at the later infection stages. So in the end, the final payload can be contained anyway.
As an example, one could take the
@Loyisa exploit. From points 1-2 it follows, that you hardly can see such an exploit on your computer, but rather a modified version when the auto-containment bypass via creating service is replaced by a UAC bypass unrelated to sandbox escape. Such a UAC bypass can be mainly contained with no escape. In the case when the file with UAC bypass is not contained and tries to run an EXE payload, the payload can be auto-contained into a full-strength sandbox (payload will start with Administrator privileges before containment = no sandbox escape).
Of course, there is still some possibility that malware can compromise your protection (via purely non-EXE attack or by using some unrestricted LOLBin), but such malware is very rare and other solutions can hardly do better. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with trying.
I am afraid that after moving on, most people will replace strong protection + known but rarely exploited feature, with not-so-strong protection + unknown by the user (but known by attackers) more frequently exploited features.
malwaretips.com
"D" knows what I'm talking about! 
