I wouldn’t say that, but it is a fact that Tallemoe paid Matousec for a retest :
We have contacted the vendor of Online Armor and received the information that the latest version of this product, Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.119 Free, does not suffer from the problem any more. To solve the problem with possibly wrong results, the vendor ordered a paid testing of its product.
Frome here :
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/
Greetz, Red.
Melih has also agreed to pay for a retest since they did the update to 329, due to the circumstances surrounding this issue.
https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews/matousec_firewall_test_results_2008-t20986.0.html;msg146625#msg146625
Hi GuysAs you know we did a release today that we believe will address the leak test issues reported in Matousec.
I would like to re-iterate and be frank that this is the FIRST time we have done something in our firewall development that we don’t believe will provide material security benefit to end users today. If passing those two tests were important we would have done it ages ago! The issue was NOT about getting 100% on some tests, it was about “Securing our end users”!
However, the funfair that ensued the method in which Matousec has handled things, left us no choice but to “show” what we are capable of “as we have been last few years”.
We asked Matousec to re-test and, as per their rule, will pay accordingly. But rest assured this is the “LAST” time we will pay unless Matousec changes the way he publishes results willy nilly which causes his credibility to be questioned. We expect a more credible, scheduled testing to be done, which we believe will create a better atmosphere and will benefit end users without creating a bidding war for “$ for top spot” and without distrupting development processes which at the end of the day will affect end users!
Now I feel “dirty” and somewhat “cheap” that I have resulted to this, but I feel it had to be done to set the record straight as this matousec funfair caused much confusion to our users!
On a positive note I have been exchanging emails with David (the chap behind Matousec) and happy to report that he understands my issues, meant no harm and I am sure he will learn from this experience and improve his service.
I do believe David is honest and credible and will do the right thing and improve his services.
thanks
Melih
That is Melihs choice, not mine. I hoped he wouldn’t do that. At least Matousec is off my list as an independed and trusted tester.
Greetz, Red.
The only saving grace to your post is the fact you said “I think”. If you want to acuse someone, please do it on a forum not associated with any party involved, in any way, with your accusation.
Ewen 
[b]Please note : It is the collective opinion of the moderators and adminstrators of this forum that this post by user “horrified”, while technically within the terms of usage of this forum, does not conform to the spirit of this forum and is not helpful, which is the aim of this forum.
If this post, or any other post by the same user, raises any questions or doubt, quote them in this topic and we’ll try our best to give you appropriate information, without personal bias or private agenda.[/b]
Hi Panic,
As I said, you are doing a great job here and this is but another example. However, Melih slandered Scot Finnie in the same way (and several times at that) a little while ago and you (and the other global mods) didn’t say a thing.
H.
[b]Please note : It is the collective opinion of the moderators and adminstrators of this forum that this post by user “horrified”, while technically within the terms of usage of this forum, does not conform to the spirit of this forum and is not helpful, which is the aim of this forum.
If this post, or any other post by the same user, raises any questions or doubt, quote them in this topic and we’ll try our best to give you appropriate information, without personal bias or private agenda.[/b]
(:LGH) (:LGH) (:LGH) Very good post Panic (:CLP) So true (:TNG)
Well then drop the whip. 
Thanks to my fighting now end users are armed with better information as Scot has corrected his articles in many places!
Horrifed, maybe for once, you can be of use and go count in how many places Scot has corrected his article and list them all here so that we know the end benefit!
But then again, i don’t think you will do that, cos you dont’ care about anyone else but yourself and your own ego, right MPS (My Personal Stalker)
So i don’t think anyone should respond to you anymore unless you can do what i asked you to do: count how many corrections and list them all here as you simply have no purpose!
Melih
that’s not true, and anyway nobody knows it
and comodo pays testmypcsecurity, and we all know it :THNK
Leolas
We are grateful that you are part of our forums and genuienly willing to contribute something towards end users (no matter what products they use). However I would urge you to be more restrained in your wording, especially you are part of the very testing group that makes up testmypcsecurity site and YOU HAVENT BEEN PAID by comodo! Testmypcsecurity is a site run by volunteers who test the software themselves and these people do not get paid by Comodo and (I hope by no other vendor either ). Comodo pays for the domain name and for hosting, thats it.
Misinformation is a bad thing and won’t help anyone, responding to misinformation by even more misinformation is not going to help either. Hence I would kindly urge restrain to all involved parties.
thank you
Melih
Too Melih.
:BNC (CLY) (:CLP)
Hi Melih,
I completely agree with you
But saying that OA paid Scot is misinformation too, I think…
Anyway, I don’t know why I’m wasting time in these threads… This (it isn’t a real discussion, after all) won’t change our life… It makes it worse, maybe…
Live, and let live, as we say in italy 
;D
If you read my post: I did make the statement saying responding to misinformation by misinformation.
yes, lets move on with more constructive discussion like why Scot hasn’t done a review of CPF with Firewall+Leak protection mode? Afterall that was the mode that led him to create a blog that caused that response from us.
Leolas: Do you know why?
Melih
Scot, don’t you think you should re-test? Your advice to your users was based on a version that had a MAJOR bug that could have affected both usability and security of the product! Don’t you think your users deserve that?
Melih
Comodo doesn’t have bugs… nono
Windows doesn’t have bugs… nono
Linux doesn’t have bugs… nono
Apple doesn’t have bugs… nono
Zone Alarm doesn’t have bugs… nono
ProSecurity doesn’t have bugs… nono
Norton doesn’t have bugs… nono
Kaspersky doesn’t have bugs… nono
Browsers don’t have bugs… nono
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DHappy now that I do read your posts Fanboy ;D
Greetz, Red.
Online Armor doesn’t have bugs… nono. definetly no. ;D
They all have bugs…
however the question is which one has bugs that render their security pretty much useless! and that as a security product is a big NO NO
Melih
The bugs which harm your computer are the other serious problem, especially for a non tech 70 year old which I am.
I came to Comodo after being a Zone Alarm user. That one gave BSODs whenever it updated itself, on two different computers. I had a lot of trouble finding a restore point which worked, so was in big trouble.
OK so I found CPF 2 after trying others which also caused problems.
I really loved that firewall, so when the betas of CPF3 appeared I had faith in Comodo and have used all of them from the first. (I chickened out of the alpha)
At no time have any of the betas caused a problem I couldn’t sort out for myself, as a forum member, so for me I would not consider anything else.
They said that OA have bugs, and I recalled them that all programs have bugs ;D
reading is hard, i know…