- Sep 9, 2013
- 1,054
Do you think that COMODO will be the next "McAfee" ? Meaning that its useless when it comes to PC protection ?
Last edited by a moderator:
The fate of COMODO ?
- Thread starter nsm0220
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,858
I don't think so. But they need to focus on their IS instead of things like "chromodo".
- Jul 10, 2014
- 917
Perhaps.... but their sandbox an IDS/HIPS/firewall is one of the strongest i have ever seen... so for the moment they keep in their place... but for signatures, bugs etc..... if they continue in that way... even those excelent features will become a garbage...
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is NO. I agree with one of the above comment, they are security company with many many softwares and services.
Do not think that COMODO is only a CIS
But I agreed that 3 browsers, backup software etc are useless. Because noone will use these software when the other best options available. The new CIS v8 is problematic because of the new sandbox policy. The other sad thing is their default settings. I am also a old CIS user maybe I will be new user for the future releases. I know this problem and you faced this in your review.
It doesn't mean that they are going down because of a bad review
Do not think that COMODO is only a CIS
But I agreed that 3 browsers, backup software etc are useless. Because noone will use these software when the other best options available. The new CIS v8 is problematic because of the new sandbox policy. The other sad thing is their default settings. I am also a old CIS user maybe I will be new user for the future releases. I know this problem and you faced this in your review.It doesn't mean that they are going down because of a bad review
- Dec 17, 2014
- 1,355
I think mcafee is good when you look on the malwarehub and look at the virus total links mcafee usually blocks all the malware
I have mcafee internet security
malwarebytes premium
malwarebytes antiexploit
hitman pro and zemana antimalware
and zemana antikeylogger
and ccleaner
think I am protected
I have mcafee internet security
malwarebytes premium
malwarebytes antiexploit
hitman pro and zemana antimalware
and zemana antikeylogger
and ccleaner
think I am protected
- Apr 30, 2012
- 711
Comodo isn't downhill. And I hope they won't. CIS is great in experienced hands even in its current never-bug-free state. If they stop struggling with quality they'll definitely go uphill. I wish they go uphill.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
Not really since Comodo's combination of HIPS/BB/AutoSandbox are fully working at effective stage and still needs to be handle by experience user though.
- Jan 15, 2012
- 594
Their development has slowed dow alot in the past 2 years but they are still doing a great job with current CIS and it will most likely stay that way.
- Nov 5, 2013
- 478
Well, I was one of the long-time users/fans and supporters of Comodo, but their scattered interest in their products is the main problem here.. I mean, come on, how on the hell could you make a sector-leading top 5 tier AV solution with all that awesome customizations, yet, leave it to rot and die because of indecisions and discontinious support?
We have to think deeper about this one here, because we do not know what is going on after the curtains? I know that there are persons who fight for the continuity of AV solutions, but does Melih think and act the same way?
For my thought, NO. Comodo is not going downhill, not as a whole company, but YES, as a company who does not know which area to focus on, sadly. Look at the Avast! for example, they got AV solutions, a browser extension, mobile phone applications, and that's all. Look at AVG, same way. Avira? Same. I am trying to say that, Comodo was never about to focus on a single area from the very start, which was a tough call and is a really difficult task for a company, who's trying to give the same fight on different markets.. What I see at the moment that Comodo tries to focus on these ; Digital Certificates (which pays their bills)/Browsers/AV/Firewall/Lots of Utilities/Tech Support etc..
What Comodo and Melih needs is a HUGE slap in the face, to make them get to theirselves ASAP, before they will be gone from the fight completely.
p.s : i'm trying iobit uninstaller now and all I can say, it's a huge piece of nothingness. never to use again, cheers.
We have to think deeper about this one here, because we do not know what is going on after the curtains? I know that there are persons who fight for the continuity of AV solutions, but does Melih think and act the same way?
For my thought, NO. Comodo is not going downhill, not as a whole company, but YES, as a company who does not know which area to focus on, sadly. Look at the Avast! for example, they got AV solutions, a browser extension, mobile phone applications, and that's all. Look at AVG, same way. Avira? Same. I am trying to say that, Comodo was never about to focus on a single area from the very start, which was a tough call and is a really difficult task for a company, who's trying to give the same fight on different markets.. What I see at the moment that Comodo tries to focus on these ; Digital Certificates (which pays their bills)/Browsers/AV/Firewall/Lots of Utilities/Tech Support etc..
What Comodo and Melih needs is a HUGE slap in the face, to make them get to theirselves ASAP, before they will be gone from the fight completely.
p.s : i'm trying iobit uninstaller now and all I can say, it's a huge piece of nothingness. never to use again, cheers.
Last edited:
Their main focus always Digital Certificates. You and me know Melih
He wants to protect all these connected thing to the internet. He wants to protect internet and why he gives that CIS to home users. Their advertisements are awful. They need a slap as you said, but a very strong slap like Ottoman ones
- Nov 5, 2013
- 478
Their main focus always Digital Certificates. You and me know Melih
Ottoman's slap is a must-have for Melih
Humm, you are right, but I think he can't protect all these things by himself and alone his company. CIS is a gift, that's okay. But I don't hear good things neither from SSL section Dark clouds are upon Comodo for a medium period.. I hope the rain will come soon for them.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
Below is just my opinion:
McAfee ain't useless. Default settings are actually ok for average user who doesn't go and download everything under the sun or click on every single popup and run it. Pair McAfee with windows 8 default protection (UAC, SmartScreen) and you will be fine. Agree that even the Endpoint version does consume a bit more Memory than nearly a year ago, but they have come a long way.
General consensus of users without fully trying McAfee in terms of any version they offer simply jump to the bandwagon that McAfee is "the worse". I ran McAfee SaaS on a household laptop and I received weekly reports of its status for a year. No Infection was ever detected and I used default settings. And the laptop was not used by an advanced user like me.
