Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by sg09, Nov 27, 2011.
Dude that's awesome
anyone want to pay me for forging my test results ?
lol that is so freaking cool
Seems Comodo have a problem with testing organizations, last time is was MRG who were the bad guys right?
To be honest, I never understood the concept behind AVC, and I'm not talking about old style “dead malware” tests, as Melih puts it, nor about the money involved; rather why would an independent testing organization allow participants to tell them what they should test in an antimalware application, settings and all that.
An independent organization should make the rules very clear, and those who want to be tested, should either accept the rules and be tested, and accept the results whether they like it or not; or refuse and not be tested. Now, maybe this would be bad for both sides (security vendors and AVC), because it probably would = no money.
Something to think about, perhaps?
By the way, being true what Peter Stelzhammer mentioned, that COMODO paid for the results not to be published, then AVC folks are simply corrupt people. According to Peter Stelzhammer ... Comodo paid for not releasing their results...
Quite interesting... Wouldn't you say so? And no, I'm not a COMODO fan nor a COMODO user.
What does it say about the integrity of an individual who releases confidential emails?
It only proves one thing: Totally unreliable people; both sides.
Sad to see their effort in the wrong path. Would be wiser if this was dealth with the correct parties.
a clarifying statement may be released soon.
Comodo paid for several internal/confidential detection rate tests (which means that we can not publish the results without their permission). If they would have wanted to have it published together with the review and use our logo etc. they would have to pay additionally. This is the only advantage of single product tests. The results of the public main test-series are published in any case, but Comodo never applied to be included in the public series.
The truth about av comparatives? How do they get paid?
Well, the discussion arise about how independent is av comparatives?
Do they get paid by the av companies?
Seems they're paid for testing the product?
They're paid to publish the results?
If the results are good ones, well, do you need to pay more?
They're paid to release/share the samples that were tested?
I'm publicly quoted in Melih's blog (Comodo CEO):
I was clearly thinking on avast company (my antivirus).
I've finally questioned
What is the real financial relationship with av comparatives?
Is it independent?
Can we trust it?
What about Wikileaks?
Which is the final truth about av comparatives? That's what I want to know.
Wikileaks? Really? This conspiracy runs deeper than I thought.
I was just comparing the situation with Wikileaks. I'm not saying Wikileaks is involved with it.
Beside all the already said things.
(1) Yes it's a detection test and it says nothing about (potential) protection of other mechanismns. In that point Melih is right...
BUT: This is and was always known, thats how on-demand tests work. And if I decide to take part (even in a single test) I can't complain afterwards.
(2) Posting of confidential E-Mails in public is not fine. And that from a company who will "create trust". Blah Blah Blah. Typical for melih, shame on him
We can learn something about detection (!) capabilities of Comodos-AV part and compare it to other competitors of AV-Cs on demand test. 89% detection in AV-Cs test set, many many FPs.
So Comodos AV part is still far behind all competitors. Maybe this is the true reason why melih is complaining?
First off they say they are being blackmailed due to this post
"We are waiting for a response, if not, we may post our reply on
Monday in public. (e.g. we could clarify that Comodo paid for not releasing their results - the various static detection tests etc. that were commissioned by Comodo)"
First of all I think this was more of a language issue then a threat. They are out of Austria I think he was trying to say that he would say that Comodo was being internally tested but I don't think he was saying he would release the results of those tests. Up this point I don't think AV-C ever said that Comodo was being tested.
Second I don't think they were being told to censor their posts more correcting some incorrect information. I mean IBK even joined over at Kingsoft when some incorrect information was posted: http://pcdoctor.kingsoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=322&p=988&hilit=ibk&sid=c306c2fdaaca9b825fad7e896f66af6c#p988
Started with MRG, moved to BOClean and now AVC. IMO, that's sad.
So the Comodo CEO Melih burns bridges again. Is this really a big surprise to anyone?
What do we need to make such a big deal with whatever Mr. Melih says or publish.
We are the ones who make him look important bringing up the slightest thing he says or post.
Same thing happened last year with Melih vs Symantec [free AVs vs Paid].
All this is tiresome.
@ Symantec they didnt even bother to answer
Ritual brouhaha from the Comodo Head Office.
There I was, thinking a while ago, it might have stopped. Silly me.
Agreed. The english grammer on both sides is terrible. (Who has been using google translate?)
But so much for Melih being the pinnacle leading driver of internet trust. I wouldn't trust him with my emails
But a happy ending, thanks for the AV-C results
I don't understand why Comodo would be shy about publishing a 90% result ? Some of the other things, well yeah sure
It's not they are shy, but I believe that they didn't want to pay the Extra couple Hundred Euros for AV C to publish the results on their website..
My Two Cents..
Now this is some really serious BS floating around
Comodo is going nuts, even though they have always been kinda this way, i've always supported their free products and great protection in my perspective but this is letting me down!
Anyways you can count on me but seriously this should stop.
Sometimes i believe in second chances . . .
Separate names with a comma.