Is Comodo Internet Security Free good ?

Do you think Comodo Internet Security is a good product ?


  • Total voters
    58
Status
Not open for further replies.

JakeXPMan

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 20, 2014
804
Most of novice users thinks "All auto-sandboxing pop-ups are false positives." :)
They have to learn more about the product before commenting on it! They mislead the all potential new users.

CIS was intimidating at first... I wasn't sure how to change anything. Although, the more I memorize the options and settings, and trust the "OK" button to secure a change or two. It really has become easier...

I plan to keep using CIS 8, and look forward to its 8.2 update :)

PS
Anyone know when 8.1 will upgrade to the secure version 8.2?
 
Feb 12, 2015
207
Comodo is great the database isn't the best but its not too far behind avast lvl and then you got all these extra security features that make up for it you can configure it alot right now I use comodo internet security+Webroot antivirus works great if I could only chose 1 av out of all the free and paid I would chose comodo
 
H

hjlbx

Thread author
Good for you.

That's how it is done... :D

Current version = 8.2.0.4508

CIS was intimidating at first... I wasn't sure how to change anything. Although, the more I memorize the options and settings, and trust the "OK" button to secure a change or two. It really has become easier...

I plan to keep using CIS 8, and look forward to its 8.2 update :)

PS
Anyone know when 8.1 will upgrade to the secure version 8.2?

8.1 will automatically update to 8.2.0.4508 within the next week or so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Billcomputerman123
H

hjlbx

Thread author
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and is free to express it.

Open debate is a part of this forum and it certainly has value.

Comodo has problems just like every single other AV I routinely test... consequently, I am continually reporting bugs to Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Comodo, Webroot, etc, etc.

Some reported bugs are fixed. Others are not. And some "bugs" are not really bugs, but rather vulnerabilities that are so arcane and difficult to utilize that no malware author in their right mind would bother... as it would essentially be a complete waste of their time and efforts.

I can tell you from experience testing malwares against AVs, every single one of them will not protect you 100 %; my system routinely gets infected while testing samples.

One can get very high level protection by creating a default-deny\anti-executable system.

What I mean by close is perhaps 98 % protection level.

When one carefully measures all the protection types that are available - the only one that is robust in the face of a never-ending supply of new malware is an anti-executable\default-deny configuration. And the human is the best anti-executable, but software versions help.

The price for such high-level protection is perceived "inconvenience." Constant system reconfiguration is a bit of an interface hassle. Plus automatic updates may not work normally, but that is an easy fix - disable protection, update, then re-enable protection.

The user still has to protect the browser with add-ons and an anti-exploit such as MBAE free. One still needs at least outbound network connection notifications. One still needs an AV to scan user\data folders for files dropped within a few milliseconds by launched but blocked installers\malicious scripts - I have only seen this with AppGuard.

Comodo in its current version has most of this covered - with the exception of anti-exploit for the browser and other browser add-ons. This can mostly be fixed with PeerBlock, AdGuard, uBlock, uMatrix, NoScript, etc.

Comodo is "Old School." By that I mean it is relatively low on automation and high on manual configuration. It is best suited to the user who routinely checks the Windows file system and pays attention to what is installed on the system. Comodo's file verdicts are slow as they are done manually... so their signatures lag behind VT and VT-based AVs. Plus, I am not too sure, but I think user file ratings are not polled and taken into consideration when rating files like Kaspersky and Emsisoft do.

In short, the Comodo package is best suited to the user who is wired to have a high awareness of what is on their system and what it is doing...

However, there is always that malware that comes along that manages to cause problems - if not bypassing or crippling the AV outright. It is just a matter of time.

The point I'm making is this: surf long enough, and far enough, and your system will get bit no matter what you do.

98 % of infections are the result of human behaviors and only 2 % AV failure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nsm0220

Level 21
Verified
Sep 9, 2013
1,054
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and is free to express it.

Open debate is a part of this forum and it certainly has value.

Comodo has problems just like every single other AV I routinely test... consequently, I am continually reporting bugs to Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Comodo, Webroot, etc, etc.

Some reported bugs are fixed. Others are not. And some "bugs" are not really bugs, but rather vulnerabilities that are so arcane and difficult to utilize that no malware author in their right mind would bother... as it would essentially be a complete waste of their time and efforts.

I can tell you from experience testing malwares against AVs, every single one of them will not protect you 100 %; my system routinely gets infected while testing samples.

One can get very high level protection by creating a default-deny\anti-executable system.

What I mean by close is perhaps 98 % protection level.

