Tech, my comment was meant to be sarcastic, but try these from the referenced thread:
Melih quotes:
"Show me a malware that can bypass D+"
"Security is provided thru D+ everything else is mainly usability"
Quotes from his clan:
"You know that CIS by means of D+ will prevent the installation of malware.
Stop spreading blatant lies." (there was a stronger statement on 100% earlier, but it was edited out)
"CTM: This is used if the AV/BB miss the malware application and the user allows it because they believe it is safe. You can then fix the computer if you find out later that the file was malicious and it can't be removed."
Crispness and Coherence have never been Comodo virtues, so you need to translate a bit from Weasel.
And this is the impression they are trying to convey as part of their marketing campaign: D+ and default deny are the 100% solution (why their version is better than other classical HIPS is
), everything else is usability enhancements to overcome the weakness of the users. And that none of the POC cases count. And if you find something, they will just add it (never mind that it is too late for you).
What is sidestepped is the problem that real users will possibly see an occasional malware embedded in a whole lot of FPs (or benign warnings if you prefer) over a period of time, and be unprepared to cope with that with just a HIPS. Or that the elimination of all of the popups will likely also eliminate a few of the real malware. (Type I and type II error probabilities are not independent if you like decision theory). The reality is that you get testimonials from people who don't get malware using CIS. They mostly also would not have gotten malware with other products either, since those products can produce similar testimonials from their users. And other testimonials from experimenters whose samples only contain malware, and they just count the popups. And that this whole thread and section of their Forum is all just marketing anyway.