AV-Comparatives.org, bullying, censorship and financial deals with Anti Virus vendors

[Dieselman]

From the words of Melih:

I never liked bullies, I never liked censorship, I never liked blackmail and I still don’t!

Its 24th November early in the morning, its Thanksgiving day in the US and looking forward to celebrating it with my family and friends. I checked my emails and I see the below email that has been sent to us (to Umesh). I was shocked to say the least! Peter Stelzhammer of AV-comparatives.org is threating me and blackmailing me saying that if I don’t “censor” my forum postings they will reveal “confidential” information.

http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/

Yet another example showing that Comodo = Drama

 

[win7holic]

Thanks for info Maximus

 

[NSG001]

Yet another example Melih takes no prisoners!

 

[bogdan]

Testing companies need money to exist and a considerable amount probably comes from av vendors since a favorable test result can improve their sales. Unfortunately there is nothing reassuring us (the users) that they don't influence the testing company if their product doesn't get a honorable result in a test.

On the other hand, I believe that publicly bashing testing companies and stating that their testing method is wrong (after agreeing to participate in a test) won't bring any benefits to av companies. A small level of "diplomacy" is needed here... at least in my opinion.

 

[Dieselman]

No that is not true. This only proves my point. Comodo is always getting themselves into trouble. If the company could only be as good the product then this would not happen.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I really but really don't care of Melih or any CEO or whatever, i just care of the product i use. If it is good i use it, if not i move to another one. Everybody knows that AV business is a big cake, every player want its part, Comodo and AV-C included.

BTW the best testing organization is myself !

 

[NSG001]

BTW the best testing organization is myself !

:goodpost:

 

[WinAndLinuxTutorials]

BTW the best testing organization is myself !

lol =))

fftopic:
Have you ever tested an antivirus program?

 

[Deleted member 178]

Yes my config Vs Malc0de Result : my config wins

 

[Eiso]

I really appreciate how he stands up for what's right. Corruption has no place in security. I've definitely gained more respect for his services.

 

[illumination]

The picture on this topic is simple, as has been for awhile, internet crime,and those that strive to prevent it, is a lucrative business and always will be.. The mere fact that Melih offers this outstanding suite for free speaks enough to me..
The rest is all hearsay..

 

[bogdan]

Yes, CIS is a good product and I appreciate that it is offered for free. I think it was a smart thing to do since CIS has many strong competitors and the fact that it is offered for free allows COMODO to obtain a stronger position on the market. However the fact that CIS won't participate in future av-comparatives tests doesn't help them in my opinion.

The fact that av vendors commission the tests and pay for them should come as no surprise. The only alternative would be for us (the users) to pay for the tests.

 

[HeffeD]

On the other hand, I believe that publicly bashing testing companies and stating that their testing method is wrong (after agreeing to participate in a test) won't bring any benefits to av companies. A small level of "diplomacy" is needed here... at least in my opinion.

It is a little difficult to discern from the email, but this is how it went down.

Comodo wanted the full test. (8000 Euros) AV-Comparatives said they couldn't do that because of the sandbox. They couldn't adequately test this type of technology. They recommended the 1500 Euro test that would only test detection. Comodo said OK.

After the test, AV-C asked if they wanted to pay another 500 Euros to publish the results, Comodo said, no thanks.

Then the results came out showing Panda and Avast did pretty poor. Melih mentioned in a thread on the Comodo forums that AV-C should really focus their tests on protection, because most suites actually do very well at this.

AV-C doesn't like that comment, and threatens to reveal that Comodo paid to have their test results suppressed if Melih doesn't retract his comments. In actuality, all Comodo did was not pay extra to have the results published.

Melih wasn't going to cave to the blackmail, so he acted before the Monday deadline given by AV-C.

Are people really interested in testing results that don't test the entire product? I personally would prefer to see the product tested as a whole. We all know that detection alone simply doesn't cut it these days... Why should people put so much stock into detection only testing?

 

[bogdan]

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.

posted by IBK on wilders (link)

 

[HeffeD]

The results of the public main test-series are published in any case, but Comodo never applied to be included in the public series.

posted by IBK on wilders (link)


From the email.

About the whole product test, we would like to see you in, but, and
this is an official statement, which you can post in your blog, your
product with the current sandbox and the current way it is working,
is not compatible with our automation system and as your sandbox
does restrict often also the functionality of clean applications, we
do not see it fit in our test system right now. So it is not
possible to put you in a single whole product test, in the main test
it would not be possible anyway as we restrict the number of participants.

 

[IBK2]

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/survey/avcomparatives_survey2011.pdf (page 6)

More clarification:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1054

 

[HeffeD]

Thanks for your input IBK2!

 

[bogdan]

@HeffeD: That quote probably refers to Whole Product Dynamic Tests - tests that generate the charts on av comparatives. Since they use an automated procedure they probably can't test sandboxes (at least the one in CIS). And COMODO couldn't participate in the On-demand and Retrospective Comparative tests in 2011 because they missed the deadline. That's all fine, but as I understood COMODO payed for a single test and had the option to allow the test to be published, for an extra fee (probably in the Single Product Reviews section). Am I right?

 

[HeffeD]

That's all fine, but as I understood COMODO payed for a single test and had the option to allow the test to be published, for an extra fee (probably in the Single Product Reviews section). Am I right?

Correct.

 

[bogdan]

The way it looks right now, CIS will never be tested by AV-C and I think this won't do any good to COMODO. Maybe all this could have been avoided if no one from COMODO complained about the fact that av vendors need to pay for tests.