Avast home vs CIS (Comodo Internet Security)

[patrice58]

http://internetsecurity.comodo.com/updates/vdp/database.php If you check there you will now see Comodo has more signatures then the mighty Kaspersky which in my book is pretty good but then again (re)read my post at number 120.

[patrice58]

Another good thing that Comodo has is Comodo Instant Malware Analysis @ http://camas.comodo.com/cgi-bin/submit try it, it is really quite a nice piece of software.

[DavidR]

Numbers, are just that, numbers if it meant anything more than that, then surely the comodo anti-virus would have got a higher result than Kaspersky in various AV tests and that clearly isn't the case.

I dare say it might well have more signatures than avast, but it means very little are there is no standardisation in counting (variants, etc.) or what count you should give to a) generic, b) algorithmic or heuristic signatures/scanning, answer you can't.

[patrice58]

Did you read my post @ 120 you have said the same thing I have said (We agree on that point.) As for the "then surely the comodo anti-virus would have got a higher result than Kaspersky in various AV tests."  It (Comodo) has not been tested by AV labs or west cost labs or av-comparatives or any of the major A.V testing sites yet............... As it is too new.

[DavidR]

Then I simply can't see why you bothered to even mention the signature count.

The reason why it doesn't appear in at least 1 of the tests av-comparatives is that it doesn't come up to a reasonable level.

[patrice58]

I mentioned it because it has more then Kaspersky in post 195 I mean a little reading and you would not need to ask I mean come on now! As for the level it is at that may be true as well as the fact it is new.

[patrice58]

Then I simply can't see why you bothered to even mention the signature count.

The reason why it doesn't appear in at least 1 of the tests av-comparatives is that it doesn't come up to a reasonable level.

If it does not matter then why say this? I dare say it might well have more signatures than avast, but it means very little are there is no standardisation in counting (variants, etc.) or what count you should give to a) generic, b) algorithmic or heuristic signatures/scanning, answer you can't.

Surly if it does not matter you would not need to say anything about the standardisation as it does not matter. So does it matter or does it not?

[patrice58]

It all depends on how the AV company set up their signatures as some have 2 sigs that catch 2 pieces of malware or some have it set up as 2 sigs that catch 400 malware, so that is what I mean by lots of sigs a good AV does not make as they could have it set up as the former and not the latter.   

[RejZoR]

Excellent example is Win32:Vitro and older Win32:Virtob detection. A single detection in avast! that covers all the latest virut viruses. From what i've seen, they're adding separate detections for it in CIS. In such cases you can quickly reach sky high numbers while you may not even be better than competition thats using just 2 detections for exactly the same thing.

[Lisandro]

This was discussed a lot in the past...

1. There are a marketing issue involved. Companies estimate the number of viruses by high.
2. There are different counts possible: variants, etc.
3. There is not an international rule for virus naming, so same virus could be consider one or more by other company.
4. Scanning settings are very important.
5. Active viruses (ITW) are really more important then the whole number.
6. Generic signatures and heuristic detections cannot be really counted as 'virus detection'.

Well, etc. etc.
Trust avast!

[normishmael]

patrice58,I really have to hand it you.
You have stretched out a fourteen page thread,
(nineteen if you count the Comodo thread)
throwing in a new tidbit here and there,
playing Devil's advocate on occasion,
And I still have no idea where you stand.
are you "Crouching Avast!, Hidden Comodo"?

[patrice58]

patrice58,I really have to hand it you.
You have stretched out a fourteen page thread,
(nineteen if you count the Comodo thread)
throwing in a new tidbit here and there,
playing Devil's advocate on occasion,
And I still have no idea where you stand.
are you "Crouching Avast!, Hidden Comodo"?

All you have you do is read my post again and you will see where I stand. Check my sig as well and see what programs I am running. I would suggest you read posts number 9, 70, 80, 103, 106,148, and post 169 will explain why I do not have Avast in my signature. Where do I stand? As I have said in the forum which I am sure you have read. In my very first post I said I am using C.I.S and since I have not said I have stopped using it, I think you can take it as fact that I am still using it. As for Avast if it was working properly on my system (Most likely that the firewall is to blame but that's a another forum topic on another day.) then I would of used that without a second thought. As I have said elsewhere in this thread I am waiting for Avast 5 and I will install it and see how it goes. So to answer your question where do I stand, well I would like to think I stand on my own two feet!
As for are you "Crouching Avast!, Hidden Comodo"? I am not really sure, but that sure made me smile. 

[patrice58]

Excellent example is Win32:Vitro and older Win32:Virtob detection. A single detection in avast! that covers all the latest virut viruses. From what i've seen, they're adding separate detections for it in CIS. In such cases you can quickly reach sky high numbers while you may not even be better than competition thats using just 2 detections for exactly the same thing.

Here is your answer right from the err horses mouth.

FYI: We use both Family Signatures as well as single signatures.
Family signatures catch a family (eg: one signature will catch more than one malware and its variance) where as the single signature will catch a single file.

around 256 thousand of our signatures are Family signatures (eg: catch more than one file as long as its a variant). The rest are single file ones.

We concentrate on increasing both as they are equally important in protecting the end user one for speed and the other for depth.

But..guys.. we are the new kid on the block... just give us some time.. we only started having some fun Wink

Btw: we also know how many of the malware we have in our database the other AVs detect (or don't detect).... you would be surprised Wink (I wasn't!)

Melih

[patrice58]

Here's another one............. last month...
we put 1415573 files through our systems (not all malware)

Caught by CAV only  98838 (this is only caught by CAV and no other AV at that time)
 
Caught by competitors only  1437 (this many is not caught by CAV but with some of the competitors)
 
Analysed by CAMAS 179639
 
Verdicted by CAMAS as suspicious 25962
 
Verdicted by CAMAS as highly suspicious 32825 (these are added as signature to CAV as well straightaway on top of Caught by CAV only number. These from CAMAS is not detected by other AVs either so you can add this number to the Caught by CAV only number above.)
 
As always no single AV can cover 100% of the malware, including CAV Smiley. But the percentage of what CAV detects compared to what other AVs detect is increasing.

Our next target is to do updates every 30 min. Now, i don't want people to misunderstand this.... its not about simply changing our frequency to 30 min from 1 day... no no no... this is about time it takes from a suspicious file being submitted to us to our sig generation in 30 min. So you give us a file to analyse, within 30 min your AV should have the updated signature base to detect it.. that's our goal.

Melih

[Mr.Agent]

Well we are all human i think ALWIL do a great job and my self i would buy Avast Pro if i got the money but i didnt so well its already a big cake for ALWIL that giving us Avast Home a nice anti virus. But well each anti virus and firewall got his best thing and low thing. Where ever you surf you cant be sure. So Avast scan where you go so that why its nice so if he caught a suspect in your pc or anywhere he will tell you