I did… more than once, I had too. Since before I got half way through I became confused as to what type of document I was reading. Have you read it?
No.
I’m sure they do. You said Melih said something when he clearly didn’t.
Interesting notion… if I was using a strategy, on argumentation one or otherwise. That seems to be what you’re doing, not me.
as long as only the wrong doers are harmed during this process 
Quote or it didnt happen
In english “you” is very unspecific. I meant, “you, plural, case: whos or what ;)”, and was pointing especially on the useage of “They most likely”, to give an example how free this can be used from any side.
The spot wasnt on you.
I dont want to have a debate on language structure. We both seem to recept specific sentences different. So, you might tell me whats wrong in your eyes with my sentences, BUT it would be very variable what you might be able to guess what i might have intended.
You speak about a question like this? But even if this can be a philosophical question in view of good or bad, even in this case, there is another instance that would determine the “wrong doing” first. And it wouldnt be the “punisher” or “enforcer” himself.
What would happen if someone would think, its “wrong doing” to have a default setting for uploading unknown files of users to the cloud, while there is no auditing about the “privacy”?
You would say, thats bad mouthing. No?
Luckily the development of civilization separated “law making, law enforcing, and judging” into 3 institutions. If here is really a wrong doer, then there would be an instance for it. You are ceo of a company. You are not one of the 3 instances.
Is this your intention? What is, if the auditing finds out later, Melih didnt hit the nail?
Interesting article which is not off topic even if the subject would let think so http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/79400
some extracts :
My friend Bill Brenner, editor at CSOOnline wrote a piece in his Salted Hash blog saying that while he didn't think Accuvant's conclusion was wrong per se, the fact that the study was sponsored by Google, the makers of Chrome left him at the very least "uneasy" and he was "skeptical".I responded to Bill’s post with a post of my own saying that this is the problem with most product reviews, awards and analyst reports that we see today. Many are sponsored by vendors and providers mentioned in the research, many are flat out for sale and you don’t know what effect personal relationships have in the outcome. When you peel the onion back a few layers, too many of them are just not objective enough and they seem to be slanted one way or another.
I suggested one method that I liked to put the objectivity back into reviews was the method adopted by NSS Labs. Rick Moy and his team do not charge vendors for their research. They charge end user customers, so the vendors and product and service providers don’t have much influence.
Edit : the article’s author is Alan Shimel Co-Founder and Managing Partner of the Cisco Group
Audit cannot test these current tests…but only the ones in future…so I guess we will never know 
interesting article…
what makes this case even more interesting is the way AV-Comparatives.org tout themselves to be "indepedent’ and try to hide the fact that AV vendors pay them money…all unnecessarily underhanded imo. I thin AV-Comparatives would get more user respect if they were open, honest and frank about their financial affairs with Anti virus vendors.
In his blog, Alan Shimel seems to share the same opinion though in a more general way.
Quotes from http://www.ashimmy.com/2011/12/the-death-of-product-reviews.html :
Frankly I have the same problems with most product reviews, bake offs, analysis reports, etc. I have written about this before as well. In my mind it is a big reason why no one seems to pay attention to product reviews anymore.It doesn’t make a difference if it is an “independent lab” doing the testing, a magazine’s testing department, industry awards or an analyst firm analyzing the market, the first thing I look at is who is paying for it. Sometimes finding out who is paying for it is not so easy or transparent either.
Don’t you mean in a more specific way?
Shimmel’s example is a browser comparison paid for by Google, of which Chrome is adjudged to be the safest browser. He agrees with the outcome but as he says, “The chances that Google had a heavy hand in the study by Accuvant is pretty low, but it is something to consider.”
He also cites research paid for by Red Seal, “Now does that mean that everything they wrote was for the benefit of Red Seal? I know Rich, Mike and Adrian too well to believe that. But it does give me pause when I read the report to remember that fact.”
This pause for thought is more akin to how one might assess a test conducted by Dennis Labs which is sponsored by one participant, Symantec, in which Norton wins - rather than a comparison test paid for by all of the participants. It would require the drawing of a long bow indeed to imply that Shimmel is thinking about the latter while writing about the former.
Quotes from Alan Shimel
[b]this is the problem with most[/b] product reviews, awards and analyst reports that we see today.[b] Many are sponsored by vendors[/b] and providers mentioned in the research, many are flat out for sale and you don't know what effect personal relationships have in the outcome. When you peel the onion back a few layers,[b] too many of them[/b] are just not objective enough and they seem to be slanted one way or another.
