Battle Kaspersky Internet Security 2014 vs Comodo Internet Security

[thepiratedon]

Hello MalwareTips!
I just got hold of a Kaspersky Internet Security 2014 key and wonder:
How does it compare to Comodo Internet Security?

I am normally using Comodo since I simply love it, but with a KIS 2014 key I am thinking of re-installing my Main computer.

So what are your opinions? (I am Using Windows 8.1)
Is it good?, How is the lack of advanced settings working out for Kaspersky? (heard that they apparently simplified the application and removed the advanced options, is this true?)

My main computer currently is:
Windows 8.1 Pro
Comodo Internet Security
Comodo Dragon with Adblock Plus & Ghostery

What I was thinking of installing with kaspersky.
Windows 8.1 Pro
KIS 2014
Firefox with Adblock Plus, Ghostery, Noscript

I am mainly using my computer for Development (C++ programming in visual studio)
and some video games, mainly League of Legends (which I remember Kaspersky started to block and destroy when having it on high settings, does it do that anymore?), StarCraft 2, CS:Go & Battlefield 4.

So whats your opinion?, and is KIS worth it over Comodo?

For those interested here is my main comp spec:
.Asrock X79 Extreme 9
.16GB DDR3 1600Mhz
.I7-3930k
.2X Nvidia 660TI
.Samsung SSD 128GB, Intel 330 SSD 120GB, 2TB Western Digital Black

 

[Nico@FMA]

Very well said indeed. Yeah, you are right that Comodo isn't being used on a wide spread scale of companies (Haven't seen one in a business operation, yet.) because of its level of complexity and customizability. I've actually managed to install CIS on a small office (Technically an office in a local university) and they haven't had any problems with the way that I've set it up for them.

Thanks, and yes you are right if i do not take into account a rare small 5 man company with 3 computers (or your local 1 man shop with 1 pc), then i can say without any doubt that i have not yet seen ANY corporate PC with ANY Comodo product (Well maybe a lost certificate 1 or twice)
Just to make others understand, try installing Comodo on a process line infrastructure which has multiple network rings, process servers and such... Good luck no way. With all do respect.

 

[Cain]

I think we may start to see Comodo being utilized more in commercial/industry use. They seem to be establishing quiet a support structure for it. For instance, Comodo Endpoint Security Manager 3.0 PE with CES along with all the other products and services they seem to be aiming towards commercial use, it doesn't look like any "two-bit" operation. I am interested in trialing the server managed end point software to see how how it performs and how effective it is.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I think we may start to see Comodo being utilized more in commercial/industry use. They seem to be establishing quiet a support structure for it. For instance, Comodo Endpoint Security Manager 3.0 PE with CES along with all the other products and services they seem to be aiming towards commercial use, it doesn't look like any "two-bit" operation. I am interested in trialing the server managed end point software to see how how it performs and how effective it is.

Hence why i said one day they might.

 

[Cain]

Hence why i said one day they might.

I'm guessing you have had some experience with their commercial products? What have you used, how recently and what was your experience with it like?

 

[Nico@FMA]

I'm guessing you have had some experience with their commercial products? What have you used, how recently and what was your experience with it like?

Let me try to explain:
As a professional myself within the industry for many years i know exactly what they are about, how they work and what i can expect.
That said, disregarding personal experiences with Comodo products i would like to add that the standards within the corporate industry specially high end security applications and infrastructure requirements are a totally different world compared to your average security demands.
In regards to Comodo and specifically the link you provided it does look good on paper, but in the real world its not so good.
Thats no discredit to Comodo but its a pure fact that for example the whole config of such a huge multi million company and their custom applications are made with specific goals in mind.
And given that you have to realize that a company cannot afford to play around with new security applications if they have a far better and proven solution installed. One does not have to be a fan of vendors like: Sophos, Symantec, Kaspersky or Mcafee but these Vendors have a whole infrastructure to support their corporate products on location 24/7 and have years and years of proven effectiveness.
For example most of the fortune 500 companies use Symantec to protect their ICT infrastructure and applications.
Another very big name is Sophos.
Third party software and individual configurations are custom made to perfectly fit in with the security applications and the host network.
So the whole concept is way beyond anything Comodo currently has to offer.
Again thats no discredit to Comodo, but it took the industry over 15 years to get it right and in this day and age everything seems to accelerate and more comprehensive.
Thats said the proven technological expertise within the mentioned products is so far ahead of Comodo.

Maybe you understand what i am saying or maybe not... But i hope that the community can pick up on it and give you a better reply.
Anyway lets stay on topic.

