I read all comments about CIS and it is difficult to compare it to Avast. Avast is a mature product and CIS is very young, sill improveing. One I can not agree, CIS inst’t weak! Anyone who says that is mistaken or blind. CIS has still some bugs, there are problems with false positives in heuristics and database have to be increased but in the future it can be very powerful antivirus with advanced heuristics and proactive defence… for free. I’m looking forward to see Avast 5 and CAVS 4, I think they can be one of the best.
when avast 5 will be out its will still own so hard comodo and other anti virus lol
Hi gun,
That is why I have combined avast with Comodo BoClean 4.27. You can get it here:
http://www.comodo.com/boclean/boclean.html
Works like a charm together, together with RUBotted,
polonus
Too bad it would be discontinued and be included with the CIS suite.
http://forums.comodo.com/comodo_boclean_antimalware/boclean_to_be_discontinued-t34653.0.html
Hi bluestring,
If that is going to materialize, and it appears so from what you are reporting, what alternative to combine with avast do we have here? I have SAS and MBAM as non-residential scanners, but I will find Comodo BoClean hard to replace. Do you have a suggestion? The proggie had quite some detection-array for trojans…it did not detect much because I am SafeHex, but anyways will miss it running silently in the background,
pol
Well avast 5 would be good 
It is meant to be getting its own behavioural module.
Will it be free? Or is everyone being used as extended beta testers,prior to going shareware?
Considering statements from Abdulhayoglu,
that BOClean would be available for stand-alone,even after its incorporation into CIS, I am not sure how much store can be put in the “free forever” rhetoric from the same guy.
Well, changing plans about software and changing licence are different matters. I think Comodo choose freeware path knowingly and if they break their own words it will be suicide for company, and that’s why it is not going to happen.
I use CIS on on machine and avast with SRP (software restriction policy) on another. Avast cannot (in its present state) guard against 0-day stuff while CIS D+ can. On the other hand Comodo’s anti-virus is to Avast a fist is to a gun.
But, CIS is improving like mad… When BoClean added it’ll be really good. CIS’s D+ is a monster.
I think Avast should take it up a notch by introducing a Behavioural Blocker or Protection Guard for c:\windows* and/or startup registry keys (i put this in the wishlist too). This would make Avast directly comparable and competable. But as it stands CIS is awesome/the best, if a user knows what he’s doing, whilst avast is awesome/the best, if they dont. I make my sis and girlfriends use avast… whilst i use cis myself. ;D
Firewall… etc. shouldnt be a priority IMO. thats just gimmicks.XP/Vista firewall is good enough and besides whatever firewall you make it’ll leak in some form or another. why get bad publicity.
Get the Anti-Virus with Protection for ‘Core’ files/registry and you’re through to the top…
ps.damm i wish i owned a security company. id try to get it done myself. … 
ps.regardinng Comodo’s revenue stream. it comes from certificate signing etc. if i remember correctly Thwate was sold to versign for $565million. … so even if they’re 1/100 … i wouldnt’ worry about comodo… also see some vids of melih on youtube. that son of a gun is a sharp dresser (yeah yeah i know it dosnet mean anything… … but still… ) :
Then your hopes for avast to have a behavioural module will be realised in avast version 5.
However, avast 4.8 also uses algorithmic and generic signatures so it isn’t entirely correct that it can’t protect against 0 day attacks, but it can certainly use some improvement in that area. It also uses heuristics in the anti-rootkit scan.
Thanks. i am eagerly looking forward to avast 5… 8)
Defense+ is terribly overrated, requires experienced user behind it and it plain simply failed to prevent Virut infection. Not to mention it’s annoying and badly designed.
While avast! detected each and every Vitro sample withouth all the crap around it. So much for avast! cannot prevent 0-day stuff because it lacks heuristics checkbox…
you are right, agreed. personally I don’t like it to answer 100-200 question of defend plus because maybe (just Maybe!) one of them be related to a malware… it need to completely new design and a preset database
a lot of know behavior like Threatfire, it’s why I’ve choose Outpost Firewall Pro 2009, it has a Host protection and a lot of preset for almost any application
I can not agree 100%, but of course D+ isn’t perfect and needs a lot of improvement. I can say that in ver 3.8 D+ works much better than in previous versions of CIS, I had maybe 1 or 2 alerts, nothing more! I wish ver 3.9 D+ to be quiet as a mouse :-X. But if someone thinks that D+ is piece of c… can simply deactivate it.
Well, Melih and bunch of die hard followers (sorry but there always has to be a limit to something, i’ve come to that conclusion even here on avast! forums) advertise Defense+ as best thing after sliced bread. But after thorough testing i found out it’s nothing special, it’s buggy and hard to operate.
If i were them, i’d strip Defense+ out of CIS all together when they implement CIMA heuristics. If they’ll be as good as those online, they don’t need this broken Defense+…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.