Comodo vs Symantec

[Corrine]

Background

It all began with the following statement by a product manager at Symantec in an article in the Guardian, Can you protect your computer for free?:

Thesis David Hall, a product manager at Symantec: "If you are only relying on free anti-virus in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft … free anti-virus is not enough: you need in-depth layered technologies, which only come from the more mature paid suites."

Comodo CEO, Melih Abdulhayoglu, responded with Symantec continues its scaremongering against Free Anti Virus Products and a Challenge to Symantec from Comodo CEO!

Results (?)

According to Melih, I hope you will now stop spreading misinformation Symantec!, Comodo won the challenge.

Interestingly, the link that Melih posted in his blog goes not to the test results but merely to AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software. So, what shows up at AVTest.org? How about recent tweets by avtestorg:

1. Twitter
   
   

   Comodo challenges Symantec to antivirus showdown Comodo Challenges Symantec to Antivirus Showdown | News & Opinion | PCMag.com - the results of the Comodo-commissioned AV-Test: “AV-Test's Paid Vs. Free” AV Product Comparison Shows Comodo Scores Better Than Norton/Symantec at Protecting the Computer and It’s Free

   Note that the so-called results posted by AVTest.org go the Comodo website, “AV-Test's Paid Vs. Free” AV Product Comparison Shows Comodo Scores Better Than Norton/Symantec at Protecting the Computer and It’s Free.

1. Then we have this little same-day tweet by avtestorg at Twitter
   
   

   Comodo has joined AV-Test’s full product review and certification program - final showdown results will be available by January 2011

I've searched the avtest.org site and cannot find the actual results. The closest I come is the PCMag article, Comodo: 'We Beat Norton!', which states:

A closer look at the detailed results reveals that there's more to the story. The test shows that both Comodo and Norton detected and warned about 100 percent of the threats, though Norton got just 90 percent for the "Overall Detection and Blocking Rate". Comodo didn't mention that for the "Overall Detection, Blocking and Removal (Cleaning) Rate" their product scored 53 percent to Norton's 80 percent.

Comment

Have I mentioned that I have no intentions of ever installing a Comodo product on any computer I own?

 

[tw33k]

Nice post Corrine

 

[Corrine]

Thank you.

 

[hackerman1]

thanks Corrine !

 

[The Howling Wolves]

Great job Corrine!
Thanks for sharing that data with us.
Don't forget to clean my windows next Friday!
(This is an insider joke)

 

[Anak]

Comment

Have I mentioned that I have no intentions of ever installing a Comodo product on any computer I own?

Hi Corrine!

Which begs the question; What do you use for security?

Personally I'm not that adventurous when online. I try to look before I go down the rabbit hole.

My Security:

• Win Firewall
• MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials)
• WOT

Edit:
After reading hackerman1's sig, I also have...
2 A/V´s for on demand-scanning. MBAM-free. Super Anti-virius.
UAC at mid
Firefox with Noscript, AD-Block, Better Privacy.

 

[Corrine]

Hi, Anak.

I have my favorite WinPatrol PLUS on each computer and licensed MBAM (for testing) available. The Windows Firewall does the trick for me also. Again, for testing, I have Spyware Blaster on one machine and MVPS Hosts File on another.

ESET Smart Security on one machine and MSE on another. (I am in the beta programs of both.)

I have been fortunate in that I have never had any kind of virus or browser hijack.

 

[Golden]

Very interesting post.

I did some searching myself, and note that Comodo doesn't even feature in the testing at AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Welcome to AV-Comparatives.org - an independant ant-virus software testing based organisation out of Europe.

Have a look at their latest report here : http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2010.pdf

 

[madtownidiot]

A closer look at the detailed results reveals that there's more to the story. The test shows that both Comodo and Norton detected and warned about 100 percent of the threats, though Norton got just 90 percent for the "Overall Detection and Blocking Rate". Comodo didn't mention that for the "Overall Detection, Blocking and Removal (Cleaning) Rate" their product scored 53 percent to Norton's 80 percent.

Comment

Have I mentioned that I have no intentions of ever installing a Comodo product on any computer I own?

