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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that testing organizations need money to operate, but why should it cost extra to have the results published, or be furnished with the samples?
 
I wrote a little bit of my opinion on my blog ( http://igl-security.blogspot.com/2011/11/av-c-vs-comodo.html ) but all I have to say is I am a little disappointed in the way this was handled. Private emails should not have been released and this all should have been handled in private.

Besides I don't think AV-C was telling them to censor their posts more correcting some incorrect information about AV-C which they have done at other forums before.
 
it would cost extra because it would have been released together with a review and logo usage etc. No samples are being provided in single product tests (no matter how much a company would pay for them - we do not sell samples).

anyway, yes, i somehow also think that there may have been misunderstandings. Those misunderstandings may could have been solved in a very simple manner by replying to my co-worker and correcting/clarifying their posts instead of starting trying to discredit us. Either it is due to misunderstanding (we are not native language speakers) or done as some sort of marketing stunt (because attacking others increases their popularity).

But it is in any case a no-go for a security company to publish confidential email correspondence without permission. One can only hope that for the other data they have from users they respect their privacy/rights.
 
Ibrad said:
Besides I don't think AV-C was telling them to censor their posts more correcting some incorrect information about AV-C which they have done at other forums before.
Click to expand...

They've previously tried to blackmail vendors who voice their opinions on other forums before? :s

Yes, this should have been taken care of privately. I don't really agree with either set of actions in this instance.

However, what exactly is the correct tactic if you are asked to alter your opinion or someone will release confidential information regarding your business dealings?

Surely simple criticism doesn't warrant engaging in blackmail?

So no, I don't think that Melih releasing confidential email was ideal, but I can see his point. You want me to go back on what I said or you'll release the confidential test results we didn't feel were worth an extra 500 Euros to have published on your website? Fine, confidentiality doesn't seem to mean much to you, so I'll release them anyway...

I guess we should ask ourselves what we would do if facing the same situation? Cave to blackmail, or stick to our principals?
 
As I posted on another forum I don't believe that was at threat it was a misunderstanding. My take of the letter was he was saying they would announce Comodo paid for internal tests and decided not to pay and release the results to the public. Because up to this point AV-C never has told anyone who was getting test results. I have figured AV-C must have been getting a lot of emails why they would not test Comodo because I have seen a lot of posts about it on forums.

By correct before I was talking about how the correcting incorrect information here on the Kingsoft forums: http://pcdoctor.kingsoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=322&p=988&hilit=ibk&sid=d7add74abfafa5b662b67d62016dc909#p988
 
@HeffeD (about the extra fees): Yes, that might be a problem and we, as users, can ask those questions but when the CEO/Founder of a well known security company does it the result seems to be ugly.

Drama aside, I can distinguish a couple of issues:
  • It seems difficult to compare different security technologies in a protection/"real world" test that doesn't dis/advantages any product. A perfect solution wasn't found yet and we still don't know if the average user can handle technologies such as HIPS.
  • The fact that many users seem to believe that testing companies work free-of-charge. I don't know if this changes the way they see these tests but they should be informed. What other business model can testing companies adopt?
 
i do not see any blackmailing/censor. my co-worker asked to write the truth in the posts (because comodo was trying to make people think that results can be bought, while in reality comodo paid several times for being tested internally (strangely for static detection tests which in public they dismiss) and decided to keep them internal due to their results [which is their right as they commissioned a confidential test]).
Furthermore they continued to say that we test only detection, while in reality we provide also protection tests (in the public main testseries). Avast also has a sandbox and is testable. My co-worker clearly wrote/asked for clarification and to reply by email.
Yes, we get a lot of emails from various users, but we can not disclose them results of confidential tests that Comodo commissioned. It is also written in the here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/contact/contact-faq
So, Ibrad is right.
 
From AV-C Contact-FAQ page:
c) You asked if we tested product X internally. In general we do not answer such questions as non-disclosure agreements may take place.
d) You asked how product X scored internally. In general we do not answer such questions as non-disclosure agreements may take place.
Click to expand...
Why "In general"? This implies that in rare cases it may happen. Maybe that's why people keep asking these questions, they hope that this is one of those rare cases in which disclosure is possible.
 
because e.g. if a rogue av states that we tested them internally we will say that it is not true.
 
The main problem here is the way Comodo handles failures. Any good company learns from there mistakes and goes back to the drawing board. But nnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooo the Comodo team with Melih leading the way cannot do that. If your product fails then deal with. Dont go stomping your feet and pouting like a little kid who didn't get his lollipop. That is the problem with Comodo and the reason so many companies do not test them. Look at MRG for instance. So far we the following:

1. Melih banned from Wilders Security for shooting his mouth off.
2. MRG removing Comodo from there testing.
3. Several,several complaints in the forum about bugs which never get addressed.
4. Moderators bring up vulnerabilities in CIS then being terminated and banned.
5. Now this drama with AVC.
6. Melih talking smack to Symantec.

It would be nice to see Comodo not surrounded by so much drama. Do you ever see the CEO's of Symantec,Kaspersky,AVG,Avira and McAfee with issues like this? No. BTW.No need for a 4-5 paragraph reply. It is also very unprofessional for a CEO of any company to air out his dirty laundry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Ganzi
IBK2 said:
i do not see any blackmailing/censor.
Click to expand...

You coworker did not email:
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)
We are waiting for a public rectification till Monday or deleting the respective posts:
Click to expand...
? :huh:

Sounds like an ultimatum to me...
 
to me it sounds like asking for a public correction/clarification to the misleading posts and/or a response to us till Monday.
 
IBK2 said:
to me it sounds like asking for a public correction/clarification to the misleading posts and/or a response to us till Monday.
Click to expand...

But what about the, Or we may post (details)
 part? That comes across as a threat.
 
Can we actually trust the integrity of a CEO who is constantly in the middle of so much controversy? Can we trust the integrity of a CEO who releases confidential emails to the public? Maybe its time for Meilh to step aside and start letting Comodo be the focus of a top notch security team. Instead of having so much drama surrounding them every 8 months or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Ganzi
assuming that e.g. someone was tested internally and states publicly that it scored 100% (and in reality only e.g. 0%), I think that even if there is a NDA, it is void in that case and it can be disclosed. But I am not 100%, I would need to ask a lawyer.
 
Maximus said:
Can we actually trust the integrity of a CEO who is constantly in the middle of so much controversy? Can we trust the integrity of a CEO who releases confidential emails to the public? Maybe its time for Meilh to step aside and start letting Comodo be the focus of a top notch security team. Instead of having so much drama surrounding them every 8 months or so.
Click to expand...

Or how about instead of trying to incite a riot, we merely let people decide for themselves?

The nice thing about competition in the lucrative PC security market is that you have many options to choose from.

It's nobody else's decision which product you choose to run.
 
No one is stirring up or causing a riot. People are allowed to boast there opinions as long as they are within the forum rules. You are a Comodo mod therefore you will defend them till the end. Its your job after all so its expected behavior. History repeats itself and Comodo/Melih are proof of this. Show me another security company with constant drama surrounding them. Yes we can chose whatever security products we want. I chose CIS for now. But the drama that constantly surrounds Comodo and Melih's unprofessionalism may make me uninstall it once again. CAV got an extremely high false positive rate when tested by AVC. I knew that last year from a very good friend before anyone even saw it in Melih's blog. Ever since then Comodo has it out for AVC. Hence this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Ganzi
What does being a mod at Comodo have to do with anything? I'm not defending anyone...
 
@Maximus: uninstalled it just because the ceo is a big mouth?! This was a fast test of CIS ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

You may also like...