When one carefully measures all the protection types that are available - the only one that is robust in the face of a never-ending supply of new malware is an anti-executable\default-deny configuration. And the human is the best anti-executable, but software versions help.

The price for such high-level protection is perceived "inconvenience." Constant system reconfiguration is a bit of an interface hassle. Plus automatic updates may not work normally, but that is an easy fix - disable protection, update, then re-enable protection.

The user still has to protect the browser with add-ons and an anti-exploit such as MBAE free. One still needs at least outbound network connection notifications. One still needs an AV to scan user\data folders for files dropped within a few milliseconds by launched but blocked installers\malicious scripts - I have only seen this with AppGuard.

Comodo in its current version has most of this covered - with the exception of anti-exploit for the browser and other browser add-ons. This can mostly be fixed with PeerBlock, AdGuard, uBlock, uMatrix, NoScript, etc.

Comodo is "Old School." By that I mean it is relatively low on automation and high on manual configuration. It is best suited to the user who routinely checks the Windows file system and pays attention to what is installed on the system. Comodo's file verdicts are slow as they are done manually... so their signatures lag behind VT and VT-based AVs. Plus, I am not too sure, but I think user file ratings are not polled and taken into consideration when rating files like Kaspersky and Emsisoft do.

In short, the Comodo package is best suited to the user who is wired to have a high awareness of what is on their system and what it is doing...

However, there is always that malware that comes along that manages to cause problems - if not bypassing or crippling the AV outright. It is just a matter of time.

The point I'm making is this: surf long enough, and far enough, and your system will get bit no matter what you do.

98 % of infections are the result of human behaviors and only 2 % AV failure.
Did you test malware in a VM just to be safe, because there malware that is nasty as heck.
 

zeusc4

Level 4
Feb 2, 2013
164
yes, why not?

my only problem is big AV signatures & their boltware included installer. I don't have unlimited Internet connection or big Gigabytes to download their AV signatures & boltware included installer. not only that, I installed comodo on my friends compuers & when i try to install their updates manually in 1st time (download their site & import DB) which is not going to work. each time comodo need to download their 200++ MB AV signatures from online. manual update not working. :-(
those are the only problems i have with comodo.
 
Last edited:
H

hjlbx

Thread author
Did you test malware in a VM just to be safe, because there malware that is nasty as heck.

I use Shadow Defender. It has performed really well for me. Best software that I use.

Sometimes I test on actual physical system - just to see if there is any difference between behavior in virtual container and physical system.

As of yet, I haven't noticed - but then again I'm probably not allowing virtual-container aware malware (lies dormant) to remain on my system long enough for HIPS to catch it doing something.

I routinely clean install Windows OS as I am always testing new things... so it's no big deal.
 
H

hjlbx

Thread author
yes, why not?

my only problem is big AV signatures & their boltware included installer. I don't have unlimited Internet connection or big Gigabytes to download their AV signatures & boltware included installer. not only that, I installed comodo on my friends compuers & when i try to install their updates manually in 1st time (download their site & import DB) which is not going to work. each time comodo need to download their 200++ MB AV signatures from online. manual update not working. :-(
those are the only problems i have with comodo.

You are absolutely correct.

I wish Comodo adopted Emsisoft's signature and file rating database model:

1. Update signatures 1x per hour.
2. Create a "Bad Reputation" short-term file rating for user-submitted malware - until a signature is created.
3. Create specific signatures short-term and generic signatures long-term.

Comodo follows an "Old School" manual verdict system as opposed to a VT-based system (if I understand correctly).

That means verdicts and signatures lag behind other AVs...

It requires the user to pay close attention to what they are doing and what CIS is doing.
 
Feb 12, 2015
207
You are absolutely correct.

I wish Comodo adopted Emsisoft's signature and file rating database model:

1. Update signatures 1x per hour.
2. Create a "Bad Reputation" short-term file rating for user-submitted malware - until a signature is created.
3. Create specific signatures short-term and generic signatures long-term.

Comodo follows an "Old School" manual verdict system as opposed to a VT-based system (if I understand correctly).

That means verdicts and signatures lag behind other AVs...

It requires the user to pay close attention to what they are doing and what CIS is doing.
Its fine the way it is no need for them to adopt an engine mabey work a little more on their own
 

conceptualclarity

Level 21
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Aug 23, 2013
1,074
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and is free to express it.

Open debate is a part of this forum and it certainly has value.

Comodo has problems just like every single other AV I routinely test... consequently, I am continually reporting bugs to Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Comodo, Webroot, etc, etc.

