Comodo Agrees to pay $50,000 to AV-Comparatives.org.....

[Guest]

[SLE]

Auditors: You're just being silly now. It is not relevant to external auditors who pays the bill, only what they are auditing. ...

Again, I never said that it is relevant for auditors. But if AV-C means they need no sponsor for that, and not Comodo - there is nothing bad at all.

I really doesn't matter how many times you say valid, it will not make any of our assertions, assumptions and speculation any more or less valid. Now, if an external audit says "valid" then ...

Now you're funny. I think we need no external audit to see what I notivced in my sentences in that context.

Ok - but I really think we are at the end of discussion here. Melih gives no real and further anwers - I have to accept, if I like it or not.

[kail]

.. I think we need no external audit to see what I notivced in my sentences in that context. ..

No indeed..

..
- Valid seems to be that Melih showed only that part of all that he wanted us to see. Complete/Imcomplete/Misleading? We can't know - it's a question of trust.
- Valid is that many questions are unanswered.
- Valid is that the fact that AV-C takes money from vendors is nothing new.
- Valid is that nobody has shown that the fact that companies pay has any influence on test results. Speculation.

I particularly liked the first and second ones. BTW aren't the second and the forth the same? No audit is required here to see where you're coming from.. it's fairly transparent.

[SLE]

No indeed..I particularly liked the first and second ones.

It's not at question of liking - did you never asked if those things are complete or contain all relevant things?
I asked those question thatswhy "seems to be..." - the other 3 points are clear for me.

€: See clockwords next post, strange indeed.

BTW aren't the second and the forth the same?

Why? The fourth was about one specific question, the second included others that I arised in that thread.

No audit is required here to see where you're coming from.. it's fairly transparent.

Yes? From Germany. Or what else will you mandate? The same game that w-e-v wanted to play at the beginning? Not again.

[clockwork]

One question, as you spoke about questions:
What was written under the post link 3 in the email from av-c? Its one of the links that were given as examples about what av-c wants to discuss with comodo, before they would make a "public" statement, like Melih did, otherwise.

Not only that we never saw the mentioned page behind that link, now this post link 3 was erased from the "av-c email" reproduction in Melihs blog.

[kail]

It's not at question of liking - did you never asked if those things are complete or contain all relevant things?

Well, you're using "valid" is certain odd way (possibly a language issue?). But, a valid uncertainty? It doesn't make much sense in this context.

Why? The fourth was about one specific question, the second included others that I arised in that thread.

Second: There are unanswered questions.
Fourth: Queried and no response (ie. an unanswered question).

Yes? From Germany. Or what else will you mandate? The same game that w-e-v wanted to play at the beginning? Not again.

Yes, sure. But, I'm not sure what Germany has to do with it.. or w-e-v. In any event, you're clearly siding with AV-C and always have been. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that your Valid list has been written in certain, very telling, way. Allow me to modify it for you to demonstrate what I mean (still using Valid, which should possibly be "fact")..

- Valid AV-C hasn't contradicted Comodo's evidence. Suspicious/odd. Issue of trust.
- Valid is that many questions are unanswered. [this doesn't need modification]
- Valid is that the fact that AV-C gags vendors is nothing new.
- Valid is no evidence has been presented by AV-C to demonstrate their independence.

[SLE]

Yes, sure. But, I'm not sure what Germany has to do with it.. or w-e-v. In any event, you're clearly siding with AV-C and always have been. ...

So I must call you a liar - who claims things without any proof.   And once again: I've nothing to do with them. The argument "you must be one of them cause you don't speak like WE wanna hear" is really poor.
__
All my points have there substantiations in this thread - and don't forget: I wasn't and I'm not the only one who asked such questions and found many things strange. (Read the posts of clockwork and Jorgosch, partly even M-Richter...)

If Melihs actions and argumentations raises questions for other people and they ask thatswhy but only get to hear the same over and over again, but never ever real answers. Do you really wonder that there are more and more doubts.

Or to cite you:

... It is clear from their responses to-date that AV-C view this offer with a great deal of suspicion and believe that it is some sort of marketing stunt by Comodo. ...

Do you really wonder after all ? And has it nothing to do with marketing? Come on. If Melih is so generous but they don't want him to pay the auditors - than he could donate the money for the poor children if AV-C ever gets validated.

[kail]

One question, as you spoke about questions:
What was written under the post link 3 in the email from av-c? Its one of the links that were given as examples about what av-c wants to discuss with comodo, before they would make a "public" statement, like Melih did, otherwise.

