Battle Free AV for Comodo Firewall 2017?

[nishaddesilva]

I want to know which free antivirus is most compatible and lightest on resources while running alongside Comodo Firewall. Ability to customise settings is preferred (Reason why Bitdefender is not mentioned)

 

[nishaddesilva]

Currently I'm trying Avast with CF. I'm getting this alert by CF when opening Chrome. Does anybody know what this is about?

 

[Deleted member 178]

On Windows 10, try Windows Defender with Comodo Firewall.

Indeed, Comodo does all the works so WinDef is enough.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Can somebody say what Avira is lacking than Avast and Panda?

avira free is simply not good. Bloated UI. Slows down you system during updates and after detecting a malwares
the cloud function is as effective as the pro version. My tested VM was heavily infected with avira free. avira pro did a lot better
panda, just avoid it. I had a very bad experience with it. Therefore, I was never able to make a video review for it. Its realtime protection is weak, nowhere near other well-known AVs

panda is good only when you don't encounter malwares. When you do, it will show you its real face

 

[Ink]

panda is good only when you don't encounter malwares. When you do, it will show you its real face

Is Panda still a Cloud AV, as when it was first released?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Is Panda still a Cloud AV, as when it was first released?

now, all panda's products are cloud even the internet security version

 

[Ink]

if it is noticeable with HDD, it will cause the same problem with SSD but because SSD is ~10x faster than HDD so it's not really noticeable. The problem is it can degrade the SSD faster. the CPU usage is higher than other lighter AVs

Got it.
Forgot to mention, if you know the folder is and remain free from malware, you can add to exclusions. In any case Comodo Firewall will provide the extra layer.

 

[cruelsister]

Hi- Really watch out with Panda if it is ever used as primary protection. True zero-day coverage just isn't as good as with Avast or Qihoo. You can see the point made here:

Video Review - A Panda Free AV ver. 18 quickie

 

[Davidov]

Currently I'm trying Avast with CF. I'm getting this alert by CF when opening Chrome. Does anybody know what this is about?

I think he does not like some plugin in chrome. Potential danger.

 

[Arequire]

Currently I'm trying Avast with CF. I'm getting this alert by CF when opening Chrome. Does anybody know what this is about?

It's an Internet Security Essentials alert. It's an optional component designed to counteract MitM attacks by verifying sites are using an authentic certificate. You can read about it here if you wish. You shouldn't be receiving the alert when accessing Google; try removing /ncr from your homepage and see what happens.

 

[paulderdash]

Hello,
I'm using qihoo 360 TS alongside of CF. And it's running well on my old machine (4Gb RAM).
I'm running it after watching cruelsister's videos.

+1

 

[jamescv7]

Let's be practical based on suggested choices available by OP.

Comodo Firewall is already powerful which can match to any type of security software to companion with; however as usual the AV must be balanced and does not rely into one technique.

Avira = Strong signatures, heuristics and generic detection but that's all, no Behavior Blocker or any secondary component. APC is sometimes handy but not on majority cases.

Avast = Balance protection, it can failed on other cases but the Hardening Mode should take care off properly. We witness that regardless of internet connectivity, HM can actively blocked without hesitation. (Smart enough like Emsisoft's BB mechanism when cloud is not available)

Panda = The security program is good but the expectation can be considered mediocre.

----------------------

For other possible options, you can blend Comodo Firewall with Qihoo 360 with proper configuration.

You have numerous ways like either disable HIPS of CF and rely on mechanistic protection of Qihoo 360 or vice versa.

 

[nishaddesilva]

I think he does not like some plugin in chrome. Potential danger.

It's an Internet Security Essentials alert. It's an optional component designed to counteract MitM attacks by verifying sites are using an authentic certificate. You can read about it here if you wish. You shouldn't be receiving the alert when accessing Google; try removing /ncr from your homepage and see what happens.

The error wasn't shown after I disabled the SSL scanning of Avast. I think that was the problem.

 

[Arequire]

The error wasn't shown after I disabled the SSL scanning of Avast. I think that was the problem.

That'd explain it. I always suggest disabling HTTPS scanning on AVs if possible. It contributes nothing to security and is known to lessen the strength of your browser's encryption. AVs already have full access to your PC's file system so anything it would usually catch by scanning SSL will be caught when it attempts to be dropped onto your system.

 

[Kuttz]

Link to such example?

Just open a folder containing lots of .exe files. For the first time access, files icons in that folder will take its own sweet time to display properly. From second access onward files appear normally fast. The process repeats when the system is rebooted. WD is not a speedy anti virus solution as many people assumes.

 

[ForgottenSeer 19494]

It's an Internet Security Essentials alert. It's an optional component designed to counteract MitM attacks by verifying sites are using an authentic certificate. You can read about it here if you wish. You shouldn't be receiving the alert when accessing Google; try removing /ncr from your homepage and see what happens.

That'd explain it. I always suggest disabling HTTPS scanning on AVs if possible. It contributes nothing to security and is known to lessen the strength of your browser's encryption. AVs already have full access to your PC's file system so anything it would usually catch by scanning SSL will be caught when it attempts to be dropped onto your system.

Indeed this is triggered by the installation of Avast root certificates in the Windows Store. I would certainly not disable Avast SSL scanning but remove Comodo Internet Security Essentials, keeping only the firewall/suite. There are script-based fileless attacks which need SSL scanning and intelligent stream scanning to be both enabled in order for Avast to intercept and scan them. Avast has a very good and improved SSL scanning implementation and i am too lazy to go in details again. For Chromium-based it provides even better SSL checking then Chrome itself (however Firefox because of its better than Chrome NSS module implementation needs the Avast root certificate in its own store, newer versions of Avast also support SSL scanning in Firefox).

 

[Ink]

Just open a folder containing lots of .exe files. For the first time access, files icons in that folder will take its own sweet time to display properly. From second access onward files appear normally fast. The process repeats when the system is rebooted. WD is not a speedy anti virus solution as many people assumes.

Why would you have a folder full of .EXE files?

Downloads folder - delete the stuff you no longer need or compress to save for future.

 

[Solarlynx]

If you want any AV with CF then use Qihoo or Avast, they seem to be very good against zero day malware.

 

[BugCode]

Just leave CFW alone, with setting all know already and problem solved. LIGHT!

 

[Arequire]

If you want any AV with CF then use Qihoo or Avast, they seem to be very good against zero day malware.

You want signatures over an AV's zero-day protections because any zero-days are just going to be sandboxed and terminated by Comodo. Signatures will quarantine the malware before Comodo is able to touch it.

The only case where you'd want zero-day protections is when malware is using a stolen certificate from one of the vendors on Comodo's trusted vendors list, in which the sandbox would ignore it.

 

[DJ Panda]

Avast is my favorite. You don't need CFW just get Window's Firewall. I tired CFW and it was the worst program I have ever used...