AV-comparatives.org, bullying, and financial deals with anti virus vendors

[Guest]

[kail]

Well Wilder Security Forum is having their own debate on this. Makes fun reading. ..

Welcome to the forums Johine77.

Since both of those URLs were posted just a few posts above yours, perhaps you'd like to expand on that a bit. Thanks.

[devenroy]

Very sad to see this... i request all people to re-share this link in ur all social websites like twitter, facebook, google + etc. let everyone know )))
Well done melih thanks for revealing this.

[Melih]

Andreas of AV-Comparitives said: "When I (Andreas) started doing the public tests in 2003, I did it for free and asked users if they wanted to donate something. Practically no one donated, and based on the high demand for continuing the tests, and the increasing complexity of the tests, I had to start asking all vendors to pay a fee."


But why do they force the Antivirus companies to deny the "existence" of the financial relationship? Why are they trying to hide this?

Here is the clause look at the highlighted section.

Why are they scared of letting public know? How can they be trusted by public if they don't trust public with this information in the first place?

[clockwork]

Most of the things cost money. Sometimes they are free for one side (like comodo cis free for the users), but the people who work for comodo will get paid though.

In a way, its more likely safer to let something be tested by an organisation who generally takes money from all of the tested, because if the organisation does wrong, they will lose the business.

If everyone pays, no one has an advantage. Or?

If you want "this brand", the brand can choose the price. And as long as its paid, the price seems to be right.

What would change, if the page would say: a test costs 19,95 for everyone?

I dont take position for any side. I just dont see a problem beyond "market" here.

What is the "finacial deal with antivirus vendors" in the headline?

[IGLSecurity.Brad]

But why do they force the Antivirus companies to deny the "existence" of the financial relationship? Why are they trying to hide this?

Where were vendors denying the existence of this deal?


mod edit: quotation fixed for clarity. kail

[Melih]

Where were vendors denying the existence of this deal?


mod edit: quotation fixed for clarity. kail

IE might have problem displaying these.there is a picture below.



Also: AV-Comparatives threatened Comodo in their email by saying: They will reveal the confidential information first. Where is the ethic of signing an agreement that is confidential and then threatening your customer that you will reveal this confidential information to public if you don't comply with their demands?

For your reference: Here is what AV-Comparatives said in their Email: "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)"

This, as per the agreement was a confidential information, even the existence of the agreement was confidential as per the agreement. So AV-Comparatives first signs an agreement that is confidential, then threatens you that they will release it if you don't do what they say. This is totally unethical!!!!!

Melih

[Kruis]

Money money money  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxX-QOV9tI 

[albatros65]

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

thanks

Melih

I received a free copy of one of the best IS in comparatives and I've tested it. I can drop the fact you can download and run a leak test with the result: your firewall has been penetrated... but not that this fantastic internet security gave me a lot of trouble with wireless. In the past, another five star IS disabled my newsgroup client and none could fix the issue.
Many thank to your staff for fixing all my problems with wireless :-) With Comodo I pay and have a service... even if with CIS I've never had any problem...
So, if I look at test results, what is strange is that they didin't match with my experience.

[!H]

They just really need to update their methodology.

     

"In fact, while AV Comparatives makes their File Detection Test “mandatory,” their Proactive Protection Test is only “optional.” This is why Comodo, as well as other industry leaders like Symantec’s Norton, refrain from future participation in AV Comparatives’ annual trials."

   

[Tags:]