Comodo vs AVC

I am sorry to say, but Melih want's to make people realize that you can't trust what you see/read on web sites about AV products... That is why he posts these "private" e-mails.

 

Can you enlighten us then?
No problems on acknowledging my lacks of knowledge.

 

Ohh my... we are not that mature, are we? How many time have we seen threads like this lead to a dead end where nobody gains nothing? I've been a member of this respectable community for a year and a half and if there's something I've learned is that knowledge and learning are the main gears of this forum.
Let's consider the benefit of keeping this talk between us, who claim ourselves to be above-average users, and therefore have better things to focus on.
Think about it... what's the gain? Where's the benefit of talking about an issue that most likely will end up being sorted in private between those who are involved? Will we learn anything new?

@sg09 As much as I respect your/everyone's freedom of speech and expression, one should consider what's the goal when posting something like this. Just my personal point of view.

Can we have this thread moved to the "Threads to read when there's time to kill/Non-sense drama" section?

 

Most white-listing works with signatures.... When a file that isn't signed, is opened the pop-ups arrive. Sometimes the security application will tell you that this file shouldn't be trusted, but many of the times it will say: "the file you are trying to open is unrecognized, if you used this file before or know it is safe, you can press allow. Otherwise press block."

 

Yep, I know that.

 

It is good that Melih another insider made these things clear, i like to refer to this thread:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1895161#post1895161

That is what is great about this forum, you can be positive or negative on a item, with these Pro's en Contra's people can draw their own conclusions.

 

Seems to me that melih is throwing his dummy out of the pram again because the results were not what he expected and because AVC wouldn't haggle with him about prices.

 

Part 2: http://www.melih.com/2011/11/29/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors-continued/

 

Comodo just shows its true face.

 

I don't get the Comodo hate? He seems entirely justified by what he's saying.

 

It seems pretty clear to me.1500 euro for an internal report or 2000 for a published report.Of course if its a good report then av company's probably don't mind paying the extra 500 for all the good publicity and possible extra revenue that creates.Comodo were aware of the pricing and choose to take the cheap option .Umesh in one of the emails in fact says that they want an internal report before/if (i guess they want to see how good comodo looks)) they publish.Personally I think melih is just twisting things for whatever reason.

 

just google
nda + "the existance of this"

it is a standard non-disclosure agreement.

 

I don't hate comodo ,but after reading melihs blog or whatever it is and the emails he published ,its clear( to me anyway) that he (or those working for him) knew what the pricing for testing was,and what they actually got for those prices.They choose to pay less for the internal report ,which in comodos view didn't seem to favour them highly ,which then resulted in melih questioning the integrity of AVC in public.

 

We the members don't hate Comodo just the CEO!

TH

 

I don't give a crap about what Melih said/says/will say. I made two observations, only.

1) I find it interesting that AV vendors get to tell an independent testing organization which settings should be tested...

As I previously mentioned:

But, this is not what happens, is it? For more than once I've seen AVC reports where they mentioned that XYZ AV vendor asked not to test this or that, or test some other way.

2) I mentioned that being true what the AVC guy mentioned in the e-mail, that he would disclose that Comodo paid for not releasing their results..., then in my book this means corruption. Not only corruption, but also blackmail.

If the guy wrote something in a way, while he meant another, that's something different. I merely made an observation based on what the e-mail had.

 

he never said he "would". he asked to stop spreading wrong/misleading information and to correct it and reply to clarify. maybe a language problem, but "may" does not imply that it "will" be done. avc has not released confidential info/emails, someone else did.

 

Your point (2) is a matter of interpretation,and the english of the Austrian guy doesn't translate as well as it might in my view.To me he is simply stating that comodo paid the lower fee with the full knowledge that the results wouldn't be published.I dont see any blackmail intention or any other such nonsense that melih seems to want to imply.Melih is looking pretty silly right now and just digging a deeper hole.He,s moaning about AVC and yet participated in tests and i guess signed agreements?..and now hes griping about the eula/nda.What impression of a professional organization does that give lol

 

According to what Melih posted on his blog (right or wrong), this is part of what Peter Stelzhammer wrote we could clarify that Comodo paid for not releasing their results...

While it doesn't say he would/will/was going to... it did sound like a threat.

Try to picture yourself as being Melih/someone else receiving such e-mail. What would you think of such sentence?

 

Yes. And, isn't it all about interpretation/misinterpretation? Maybe next time one should be more careful about what one writes. So, we have two non-native English speakers on both sides... You can imagine the misinterpretation, can't you?

Sometimes is already confusing for two native speakers (whatever language) to get along, more so when both aren't native speakers.

 

sorry. in case of "could" it is even less than "may" (I typed too fast). so, even here very clearly, not at threat at all. the misunderstanding would have been cleared with a simple email. oh well

 

Actually, it sounds like a threat, IMO. I would take as a threat.

Scenario:

Person A asks person B: Hey, could you do this for me?
Person B tells person A: No.
Person A tells person B: I could tell your husband you have a lover/you're gay/etc

Doesn't that sound like a threat to make person B do what person A wants? It does to me.

May/could/will/it's done.. who cares? Threatening and doing are two different things, but still a threat.

-edit-

But, yes, I agree... Both parties should have solved this in private... lawyers... whatever...

 

Very simple, if your colleague kept his cool and adhered to basic rules of email communications then there would have been no need for explaining anything.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1054

 

What about the fact that av-comparatives says it is "independent" ?

Now there is proof that the AV companies have to pay a high sum to have their products tested.

If Melih of Comodo had not posted this on his blog, readers might still think,
That AV-Comparatives was just like an independent computer magazine or University that
Tested these products without any financial relation with the AntiVirus companies. => "Independent"
I knew that AV's were not able to speak because of this signed agreement.

Now the public knows.

 

I thought everyone knew that already, AV-C needed to be funded somehow.

 

it is known since many years. it is even written in the public methodology on the website since at least 2008.