Frankly I have the same problems [b]with most [/b]product reviews, bake offs, analysis reports, etc.[b] I have written about this before as well.[/b] In my mind it is a big reason why no one seems to pay attention to product reviews anymore.
One alternative is what Rick Moy and the guys at NSS Labs are doing. They have turned this equation on its head. [b]They make their money from the end user, so the vendors being tested have little to no influence[/b].
Title of the post in Shimel’s blog
The Death of Product Reviews
at The Ceo
Yes, it would need 20 years for twenty paying candidates to get paid out their investment. I mean, for the last candidate in the row. The others would get the benefit in the years before. One by one.
Makes totally sense 
No one would pay additional to stay in the middlefield. And the place at top is rare. Or a good portion of the candidates would be sheeps.
If “getting paid by the readers” is the future of antivirus tests, the tests have no future
Personally i dont care about the percentages. I dont sell those products. Why should i pay for a marketing number?
“I just came home, buying the new compare antivirus magazine. Thats really awesome, look at the results. And the best is, was only 9,95”
Another quote from Alan Shimer, Co-Founder and Managing partenr of Cisco Group, from http://www.ashimmy.com/2011/12/the-sleazy-dark-side-of-product-reviews.html
It just proves that [b]product reviews are a dirty business[/b] and why any reader has to look at and weigh all factors in deciding how much faith to put in them.
Here, we learn those things as kids allready.
Like this joking tells:
Never trust a statistic that you didnt manipulate yourself
Granted product reviews may well be a somewhat untoward at times, but AV-C are not doing product reviews. I find the correlation between what this article is talking about and this topic rather tenuous personally.
Precisely my point. And compared to mine, so beautifully concise.
Hi Boris 3
I may have missed something. Iis there a reason you’ve followed my quoted question to you with further quotes from Shimel? Be assured I did read the whole thing thoroughly before considering that my understanding of the issue he raises might be adequate to the task of commenting myself.
While i would have said, dont trust a result which is not audited, i got convinced now, that i just need to look out if a person claims to be independent while getting money.
If they take money, and simply not say “i am independent”,
i will totally trust, because its not a fake then.
No, i am just joking
But you seem to be serious.
I do understand how Melih feels. Even though Melih could be right that the results were tampered with, I have stress that CIS is kind of confusing for the average user. I remember AV Comparatives clearly stated on one of their reports that any alerts or pop-ups that depends on the user to make the decision on whether the file is good or bad would be considered as a miss or false positive, therefore brings down a certain software’s scores. I have to agree with that. Comodo often asks the user if the user trusts a file and that if they do trust it, the user should click ALLOW. Even though Comodo Firewall is one of the best that you can get for free, the Comodo Antivirus is not doing as good as the firewall, I think. I could be wrong. Do you guys remember the horrible BluePoint Security? That software was a joke and the company failed because it depended totally on the user to make decision everytime when the user tried to open a file. As long as Comodo fails to be easy for the dumb users, I’m afraid it will never be as successful as avast!.
eko_mn
what is important is: ability to prevent malware infection… that is what Comodo is the best at! Its the best Security vs Usability ratio. Its designed to keep the infection away from your computer and it does it as user friendly as technologically possible with today’s techniques.
Of course it will continue to improve…but if you want Security then its simply the best!
Many novices use it and love it (http://amplicate.com/love/comodo pls read what end users are saying)
however, the issue is not about CIS, the issue is, as the heading suggests, AV-comparatives.org transparency or the lack of.
AV-Comparativies.org gets money from AV vendors and doesn’t tell public that those tests they call “indepedent” are all paid for by AV vendors. thats wrong.
Security v/s Usability - The prob lies here.
Only an excellent balance may impress any type of users, but given the scores & type of people using internet nowadays (I have seen users that knows only 1 term Virus, they dont know & never heard terms like spyware, keyloggers, rootkits, bots, etc) it may be difficult to impress all & every as Usability for them means no popup at all i.e fully automatic. And I think to a great extent it can be achieved but it means minimizing little security without which its quite impossible.
I would go for this little minimized security coz perfection or 99.99% is really very boring & imperfection is always interesting with surprises & shocks 
Thanx
Naren