1,2,3,6 There are state examples and “business” examples. State for example for cars (paid), business for example food (regular and paid, its even part of the package somehow ). There are even food tests, where the criterias are “subjective”, without mentioning it as such on the package.
4,5,6 I used the word institutions while i gave general examples, and because i have to search words in translation. In my general examples, i didnt take mainly av-c in count, as my arguments are pointing to the “mis”-assumption that paid means automatically “not independent”.
7 I know it. Here is the sentence:
"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"
Feel free to tell me what doesnt fit to my recapitulation. I emphased the word “TOO”. Reply in public TOO. To make it obvious, what is meant as reaction. Melih public, speak with them, or they answer public too.
The difference to america might be for example this:
If in america on a micro wave machine isnt explicit mentioned, that its not good to dry animals, after bathing, with it (causes death), then the producer is guilty if a customer dries his animal with it to death.
In my country we would rather laugh about the person who would claim that company guilty.
In america on the car mirror, there must be written like this: Cars can be closer than they appear.
LOL, to remember CAR DRIVERS that a “small car in a rear mirror” doesnt mean that the car is in reality so small for the eyes because it was 200 meters away.
Let me expand on what I meant a little further: When I said “government/association grants” this covered both commercial and non-commercial testing and certification bodies. Associations are often formed by the producers (companies) of products to create and fund independent testing and certification of their products on a subscription basis. The association subscriptions are the basis of the funding (grants) for the testing and certification body (often an NPO). When either producers fail to do this (at all or correctly) or the government deems it too important to the public/national interest to allow the producers to perform this function, then the government may force the producers by regulation to perform the function (if it is absent or dysfunctional) as they see fit or perform the function directly themselves by creating and funding (usually by grants) the NPO/NGO for the purposes of testing and certification.
I hope that’s a little clearer.
PS I’m not American and I’m taking from a European perspective.
PPS But, you’re correct I believe. The US is heavily influenced by litigation and its mitigation in this regard. LOL the mitigation of litigation… first time I’ve said that before.
3 categories on the fly collected: State based (cars), state “mandated” (testing the heating structure in buildings), and own business testers (with and without state aproving). Av-c would be the last category. All of the 3 categories can take money, and as long as its a regular fee, theres not automatically a doubt of sided testing. Even more, the tester who would get 50, would think twice if he would manipulate the result if he gets 100 of a candidate, because he might lose an amount of coming 50`s (losing license, losing customers, av vendors).
I’m not so sure… things have changed. I believe the US now have special certifications, accreditations and such… specifically for Computer Security these days and it’s probably going to get much tighter in the near future.
I described 3 tester categories of my “culture zone” (quick collected). What is so “all day” that no one puts it in question, and, when its about category 3, the people take it as an opinion, rather than a 100% fact. But there are examples of category 3, which are well reputated, so the opinion rises a bit in meaning.
For me, antivirus tests at this point, are close to an “opinion” (which means, it can happen stuff which is different than expected from the test, in the future). And like in a discussion, i would listen to the other opinions too. Av-c could gain the extra meaning, but thats their choice.
Regular fee is ok. Free is ok too. Both can be independent when they are independent
and there you hit the nail in the head…how does the end user know that? Not everyone is savvy enough to know this industry and take it at face value…its not right to mislead them…
I mean look at the user asking AVC how they get funded…he/she surely didn’t know they got paid money by the Antivirus vendors and many more don’t know that fact cos AV-comparatives.org makes a good job of hiding this fact when they report the reports.
The other attacking side has no proofs (Melih himself said so) - and if I have at least a little, fine. (Or language thing, again ;)) Whats about the guidelines? Where is written “everywhere and everytime”? Look at example 1, above.
If you know what it means, I suggest to look in younger history and you’ll see similar events with a specific CEO. That explains a little, why many others don’t care about the current debate at all.
@kail: I have contacts with some CEOs from security industry. But public speculations and mazily actions are special only for Melih.
The “Not care”. Many just don’t care what he says or who is the next in his list… Sad but true.
And I, I was at least trying to understand him.
__
No, not jealous - and I don’t need leaders.
Beside that - I don’t see the masses. Ok here in this forum there are many happy Comodo customers who believe him, fine. But they are not the general public and he is not in a position to force other companies or to speaks for the general public. Thats all.
AV-C as e.V. is responsible to show their financial relationships to government (ministry of finance) yearly, not to other companies because the CEO “wants so”.
First: It is not a question of “how long”
Second: I said nothing against Comodo’s products.
Third: No, I don’t think that many other people follow my argumentation (at least not here). But I hope (and know from feedback) I showed a second side and some people think a bit deeper.
I came in:
To ask for proofs for the public attacks and suggestions against AV-C. Found none (Melih honestly said, he has none)
To ask other open questions about trust and ethics (violating NDAs, releasing private EMails…) And the “they forced us” is for me no justification to act first in that way.
To ask other open questions about Comodos transparency (participation in some on-demand tests…but never released that info to their own customers, never officially released a result)
Melihs argumentation (again, maybe only in my eyes!) got weaker and weaker:
no proofs,
the funny thing with the guidelines (there was no sentence which says “release relationships everywhere and everytime”, as suggested; a deeper look a the lines he left out showed other interesting parts, even examples for “non-disclosure”). So atm the legal thing seems to be out.
the same abstract sentences again and again, answering with requestions… (and that not only to me, to all people with questions)
And for me (despite all language things and some little conflicts) kail was the person which tried really to argue and find some real points, in my eyes a much better and stronger argumentation style than Melihs. Really - even if I had mostly another opinion.
Ok. No problem and I don’t take that personal. Other opinions are quite ok.
