Battle Internet Security: Comodo 10 VS Kaspersky 2017

[LukeNukesEm]

Now I know there are a ton of kaspersky fanboys here (including myself) but I want to compare the 2 most secure suites (IMO). Kaspersky VS Comodo. I don't really care about signature protection, I'm more for features, behavior blocking, and firewalls. So excluding signature protecton, which would be the most secure? (Note I also have HMPA and VoodooShield, so any features equivalent to those don't matter to me).

EDIT: Forgot to mention, please do not be biased.

 

[AtlBo]

I would like to know how Secure Shopping compares to Virtual Desktop.

Anyone know where Virtual Desktop stores data during a session? Also, is the virtual desktop data folder auto-dumped/cleaned when VD is closed out?

 

[509322]

You must've not read the description haha. I am not looking for signature protection, I am looking for a more secure, complex setup.

Complex is not necessarily better. You will learn that a relatively simple security configuration can be extremely capable of protecting your system.

 

[vivid]

I would like to know how Secure Shopping compares to Virtual Desktop.

Anyone know where Virtual Desktop stores data during a session? Also, is the virtual desktop data folder auto-dumped/cleaned when VD is closed out?

This one's not relevant to topic but I'll answer it.

Secure Shopping is not a sandbox (and I have said it multiple times; this is a common misconception). Restrictions applied in Sandbox are not applied in Secure Shopping (and that is somewhat proof of two different things).
Virtual Desktop does not erase content on exit. It is stored in C:\VTRoot (hidden folder). You can remove content with "Reset Sandbox" task.

Secure Shopping works differently. Virtual Desktop does not prevent keyloggers, screen grabbers, etc and it's a mere coincidence if it passes such a test; they never claimed such capabilities -- use Secure Shopping for such cases. It also makes use of hypervisor technologies and other interesting stuff.

 

[cruelsister]

A more proper question would be if the user would rather use Traditional protection or the more modern form of protection like the automatic virtualization provided by Comodo.

Both products require minor and quick tweaks for maximum protection, and both would provide excellent protection. Neither one is really complicated at all, but it's just that most (all) users are more comfortable with the Traditional sort of thing and may be unnerved by switching to something different.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

You must've not read the description haha. I am not looking for signature protection, I am looking for a more secure, complex setup.

I have seen the potential of your Laptop, and if your a gamer as that system implies, do yourself a favor and
go completely sig-free with something like:
1> HMPA + VS w/ HMP as on demand and set that beast free.
I hate seeing well built performance machines bogged down with overbearing useless configs.
You have a very nice laptop why bog it down, don't even go near Comodo. JMHO
PS: seeing this is a gaming Laptop I am voting for none of those security suites

 

[509322]

C is easier to manage - even with the multitude of settings . A person can get into K's policy editor and that deer in the headlights look will fall over their face. To make K work at max, you have to change the default application control group policies.

 

[cruelsister]

Cyber- Actually CF is ideal for gaming. On starting the game the Cloud AV will check it (as would any other AV) and the sandbox will either virtualize it or not. So if it's a legitimate application it won't be boxed or detected by the AV- from there CF would be silent. It doesn't get less intrusive than that.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

Cyber- Actually CF is ideal for gaming. On starting the game the Cloud AV will check it (as would any other AV) and the sandbox will either virtualize it or not. So if it's a legitimate application it won't be boxed or detected by the AV- from there CF would be silent. It doesn't get less intrusive than that.

I see your point sis, but windows FW w/ wfc and there is no need for the added processes CF brings to the table.

 

[AtlBo]

Virtual Desktop does not erase content on exit. It is stored in C:\VTRoot (hidden folder). You can remove content with "Reset Sandbox" task.

Thankyou. Did not want to start a thread for this but been finding availability of details about CFW hard to find. Very helpful.

 

[KGBagent47]

Comodo and KIS both have very complex firewall options, but since you don't care about signatures it seems it would be a waste of resources to use KIS just for its firewall or app control.

Personally I like good signatures they leave zero room for user error, so I would choose KIS.

 

[giants8058]

I'd go with Kasperky without a doubt. Outside of Comodo's HIPS, it's malware detection is horrendous. Have done tests with some pretty old samples that is consistently misses.