View attachment 105167
Norton failed to mention that while both were able to detect 100% the threats, Norton failed to prevent 10% of them from infecting the system in the first place, while comodo blocked the infections 100% of the time. Here's the results of the test...
View attachment 105165
I suspect they're not being published because someone with a lot of money to spend doesn't like the truth. If an AV fails to prevent the infection, it's not really doing it's job. No AV is ever going to be able to remove everything, because the OS has to cooperate in giving the AV permission to change protected files. that's what removal tools are for.

 

[Dinesh]

Very nice article. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Corrine]

I suspect they're not being published because someone with a lot of money to spend doesn't like the truth. If an AV fails to prevent the infection, it's not really doing it's job. No AV is ever going to be able to remove everything. that's what removal tools are for.

You could well be correct and I agree that no A/V is ever going to be able to remove everything. What does concern me is the coincidental relationship with the testing organization by the vendor paying for the test as well as the "noise" by the vendor paying for the test. That said, I know that I have a personal bias which is most likely coloring my opinion.

 

[madtownidiot]

An AV's effectiveness depends entirely on the cooperation of the OS it's working inside of.. simply forgetting to turn off windows defender before installing an antivirus can make it less effective at removing threats. I don't really think there was any bias in the test itself, just in the 3rd party reports based on the results.

The simple fact remains: CIS is a free AV that is more effective at blocking threats before they infect your computer than NIS, which costs about $50

 

[malexous]

Comodo is effective if you use the whole suite. Their anti-virus has never scored well in any professional test.

The last 3 Symantec sponsored tests conducted by Dennis Technology Labs, Norton scored a perfect 100%. The last used 40 samples: http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/symantec/DTL_PCVP2011_SYMC.pdf

 

[madtownidiot]

deleted after further research

 

[Maxxwire]

Comodo is effective if you use the whole suite. Their anti-virus has never scored well in any professional test.

This is true. The Comodo Antivirus has only been in development for a couple of years, but with the multi-layered default-deny Comodo Firewall and Proactive Defense+ HIPS with Automatic Sandboxing, Cloud Based Antivirus Scanning, Cloud Based Behavior Analysis and Cloud Based Application White-listing the Comodo Antivirus sees little or no use at all and scores 100% on the rigerous independantly tested 148 part Matousec Proactive Security Challenge while Norton scores only 40%...

The simple fact remains: CIS is a free AV that is more effective at blocking threats before they infect your computer than NIS, which costs about $50

Like he said...

~Maxx~
.

 

[madtownidiot]

And that's for the previous version of comodo. The latest version is V5.0.163652, which causes fewer problems during setup, installs faster, scans faster, and runs with less of a system load than v4.0
View attachment 105269View attachment 105270

 

[Maxxwire]

And that's for the previous version of comodo. The latest version is V5.0.162636, which causes fewer problems during setup, installs faster, scans faster, and runs with less of a system load than v4.0

Yes its just amazing isn't it. I've used several versions of Comodo in v3, v4, and v5 up to the current v5.0.163652.1142 release and as you said it just gets faster, lighter and more user friendly with each successive iteration.

Its very encouraging to know that an independent group of programmers can develop State of the Art computer security software that offers so much better protection than what the multi-billion dollar corporation can come up with and offer it to the world for free!

~Maxx~
.

 

[madtownidiot]

And probably very embarassing to said multi-billion dollar corporations who are now doing whatever they can to discredit comodo.. including supressing publication of a comparison test that didn't give results they like... instead of trying to improve their own products.

 

[malexous]

including supressing publication of a comparison test that didn't give results they like

People always assume foul play. Twitter

While Matousec results show the effectiveness of Comodo, they are worthless for products like Norton.

 

[madtownidiot]

People always assume foul play. Twitter

I was referring to the Comodo vs. NIS comparision test that has already been done by av-test.org. It's no longer available from the site.

While Matousec results show the effectiveness of Comodo, they are worthless for products like Norton.

Why is that? Last I checked, they both have the same purpose.. stopping viruses and malicious software from infecting a computer.