Comodo for years now decided to dedicate resources on other projects aside from CIS. The browsers for example, I do not see a need for it. CIS 6 sported improvements over CIS 5, tho I much prefer CIS 5 up to this moment, I had to ditch it due to the OS not being supported basically.
CIS 7 had some improvements over 6 but they have been focusing in making CIS more user friendly, and that comes with a cost that we all know about it already.
Over a period of time, other companies have walked the same path: Kaspersky 2012 was heavy and 2013 saw improvements, just to go downhill again on 2014 and being picked up and reworked in its resource usage in 2015 version.
Symantec has a long history and they switched to a more cloud base, yet it was a rocky path but they nailed it.
avast!, well that one is the odd one. Version 7 was great and version 8 onwards had great new features added in terms of protection but at the same time they wasted resources in other projects and then bundled them in the installer, which to be fair how many newbies will click on Custom Install? The amount of "junk" avast! sports under its installer is far more than Comodo's one for starters. My opinion is that they should let the user choose and not "hide it" under custom installation options.
McAfee ain't useless. Default settings are actually ok for average user who doesn't go and download everything under the sun or click on every single popup and run it. Pair McAfee with windows 8 default protection (UAC, SmartScreen) and you will be fine. Agree that even the Endpoint version does consume a bit more Memory than nearly a year ago, but they have come a long way.
General consensus of users without fully trying McAfee in terms of any version they offer simply jump to the bandwagon that McAfee is "the worse". I ran McAfee SaaS on a household laptop and I received weekly reports of its status for a year. No Infection was ever detected and I used default settings. And the laptop was not used by an advanced user like me.
Comodo for years now decided to dedicate resources on other projects aside from CIS. The browsers for example, I do not see a need for it. CIS 6 sported improvements over CIS 5, tho I much prefer CIS 5 up to this moment, I had to ditch it due to the OS not being supported basically.
CIS 7 had some improvements over 6 but they have been focusing in making CIS more user friendly, and that comes with a cost that we all know about it already.
Over a period of time, other companies have walked the same path: Kaspersky 2012 was heavy and 2013 saw improvements, just to go downhill again on 2014 and being picked up and reworked in its resource usage in 2015 version.
Symantec has a long history and they switched to a more cloud base, yet it was a rocky path but they nailed it.
avast!, well that one is the odd one. Version 7 was great and version 8 onwards had great new features added in terms of protection but at the same time they wasted resources in other projects and then bundled them in the installer, which to be fair how many newbies will click on Custom Install? The amount of "junk" avast! sports under its installer is far more than Comodo's one for starters. My opinion is that they should let the user choose and not "hide it" under custom installation options.
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,224
If anything Comodo has greatly improved. Although their AV module certainly can be criticized, definition based protection is by far the most insignificant part of the product. With version 8 they thankfully changed the auto-sandbox mode to Full V, giving the Home User a similar protection environment to what Corporations are moving to with appliance based products from Checkpoint, FireEye and Palo Alto.
Comodo (in my opinion) did make a serious error with deciding that by default only unknown files downloaded from the Internet (ie in the Downloads folder) would be sandboxed. Although this setting can be easily changed to protect everything, a person not aware of this will get the impression that the product is without value, which is very, very far from the truth.
Comodo (in my opinion) did make a serious error with deciding that by default only unknown files downloaded from the Internet (ie in the Downloads folder) would be sandboxed. Although this setting can be easily changed to protect everything, a person not aware of this will get the impression that the product is without value, which is very, very far from the truth.
Not quite, but they need to prioritise their Internet Security software, before other projects.
I would like to see Comodo, for the home users, concentrate on:
I would like to see Comodo, for the home users, concentrate on:
- Comodo Internet Security
- Comodo Mobile Security
- Comodo Cleaning Essentials + Rescue
- Drop the bloatware / extras.
- Apr 25, 2013
- 5,356
jasonX
Level 9
- Apr 13, 2012
- 421
Development may have slowed down but it's the HIPS and firewall that's a winner for them. Of course that's just me
Am I right that the Behaviour Blocker is part of the Auto-Sandbox?
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
https://help.comodo.com/topic-72-1-451-4767-.html
Yes that's how the combination structure made with Comodo and seems since its only one of the companies does it.
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,224
The Sandbox with the BB component plus the Firewall is a very elegant thing. For example consider a keylogger-
1). the parent keylogger will be isolated in the Sandbox preventing any auto-start entries or other miscellaneous system changes from being effected
2). the BB will detect and stop the logger hooks
3). the Firewall will prompt that the malware is trying to connect out (obviously essential for the logger to get info to the Blackhats); blocking it at the prompt is an additional level of protection.
It must be noted that the Outbound Firewall connection alerts are a critical part of the protection. One can easily write and compile a script (say, in Python) to act as a downloader, keylogger, etc. Even if the sandbox and BB were bypassed the malicious activity could be stopped by blocking the script from connecting out.
1). the parent keylogger will be isolated in the Sandbox preventing any auto-start entries or other miscellaneous system changes from being effected
2). the BB will detect and stop the logger hooks
3). the Firewall will prompt that the malware is trying to connect out (obviously essential for the logger to get info to the Blackhats); blocking it at the prompt is an additional level of protection.
It must be noted that the Outbound Firewall connection alerts are a critical part of the protection. One can easily write and compile a script (say, in Python) to act as a downloader, keylogger, etc. Even if the sandbox and BB were bypassed the malicious activity could be stopped by blocking the script from connecting out.
Last edited:
- Jun 5, 2013
- 841
I don't think Comodo is going downhill either.
- Status
