Comodo reached 2+ million signatures!

[Someone]

And the difference between Comodo and AVG wasn't huge (96.2 % ~ 96.9 %) when MRG tested.

If Comodo really thinks their AV is so good why don't they try to get it tested in AV-Comparatives?

and what can happen with Comodo's database in one week? They can add 1 million definitions. I guess that improves detection rate…

Seriously, looking at these numbers are meaningless. What Comodo counts as a million could be counted as a thousand or ten thousand or some other number by another AV company.

[disPlay]

And the difference between Comodo and AVG wasn't huge (96.2 % ~ 96.9 %) when MRG tested.

If Comodo really thinks their AV is so good why don't they try to get it tested in AV-Comparatives?

and what can happen with Comodo's database in one week? They can add 1 million definitions. I guess that improves detection rate…

Seriously, looking at these numbers are meaningless. What Comodo counts as a million could be counted as a thousand or ten thousand or some other number by another AV company.

i agree with JoWa if comodo av is so good in detection why they don't try to get tested in av-comparatives?

Comodo counts the virus/trojan etc variants to, so its normal that the db is growing very well.

like dieselmen say Stop being a comodo fan guy .

[virtu]

I think this discussion must stop. I don't encourage advertising software by making others look bad. This is their topic and they can say what they want as long as they won't bash other products. Stating that comodo will be the number 1 must come with reviews,tests or proofs that they are really doing a better job detecting malware then others. I like their firewall and i don't want to look as i have something against them. So leave them alone, to say what they want as long as they don't say they are better then others ,without proofs..Please stop challenging Comodo members!!! Thank You

[JoWa]

And the difference between Comodo and AVG wasn't huge (96.2 % ~ 96.9 %) when MRG tested.

If Comodo really thinks their AV is so good why don't they try to get it tested in AV-Comparatives?

I was not talking about what Comodo thinks about their AV. I quoted the MRG test result because Dieselman said that Avira, avast! and AVG “are still a lot better then Comodo”. The MRG test shows a small difference between Comodo and AVG. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they tested the paid version of AVG, and the free version will not detect rootkits, which is part of the test.

and what can happen with Comodo's database in one week? They can add 1 million definitions. I guess that improves detection rate…

Seriously, looking at these numbers are meaningless. What Comodo counts as a million could be counted as a thousand or ten thousand or some other number by another AV company.

I know comparing the number of definitions in Comodo's database with any other is meaningless. I did not compare the number of definitions with any other database.

As long as the definitions are counted the same way, you can compare different versions of that database (in this case Comodo's), for example version 1120 (2009-04-18) which has 3 024 230 definitions, and version 1135 (2009-04-25) which has 4 012 675 definitions. Difference: 988 445. Will it not improve detection?

[languy99]

also guys remember comodo av has only been around for 6 months. you guys are comparing it to giants that have been around for years, avast, avg, avira have been around forever. You should look at it in that way too. Big improvements have been made in a time table so short that most companies could not even dream of achieving. Also, comodo has plans on submitting to av-comparatives, just not yet. I think v4 will be submitted and that should be about 6 more months down the road.

[Someone]

I know comparing the number of definitions in Comodo's database with any other is meaningless. I did not compare the number of definitions with any other database.

As long as the definitions are counted the same way, you can compare different versions of that database (in this case Comodo's), for example version 1120 (2009-04-18) which has 3 024 230 definitions, and version 1135 (2009-04-25) which has 4 012 675 definitions. Difference: 988 445. Will it not improve detection?

I don't think you understand my point. If counted by another vendor, that 988 445 figure could be any number. So you could just as well be saying Comodo is improving by 100 definition per week, or 1000000000, but it is meaningless because you can't compare that number with anything other than Comodo's own statistics.

[Senexx]

Someone, unless you wish to indicate that Comodo are lying about their statistics, it is a fair comparison. At present it is the only logical comparison.

To measure it by another means at the moment would be like comparing apples to oranges.

And we all know Oranges are much nicer than Apples and Oranges are worth at least 3 Apples

[Someone]

Someone, unless you wish to indicate that Comodo are lying about their statistics, it is a fair comparison. At present it is the only logical comparison.

To measure it by another means at the moment would be like comparing apples to oranges.

And we all know Oranges are much nicer than Apples and Oranges are worth at least 3 Apples

I'm not saying they are lying, but the statistics are meaningless. Comodo said they detect a million more malware, but since every vendor counts signatures differently it's just like saying "we detect more malware", which is the same for every AV.

[virtu]

Someone, unless you wish to indicate that Comodo are lying about their statistics, it is a fair comparison. At present it is the only logical comparison.

To measure it by another means at the moment would be like comparing apples to oranges.

And we all know Oranges are much nicer than Apples and Oranges are worth at least 3 Apples

I'm not saying they are lying, but the statistics are meaningless. Comodo said they detect a million more malware, but since every vendor counts signatures differently it's just like saying "we detect more malware", which is the same for every AV.

Sometimes people are too blind to see the truth.The problem is that they believe everything that Melih is telling them. Comodo is the only security program that has buffer overflow protection (I quote 3xist: Go ahead and search for "buffer overflow in ANY AV Vendor Forum)..... LIE (from what i tested Mcafee had last year). They have the biggest virus signature database.. .half truth ... Everybody knows(not everybody from what i see) that av companies that have an heuristic engine in their program renounced to update with viruses that already their heuristic engine detects(Avira did some month ago). What is happening with you guys? Don't you read anymore or is Melih reading enough for you?

[languy99]

I think comodo is in integrating a much more powerful CIMA heuristic engine in version 4, that should really make in big improvement in detection.