 

[Cain]

Let me try to explain:
As a professional myself within the industry for many years i know exactly what they are about, how they work and what i can expect.
That said, disregarding personal experiences with Comodo products i would like to add that the standards within the corporate industry specially high end security applications and infrastructure requirements are a totally different world compared to your average security demands.
In regards to Comodo and specifically the link you provided it does look good on paper, but in the real world its not so good.
Thats no discredit to Comodo but its a pure fact that for example the whole config of such a huge multi million company and their custom applications are made with specific goals in mind.
And given that you have to realize that a company cannot afford to play around with new security applications if they have a far better and proven solution installed. One does not have to be a fan of vendors like: Sophos, Symantec, Kaspersky or Mcafee but these Vendors have a whole infrastructure to support their corporate products on location 24/7 and have years and years of proven effectiveness.
For example most of the fortune 500 companies use Symantec to protect their ICT infrastructure and applications.
Another very big name is Sophos.
Third party software and individual configurations are custom made to perfectly fit in with the security applications and the host network.
So the whole concept is way beyond anything Comodo currently has to offer.
Again thats no discredit to Comodo, but it took the industry over 15 years to get it right and in this day and age everything seems to accelerate and more comprehensive.
Thats said the proven technological expertise within the mentioned products is so far ahead of Comodo.

Maybe you understand what i am saying or maybe not... But i hope that the community can pick up on it and give you a better reply.
Anyway lets stay on topic.

Very well said. Being a professional in the industry myself also, firstly I completely understand you and I agree totally with the fact that when in comes to a corporate environment, there is little room for risk with trialing somewhat 'untested/unknown/unsupported etc.' software solutions of any kind. Especially when it comes to the integrity and security of data that we "IT Crew" become responsible for, and ensuring effective service continuity while minimizing any disruption. On top of all this, we must do it on as little budget as possible. It's not an easy task ...So in the end we go with a solution that is well known and established in the industry because we know that we are most safe, we're told we'll be best supported by them, and when the ##### hits the fan (so to speak) we can rely on them to carry partial responsibility (If only to our superiors).

At the university I work for, we have used Symantec for about the last 8 years, prior to that, we used CA and prior to that, it was a case of "fend for yourself" ...But in reference to my question I posed, in no way has it to do with being a "fan boy" of any product. Personally, I look for what works, whatever does the job it's supposed do and does it well. However this does not always translate into $$$ => HQ. In fact through my experiences, many times I have been massively disappointed after spending big money on something that is simply over marketed and under quality... I was more so trying to gauge your overall experience with a product you seemed to know about as in this case I have no knowledge on it ...and I guess even the biggest, best of their kind all have to start somewhere

 

[spywar]

In my humble opinion, without a doubt 100x Kaspersky. I'm a bit suspicious to talk about it, not like comodo Av, I think its bad detection, I do not see much importance in the proactive defense, using sandboxie already a good size, in the case with kaspersky or need. Kaspersky and a little heavy on startup, then gets quiet. Comodo should pay more attention in their signatures ...

Would it be possible to give a test or a link that proves what you claim ? We can't agree with words, we need facts you know I mean ?

 

[Freuderam]

Would it be possible to give a test or a link that proves what you claim ? We can't agree with words, we need facts you know I mean ?

https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Stats
I just prefer detection signatures as first defense, kaspersky, eset, Emsisoft holiday greeting this very well, part of comodo av and not a strong part of its proactive defense is excellent, so comodo does not fit in my User profile and so I do not use it, do not have the patience to stay virtualizing legitimate programs ....

 

[Nikos751]

Comodo IS is very light & effective. Maybe it's signatures are not that good, but as a hole it provides technologies that make a top result in protection.
Kaspersky offer good sugnatures and good hips/application control along with that so the overall protection is high. What's better than CIS in KIS is malware cleaning & system remediation. Also it is still a little heavy on the system.
If the user is experienced, I believe CIS can provide better protection. If not, KIS may be better.
What I don't know, is which of these products is more resistive to malware actions that disable/terminate/bypass AV protection. Does anyone know? I would like to know that.

 

[Cain]

"Emsisoft holiday greeting this very well" ...anybody?

 

[spywar]

https://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?Stats
I just prefer detection signatures as first defense, kaspersky, eset, Emsisoft holiday greeting this very well, part of comodo av and not a strong part of its proactive defense is excellent, so comodo does not fit in my User profile and so I do not use it, do not have the patience to stay virtualizing legitimate programs ....

These tests are based on CRDF samples. I had access to their DB for some time, too many duplicates and also safe files, and is based on VT results, nothing serious IMO. Testing AVs with Virustotal results is almost ridiculous.

 

[Nico@FMA]

These tests are based on CRDF samples. I had access to their DB for some time, too many duplicates and also safe files, and is based on VT results, nothing serious IMO. Testing AVs with Virustotal results is almost ridiculous.

+1 VERY well said.

 

[spywar]

And they say that themselves

"This test is conducted and published an informational purposes only, and we do not guarantee the accuracy of the data. The method used in this test is only based on the analysis proposed by VirusTotal engine."