Some reported bugs are fixed. Others are not. And some "bugs" are not really bugs, but rather vulnerabilities that are so arcane and difficult to utilize that no malware author in their right mind would bother... as it would essentially be a complete waste of their time and efforts.

I can tell you from experience testing malwares against AVs, every single one of them will not protect you 100 %; my system routinely gets infected while testing samples.

One can get very high level protection by creating a default-deny\anti-executable system.

What I mean by close is perhaps 98 % protection level.

When one carefully measures all the protection types that are available - the only one that is robust in the face of a never-ending supply of new malware is an anti-executable\default-deny configuration. And the human is the best anti-executable, but software versions help.

The price for such high-level protection is perceived "inconvenience." Constant system reconfiguration is a bit of an interface hassle. Plus automatic updates may not work normally, but that is an easy fix - disable protection, update, then re-enable protection.

The user still has to protect the browser with add-ons and an anti-exploit such as MBAE free. One still needs at least outbound network connection notifications. One still needs an AV to scan user\data folders for files dropped within a few milliseconds by launched but blocked installers\malicious scripts - I have only seen this with AppGuard.

Comodo in its current version has most of this covered - with the exception of anti-exploit for the browser and other browser add-ons. This can mostly be fixed with PeerBlock, AdGuard, uBlock, uMatrix, NoScript, etc.

Comodo is "Old School." By that I mean it is relatively low on automation and high on manual configuration. It is best suited to the user who routinely checks the Windows file system and pays attention to what is installed on the system. Comodo's file verdicts are slow as they are done manually... so their signatures lag behind VT and VT-based AVs. Plus, I am not too sure, but I think user file ratings are not polled and taken into consideration when rating files like Kaspersky and Emsisoft do.

In short, the Comodo package is best suited to the user who is wired to have a high awareness of what is on their system and what it is doing...

However, there is always that malware that comes along that manages to cause problems - if not bypassing or crippling the AV outright. It is just a matter of time.

The point I'm making is this: surf long enough, and far enough, and your system will get bit no matter what you do.

98 % of infections are the result of human behaviors and only 2 % AV failure.

Great comment.

What do you think about Windows UAC, AppLocker, SecureAPlus, SysWatch Personal, and NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro?

Lumension said you don't whitelist your browser. Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
H

hjlbx

Thread author
Great comment.

What do you think about Windows UAC, AppLocker, SecureAPlus, SysWatch Personal, and NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro?

Lumension said you don't whitelist your browser. Do you agree?

Windows UAC is the bare minimum, but most users will simply select "OK" - so its best to use an anti-executable.

I have W8.1 Home so no AppLocker.

Never used SecureAPlus or SysWatch Personal.

AppGuard, NVT ERP and VooDooShield all work well if used with discipline... that's the key, "discipline."

I prefer AppGuard as it is more robust.

With AppGuard you can monitor applications and apply some other additional protections which NVT ERP and VS do not offer.

With the others not white-listing the browser is OK as long as the user is willing to tolerate a prompt or user-interface hassle every time they launch it.

I would bet after installing an AE - leaving the system configuration static - and a user surfed and downloaded without restriction for a year, there would be malware on the system but it would be inactive - probably tucked away in User\AppData nested folders. Even though installers are blocked some files still manage to drop. The browser, on the other hand, might be messed up (I have not tested what, if any, protections an AE offers for browsers).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: conceptualclarity
H

hjlbx

Thread author
Its fine the way it is no need for them to adopt an engine mabey work a little more on their own

Comodo ignores\does not trust user file verdicts. Accurate, but extremely slow.

Kaspersky, Emsisoft do trust user file verdicts... but then there are mistakes - both false negative and false positive, of course.

One way is not necessarily better than the other.

Upload app installers to VT for a check - no matter which AV you use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: conceptualclarity

Tony Cole

Level 27
May 11, 2014
1,639
I did have a go/try at using Comodo, and I was a member of their forum (which I left, but that's for another day), but it's mainly for advanced users, in fact even using default settings require quite a bit of knowledge. I believe, reading other posts you have to configure Comodo to utilize it's full protective abilities. I have been using Kaspersky for many years, but I have never taken the advantage to increase Kaspersky to maximum protection, that was until recently, hjlbx explained and gave me detailed info about the 'default deny' approach, which may seem annoying, but these days you cannot risk it. I mean a computer has so many important files and programs (I hope not a list of passwords,) and honestly who could live without one, not me.

For me, free seems too good to be true, and no one will convince me otherwise. But, in reality give it a try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: conceptualclarity
Status
Not open for further replies.