__
So friends, I joined a while and played this game with your unwritten laws (write the same again and again and again, question-requestion, I have no proof - but you too have none… ) long enough.
I have other things to do. So from now on maybe I’ll answer on real new arguments and I’m still nosy if Melih will bring some proofs, but I have no longer the time to repeat again and again.
It is us who wants proof because of the below facts has made us lose our trust in AV-Comparatives.org
The facts are:
1)AV-Comparatives.org takes money from Anti-Virus vendors
2)They do not reveal that they take money where they reveal the tests.
3)They do not act transparently about who pays them and how much
4)They are not certified
5)They are not Audited
6)There are no 3rd party validation of their test results
7)They bully AntiVirus vendors with threats about revealing confidential information.
8)They mislead their own users when asked about how they are funded (http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1025)
So will you provide the proof that might restore some confidence? The proof could be, Audited/Validated results, transparency about who pays how much and so on…AV-Comparatives.org has lost the trust of public because of the games they play, they have to earn public’s trust by doing what any other decent testing organisations do, certify themselves, audit themselves, be transparent to public…all the traits sorely missing from AV-Comparatives.org.
Of course AV-Comparatives.org doesn’t have to follow the industry standards and provide audits or get themselves certified and be transparent and operate the way they have been…but do NOT expect the public to trust AV-comparatives.org as long as you do that!
How often did i read when “someone from the internet” made or found a result for comodo which was good:
“Nice…”. “And that shows the real life protection of comodo.”
4)They are not certified
5)They are not Audited
6)There are no 3rd party validation of their test results
No problem?
Regular fee= equal participiants
Equal price notifications would not change the reception of the results. Equal price, different results.
Call vendor x and tell them you paid 49,95. Then call vendor y. The candidate amount is a regulating factor. Both sides, AND each participiant on his own have a vital interest of an equal test.
It makes sense mostly if you WAITED for an opportunity to reveal:
8 ) I dont know why this poster doesnt say, all participiants are equal paying the price. Thats nothing bad to say.
So you think we are zombees that we just take the word COMODO and we dont “think a bit deeper”?
We take the word COMODO if its real and if its beneficial, which most of the time it is so thanks to Melih.
To be honest, I personally had some conflicts with Melih before about other issues I didnt agree on.
So that means we all “think a bit deeper”. Thank you for understanding that we do have a brain too.
Our experiences with other AV vendors, have showned us that COMODO its way better. A fresh concept and beneficial for the end users. Other companies they want only money money money and hide things and lie to their customers.
We all want proofs too. You wants proof from Melih. We want proofs from AV-C.
Round and round we go. So sit back, relax and enjoy the ride, or work, whatever.
You will see, and could see already, how many things Melih have achieved and will achieve.
He is certainly in a position to force other companies or to speaks for the general public.
Thats its call FREEDOM and thats how business world works.
I have been to three forums (including probably two of the biggest security forums) where the recent performance test, published after this thread was made, has been posted. All three forums have a link to your related blog post(s), yet only one poster has even mentioned “trust” (in relation to AV-Comparatives).
because they are all most likely under the wrong assumption that they are “independent” and AV-C doesn’t get money from Vendors. The public who now knows about AV-Comparatives will take their results with a pinch of salt…maybe we should do a poll about it?
Do you lose trust in the police when you know that everyone (community) equally pays them? And if there is not a tag on the uniform which tells how much he got, you can not believe in independence/transparency?
Is it impossible for you to see that “beeing paid, and getting paid if nothing fishy happens in the future” can be a basis for independent watching?
Well, you can make a test for free, or you can get paid by ALL participiants. Thats no difference in common sense of independence. But if someone makes the test for free, who doesnt know how to get food tomorrow, maybe he could choose that a bread is more important than 1 % detection result. This example shows that beeing equally paid by all participiants for tests CAN be a basis of independend watching.
If you want to protect people from assumptions if the testers are equally paid by all participiants, or if its a free test (so what?), just give them the link to the methodology. (The existence of this information was mentioned). And who would lose trust then?
Then you can start a vote. When everyone can see, and has not to depend on your sentences alone.
This is funny:
You can foresee what maybe could happen in peoples mind in the future, and that they all would think like you. And you can state it as a fact allready today, even though “They are still most likely…”
1)AV-Comparatives.org takes money from Anti-Virus vendors
2)They do not reveal that they take money where they reveal the tests.
3)They do not act transparently about who pays them and how much
4)They are not certified
5)They are not Audited
6)There are no 3rd party validation of their test results
7)They bully AntiVirus vendors with threats about revealing confidential information.
8)They mislead their own users when asked about how they are funded (http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1025)
So will you provide the proof that might restore some confidence? The proof could be, Audited/Validated results, transparency about who pays how much and so on…AV-Comparatives.org has lost the trust of public because of the games they play, they have to earn public’s trust by doing what any other decent testing organisations do, certify themselves, audit themselves, be transparent to public…all the traits sorely missing from AV-Comparatives.org.
Of course AV-Comparatives.org doesn’t have to follow the industry standards and provide audits or get themselves certified and be transparent and operate the way they have been…but do NOT expect the public to trust AV-comparatives.org as long as you do that!
Maybe a good part of the public gets sceptic instead, when someone tries to convince with copy paste.
Copy paste is trying to convince, because it can not take arguments in account which are later on the timeline. Yes, one day my posts where i spoke about your “fact” numbers (better say, about the irrelevance for more than “assumptions”) will be disappeared in the page nirvana. And then you put the copy paste again.
You have to handle your confidence yourself. The police gets paid equally by the community. I can not help you, if you cant combine independent with equally paid by all participiants.
). There are even food tests, where the criterias are “subjective”, without mentioning it as such on the package.
