Thanks for the very informative information. I never liked them and I never took their test in consideration. Now that some nice is out I am glad never made a big deal of those test.
Thanks for heads up. I will spread this on malwaretips
A conflict has ALLWAYS two sides. Unfortunately both sides claim to be on the right side. So lets see.
Quotes from the posted email:
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.
Its not only important, what happens. More important is, why.
If the forrest echoes, usually someone screamed into it first.
One of the mentioned posts of Melih (post 3 link) in the published email seems to be erased. So we can not see the whole points which caused this reaction.
As with the tests of products, i only hear the words about this “wave” with a half ear from now on… all this is marketing and profiling.
What “misleading” information might that be that I was referring?
We had an agreement with AV-Comparatives, I couldn’t answer Tech’s question, so I said “you are asking the wrong people” to him…
the point here is: Comodo is a customer to AV-Comparatives. There are confidential information and agreement. They are writing to Comodo threatening Comodo that they will reveal this confidential information to public if we don’t comply with them. Is that ethical?
Please check to see if what I said in my posts justified the threat we received from AV-Comparatives, or were they unjustifiable threatening.
thanks
Melih
If we are going to be speaking about ethics what about Comodo releasing private information before AV-C every did everything? If Monday passed by and AV-C never released anything what would be the reason to release the emails?
I think this whole argument would be different if AV-C acted first.
Threat from AV-Comparatives to their customer came first!
If there were no threat, there would be none of this.
Is it ethical to threaten your customer by saying you will release confidential information?
No wonder why they said:
The only reason why we will not ask a lawyer to deal with this case is that we prefer to put money into improving tests rather than playing this game with Comodo.
Source: http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1054
I guess they didnt have any option, because they were over their own agreement with their threat. 
pls understand, this was NOT could, would, should…
“We are waiting for a response, if not, we may post our reply on Monday in public.”
This is a clear case of “IF NOT”…
We are waiting for a response, if not, [b]we may[/b] post our reply onMonday 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)
The email said they may make a public statement regarding the testing of Comodo. Personally up to this point AV-C has never said Comodo was being tested internally. The way I read this was AV-C was saying if they were going to say something publicly they were going going to confirm that Comodo was being tested internally and that it was up to Comodo not them to release the results, and respond to those forum posts that they felt were incorrect.
No it’s not ethical to release private data but imo it’s also not ethical to release private emails.
I dont like conflicts. So i would prefer if both sides would not surf this wave. But i searched a few passages, which i think could have been meant by “misleading”.
I emphased some words and took quotes.
Post 1:
“…give users information about what matters which is “Protection” not “detection” by putting dead viruses on your HD and then detect them using Antivirus…”
This described test would test antivirus detection of dead known malwares. By testing this, there is no argumentation about “this is all that counts”. But this view is suggested by your statement.
"Seriously…lets get serious about Testing.
Any financial relationship between testing organisation and AV companies could be seen as a negative."
This is giving the impression, that the test wasnt serious. And that theres a financial relationship, which would include hand in hand benefit. AND, this quote doesnt say, that there is a fee for all, it sounds more as if SOME companies would have such a “relationship” for a hidden benefit.
This post (post 2 link) is now in another light. But it can happen in the initial context, that someone could misunderstand that.
Post 3 is not viewable. So we can not be sure about the content.
From post 1, it is possible to feel described as wrong. Thats what i can see.
My view about “detection” is well known…thats not news…
And again since when I am not entitled to think that “financial relationship between testers and companies could be seen as negative”?
So, are you seriously saying that, because I have an opinion, my supplier can threaten me by revealing confidential information?
pls don’t forget all this started because “Of course my co-worker got angry about reading such blatant insinuations/misinformation and asked Comodo to clarify the misleading posts in their forum” (according to AV-Comparatives)…they got angry and threatened us, Not professional…very Unethical!!!
Melih
No, i am seriously saying only what i said 
… i speak about the why, not about the what.
Both sides have their “case”. This is my opinion. And its an opinion which can solve a problem.
No one should threaten anyone. No one should put words in others mouthes to become the winner.
Long ago, i made a simple wording mistake. And you accused me of misleading. This happened now to you, as you spoke about the other company.
Mistakes are not a fail, when one learns from them.
EDIT: one = both sides
agree with that 100%
So why does AV-Comparative feel the need to muzzle AntiVirus vendors? Why don’t they want the public to know that they get $$$ from Antivirus Companies?
They claim: “it is known since many years. it is even written in the public methodology on the website since at least 2008.”
But the agreement they get the AntiVirus companies to sign muzzles them. Why?
Melih
From the methodology document I linked to elsewhere:
http://i44.tinypic.com/241ldl0.jpg
Not exactly brimming with detailed information, but I guess they do say they charge a fee…
So why do they make the AntiVirus vendors sign an agreement muzzling them from revealing this? Also not sure if this refers to all the tests they do, cos this mention “publishing”, but we know they do many tests that they do not publish…not sure this “fee” relates to “SOW” agreement they sign with vendors or just for use of logos etc.
Look at the first example they give for what the fee is about: Use of Logos 
Is this about being honest and transparent?
If users can’t have transparent information, how can they trust AV-Comparatives when they say they are “independent” and there is a “financial interest”. And without this financial interest, the company couldn’t exist!
BTW: Does anyone know if anyone has Audited/Validated the claims made by AV-Comparatives about their “independence” ?
AV-Comparatives were a member of AMTSO, but they are not now. Why is that?
Here is what AMTSO is setup to do:
Welcome to the Membership Application Page for AMTSO.
AMTSO was founded in 2008 as a not-for profit organization that is committed to improving the objectivity, quality and relevance of testing methodologies through the development and publication of universally adopted standards and guidelines for anti-malware testing.
AMTSO membership is open to any corporation, institution or unaffiliated individual interested in participating in this organization. Please note that to apply as an individual, you must not be employed by any member organization, either under full-time, part-time or contractor status.
Why become a member of AMTSO?
AMTSO is in the process of developing testing standards and guidelines for global use to help improve the reliability and quality of the testing of security software and related products. It is our belief that the high quality of participants in this organization, and the strength of these standards and guidelines will make AMTSO the universally preeminent testing standards organization.
Who is developing these standards and guidelines? AMTSO members are technologists, testers, reviewers, and representatives of government and academia. These members contribute their expertise to influence the standards and guidelines being set by AMTSO. We believe that AMTSO will contribute toward enhancing the reliability of product reviews, improving product quality, and increasing overall customer security and satisfaction.
further clarification about “disclosure” (which is sorely lacking on AV-Comparatives case) is necessary as few (i do mean only a few) people think its ok to claim to be “indepedent” , not reveal financial interests and provide no Validation/auditing of the processes!!!
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
They left AMTSO ???
That doesn’t make sense, why would they leave? Has there been made any press release on why they left?
Transparency is an issue for AV-C ;), They don’t even allow Antivirus vendors to reveal they pay AV-Comparatives!
They get paid to call themselves “independent” and they don’t allow anyone to “audit/validate” this claim!
And when there is an organisation who is “not-for profit organization that is committed to improving the objectivity, quality and relevance of testing methodologies through the development and publication of universally adopted standards and guidelines for anti-malware testing.” they drop their membership!