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

Status
Not open for further replies.
With all do respect HeffeD a troll is defined as someone who joins a forum for the sole purpose of flaming. 99% of what is said by a troll is meaningless then they are gone. I am not one of them. I have been a member for awhile now and this is my thread which I started. I also posted this to show members of this community the unprofessionalism that Melih constantly shows. But HeffeD you are on the offense cause you represent Comodo. Sorry once again but no one here is trolling nor should be labeled as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Ganzi
Please take a look at the definition from the forum rules.

The first two point apply.
Trolling / flaming:

Such behavior will not be tolerated on our forum:

Flooding the forum with comments arising from a single point of view in every post.
Deliberately posting comments designed to start a "flame war" or to cause difficulty for our staff.
Click to expand...

And as I've mentioned more than once, I do not represent Comodo. Nor am I on the offense...
 
'Maximus' username was detected as being user by a member who previously was banned under the 'Dieselman' username (a previous banned member) .... Accounts were merged and user was banned again.

Thread title : AV-Comparatives.org, bullying, censorship and financial deals with Anti Virus vendors ... Waiting to read your opinions :D
 
Jack said:
'Maximus' username was detected as being user by a member who previously was banned under the 'Dieselman' username (a previous banned member) .... Accounts were merged and user was banned again.

Thread title : AV-Comparatives.org, bullying, censorship and financial deals with Anti Virus vendors ... Waiting to read your opinions :D
Click to expand...

Here's my response:
http://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/avcomparativesorg-bullying-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors-t78869.0.html;msg564858#msg564858
I may not always agree with Melih, in fact I don't, but I definitely don't agree with the way that AV products are currently tested.
 
I agree. If you test a product you test it as a whole or if it doesn't fit the methodology, you create a methodology for it and similar product. Main issue for AVC is comodo sandbox, it block everything not allowed so they consider it is not adequate to their testing methodology...
 
Some users also do not understand that a product offering multiple layers of security doesn't need to be perfect in tests that are focused on specific layers (such as detection tests). So yes, considering this aspect, testing a product as a whole produces a result that every user can understand. But it still remains uncertain if the average user can answer HIPS pop-ups correctly or use the auto-sandbox correctly. So far, the only solution seems to be the clear separation between threats stopped without user interaction and threats stopped after displaying a prompt, also taking into account false positives (how often the product displays pop-ups when legit apps are launched).
 
What make me skeptic about AVC is they test KIS (HIPS & Sandbox) , NIS (BB), F-secure (HIPS), Avast (BB & sandbox), ESET (BB) but CIS (HIPS & Sandbox) is not adequate...
 
bogdan said:
Maybe CIS couldn't be tested right now, with the current automated procedure but it would have been possible in the future. We'll never know.
Click to expand...

That's what I gathered.

They said they tested Avast with its sandbox, but they said they couldn't test CIS as a whole product because its sandbox interfered with their automated processes. This is likely due to the fact that any unrecognized process is sandboxed.

However, unless their automated processes change in some way in the course of normal operation, (which would alter the file hash) a simple 'do not sandbox again' answer to an alert would solve that. Unless of course, these automated processes are attempting to inject malware, which would be a bad idea to tell it not to sandbox the process...

Without knowing their exact methodology, it's difficult to say, but it seems like only a few minutes of configuration may be able to solve whatever problems they were having. Doesn't seem like much to ask if you're getting paid 8000 Euros for it.

It kind of sounds like they don't want any user interaction from a security product. If you choose to use a HIPS, you're going to get user interaction.
 
Well its like Comodo company survive with any issues occurred however their product remains stable and effective that users still used it.

Bugs were one of the reason that supposed to be action long time before and there will be no problem when a program is cleared from bugs.
 
I find this very very awful.

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.

Here is their email……

***BEGIN*Email of 24th Nov 2011**********************************

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Posts of Melih
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:45:57 -0800
From: Peter Stelzhammer <p@av-comparatives.org>
To: ‘Umesh Kumar Gupta (u@comodo.com)’ <u@comodo.com>
CC: ‘a@av-comparatives.org‘ <a@av-comparatives.org>


Hi Umesh,
we have been informed about some misleading forum entries of Melih.
It is really inacceptable and dubious how Melih is doing in public.
That is not a serious behaviour in this industry.
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:
Post1
it simply not true that we do not test for protection. Also it is technically wrong what Melih
wrote He is blaming himself. And as we see users are recognizing that and writing this to us.
Post2
Re: Comodo AV Database update page
Post3
« Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2011, 01:36:07 PM »
________________________________
Quote from: Tech on November 13, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
"But, do they? Before the testing or after (to publish)? Are the results influenced by this?
How could we know?
You are asking the wrong people."
You know how it works, you did it. We can proof. We can publish if necessary. Money has no influence.
So you paid, you got bad results. That's proof enough. We are independent not profit, money
just covers our cost. That is a bad insinuation.
Schöne Grüsse / Regards
Peter Stelzhammer
p@stelzhammer.org
Mobil: +43 (664) | Tel: +43 (512)
Innsbruck | Austria | Europe
www.av-comparatives.org<http://www.av-comparatives.org/> |
www.kompetenzzentrum.it<http://www.kompetenzzentrum.it>
****END EMAIL********************************
Click to expand...

Source: Melih's blog

The blog is long so have fun reading :)
 
anitac said:
How are AV-C being unprofessional, unlike Comodo who released emails to the public?
Click to expand...

Comodo does that because AV-C is trying to squize more money than they should and that's not okey.

Comodo also wants to show how they, so that we know what they are
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

You may also like...