Not only that we never saw the mentioned page behind that link, now this post link 3 was erased from the "av-c email" reproduction in Melihs blog.

I've just spent quite a while looking for this. But, of course, I'm looking for something that isn't actually there.. so, it's proving tricky. Obviously, I may not know.. however, can you give me better directions in order that I can take a look. Thanks.

[clockwork]

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

I found it quite disturbing to see the email replication beeing modified. As if there never had been this post link 3. Was something else modfied before? Thats one of the questions that this rises for me.
The more, as there are "beginning of email" and "end of email" notifications. This leads the reader to the conclusion, this is the email at all.

[kail]

So I must call you a liar - who claims things without any proof.  And once again: I've nothing to do with them.

What? I posted the proof! You're own Valid list post is completely bent towards siding with AV-C. Even in your own mind (apparent by your replies) your second point (Valid is that many questions are unanswered) doesn't take into account that it is AV-C who haven't answered any questions. Your just thinking of your own, and other peoples, questions posted here towards Comodo. If that is not a clear demonstration that you are siding (you do know what "siding" means right?) with AV-C, then I don't know what else could be. And you have the audacity to call me a liar?

You, Sir, are a total waste of photons. Troll.

[kail]

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

I found it quite disturbing to see the email replication beeing modified. As if there never had been this post link 3. Was something else modfied before? Thats one of the questions that this rises for me.
The more, as there are "beginning of email" and "end of email" notifications. This leads the reader to the conclusion, this is the email at all.

I've already looked at this page, I really can't see what you're looking at.. it's a large bunch of cited, and re-cited, emails.. it's a mess. Please take an screen shot & point it out to me. Thanks.

[clockwork]

Just open the page, scroll in the FIRST email until you find in blue:
Post 1
.....

Post 2
.....

(And there has been a Post 3, which lead to an erased page. Now this Post 3 link is completely removed)

---------------------------------------------------
Here a quoting of the passage:

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

« Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2011, 01:36:07 PM »

Here is the Post 3 link missing

_____________________________

Quote from: Tech on November 13, 2011, 08:03:43 PM

[kail]

Here's what I have.. exactly.. and in this version the Post 1 and Post 2 tags hadn't replaced the actual forum URLs in the emails at this point.

..
snip (see below).
..

It seems that someone (AV-C possibly) really mashed up the URLs and the citations of one of those URLs.. the same URL was pasted 3 times and then it looks like a drag 'n' drop of a GIF image in the middle of that (probably from grabbing a URL off the forums page and taking a GIF with it). So, it looks like someone just made the original readable to me. Not that disturbing really.

PS Oh.. LOL, and looking at the original topic. Somebody cut the following beautiful post out of the dialogue (badly).

On the Comodo AV Database update topic? Really? Come on guys, get a room (topic).

[clockwork]

I dont understand fully what you think you found

I can tell you:
Post 1 leads to a page,
Post 2 leads to a page
Post 3 lead to an "empty page" of (if i remember right) Melihs blog.

So this can not be "messing links or double posting". All 3 lead to different locations. So they were 3 different urls. And one is gone.


(The quotation of Tech was part of the email. It has nothing to do with the missing Post 3 link. It should just point to the position where the link isnt anymore. So you can easily find it.)


--------------------------
Btw, even if someone messed while writing an email, modifying is modifying if someone else modifies the original without any marking.

[kail]

Sorry, I didn't cut it high enough.. try this.

We are waiting for a public rectification till Monday or deleting the respective posts:
http://forums.comodo.com/other-security-products/retrospective-test-november-2011-t78699.0.html;msg563552#msg563552
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.
http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-av-database-update-page-t34216.0.html;msg561775#msg561775
[cid:image001.gif[at]01CCAA8D.35669E10]<http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-av-database-update-page-t34216.0.html;msg561775#msg561775>
Re: Comodo AV Database update page <http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-av-database-update-page-t34216.0.html;msg561775#msg561775>
« Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2011, 01:36:07 PM »
________________________________
Quote from: Tech on November 13, 2011, 08:03:43 PM<http://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-av-database-update-page-t34216.0.html;msg561628#msg561628>
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.

[kail]

--------------------------
Btw, even if someone messed while writing an email, modifying is modifying if someone else modifies the original without any marking.

Well, you couldn't put what I just posted on a blog. It's a real mess.. unless, of course, you wanted to show that the sender seemed to have completely lost it. But, as long as you have the original (in all it's glory) then it doesn't really matter.

[Tags:]