Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
Well they wont conflict, not even bother you any way since hips is disabled. If you want firewall controll and sandbox , i dont see any problem there using it with an any av except bitdefender :emoji_thinking:

Will you benefit from it more? Maybe not, but atleast its one security layer more to have peace of mind

Current CF is stable , and there are not major issues, id give a try atleast
 

outlawxtorn

Level 4
Verified
Content Creator
What I suggest is using @Andy Ful's RunBySmartscreen or VirusTotalUploader.

To quote @Andy Ful . RunBySmartScreen will be useful as on demand scanner for application installers and will inform you if the file has a dangerous extension. If the installer does not pass the SmartScreen check, then confirm the file reputation on VirusTotal and another on demand scanner
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
If you're a Home PC/Laptop user behind a Router with Firewall, then I don't see the potential benefits of Comodo Firewall. Webroot offers some Firewall monitoring.

https://docs.webroot.com/us/en/home/wsa_pc_userguide/wsa_pc_userguide.htm#UsingFirewallWebShieldProtection/ChangingFirewallWebShieldSettings.htm

If you cannot trust your mouse clicks, then why not, right? "More the better". Or just run Internet-facing apps under Sandboxie.

Edit: Video above - Getting malware onto the local drive is not as easy if you have an AV running for protection, so Malware testing is unrealistic and not a real world scenario.


Source: Not used CFW since v3.14 (2010).
 

Thirio

Level 3
Or just run Internet-facing apps under Sandboxie
That requires some knowledge to manually run every unsafe file in a sandbox, and even then on a bad day the user can make a mistake and forget to sandbox something. Meanwhile with Comodo this process is automatic and effortless.
Edit: Video above - Getting malware onto the local drive is not as easy if you have an AV running for protection, so Malware testing is unrealistic and not a real world scenario.
A real world scenario would be a user paying Webroot annually to detect less than 80% of malware and getting infected paying double the price.
It's light combo, usually Comodo with CS configuration is enough, but it wouldn't be wrong to add an AV.:giggle:
It wouldn't be wrong to add an AV, it would be wrong to pay for one which is not going to help with overall protection. Use something free, paid does not mean better.
 

bribon77

Level 28
Verified
That requires some knowledge to manually run every unsafe file in a sandbox, and even then on a bad day the user can make a mistake and forget to sandbox something. Meanwhile with Comodo this process is automatic and effortless.

A real world scenario would be a user paying Webroot annually to detect less than 80% of malware and getting infected paying double the price.

It wouldn't be wrong to add an AV, it would be wrong to pay for one which is not going to help with overall protection. Use something free, paid does not mean better.
Recently there was a Webrot promotion. Many users have that promotion, so it would not be wrong to use it with Comodo Firewall CS.
The question is what would be gained, well it is a layer more and for those who are not accustomed to using denial by default can help them to be more reassured.:giggle:
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Webroot has a poor detection rate compared to other major AVs, and its rollback feature (when malware is detected after analysis) often fails, and surely won't help you get back the stolen login credentials to your bank account. You pay, and get less protection than a free AV. Why, oh why, would you want that?

If you feel secure with CFW alone, and you are looking for an AV so light that you can't notice it, and you have a free subscription, then go ahead. It's perfect for you.
 

Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
Its indeed sad but truth that avast free and kaspersky free will be better when it comes into av, so probably complete swap could be better opinion and then also add the cf+cs

if the person has already license on webroot, i dont think its right answer to tell him swap av on that situation

Maybe add the cf +cs with webroot and see how it performs? If webroot has poor detection rate and against phishing its that bad...just add netcraft + malwarebytes extensions to browser to take care of avoiding phishing sites

If u ever manage to get pup or old malware to run on your pc, webroot will surely catch it and if not , cf blocks it on last hand

And as spawn said you arent in test situation, where you run into zero day in first hand
 

SearchLight

Level 9
Verified
Webroot has a poor detection rate compared to other major AVs, and its rollback feature (when malware is detected after analysis) often fails, and surely won't help you get back the stolen login credentials to your bank account. You pay, and get less protection than a free AV. Why, oh why, would you want that?

If you feel secure with CFW alone, and you are looking for an AV so light that you can't notice it, and you have a free subscription, then go ahead. It's perfect for you.
What free AV would you suggest with better detection?
 

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
Its indeed sad but truth that avast free and kaspersky free will be better when it comes into av, so probably complete swap could be better opinion and then also add the cf+cs

if the person has already license on webroot, i dont think its right answer to tell him swap av on that situation

Maybe add the cf +cs with webroot and see how it performs? If webroot has poor detection rate and against phishing its that bad...just add netcraft + malwarebytes extensions to browser to take care of avoiding phishing sites

If u ever manage to get pup or old malware to run on your pc, webroot will surely catch it and if not , cf blocks it on last hand

And as spawn said you arent in test situation, where you run into zero day in first hand
webroot have very good web filter. webroot has very good detection rate at malware sites and against phishing. The problem is the virus signatures is very weak.
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Kaspersky free is strong and light, but it is more likely to conflict with software. It has an aggressive and intrusive approach, and is more likely to leave remnants on your system if you uninstall it. Nevertheless, it's great protection, and it's very light!
Avast free is not as strong as Kaspersky free, but you don't need a top AV, if you have CFW at CS settings.
My recommendation is Avast free -- but do a custom installation, and only take:
File shield
Behavior shield
Web shield
and perhaps Mail shield, if you think you need it.

After you install it and register it, go into Windows firewall advanced settings, and in the outgoing rules, make a block rule for AvastUI. Then it can't pester you all the time to upgrade to the full version. :)
 

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
Kaspersky free is strong and light, but it is more likely to conflict with software. It has an aggressive and intrusive approach, and is more likely to leave remnants on your system if you uninstall it. Nevertheless, it's great protection, and it's very light!
Avast free is not as strong as Kaspersky free, but you don't need a top AV, if you have CFW at CS settings.
My recommendation is Avast free -- but do a custom installation, and only take:
File shield
Behavior shield
Web shield
and perhaps Mail shield, if you think you need it.

After you install it and register it, go into Windows firewall advanced settings, and in the outgoing rules, make a block rule for AvastUI. Then it can't pester you all the time to upgrade to the full version. :)
Avast has improved the virus signatures this year and especially the behavior blocker.