thanks
Melih
Really it was a good idea to reveal confidential e-mails? …
They threatened by saying that they will reveal it. So it was their call first.
What when they will try and go the legal route by saying you shared the confidential email with the public in order to justify?
I agree with Melih that the all too common practice of taking money from software vendors for published evaluations of their products is dreadfully pernicious.
If your evaluations are of adequate quality, software users will pay for them. If not why not improve them?
Why not make them outcome-based as Melih suggests?
Best wishes
Mouse
they claim to be a “not for profit” organisation, so revealing how they charge their clients (the AV companies) is end user benefit. Also they said they will make this information public in their email we didn’t censor our posts…
I’m glad the truth is finally shown about AV Comparatives, I believe a lot more people will start to fade away from depending on AV Comparatives Test Results because They can’t test the whole product of CIS 5.8 due to the “Sandboxing Patent Feature”… and they tried to blackmail Comodo just because of Free Speech and Opinions about them? Heck, I would love to have any and all feedback, They just couldn’t handle bad feedback i guess… and if they can’t handle bad feedback then how will they ever improve their services?
Comodo don’t censor our posts, Comodo don’t delete posts even when it’s bad feedback about Comodo.
Regards
Jake
And that is the key:
They can’t test our product, hence don’t include it, but insuniate that only the good AVs are tested. all this while Andreas said:
Hi,
btw, do not be unhappy about the „other malware/viruses“ %s, you will see in the report that also other vendors score low there (mainly because that category contains non-PE malware). Furthermore, your ~90% is higher than what some few other products scored and similar to what other well-known products reached. You will see
regards,
andreas
What that means is all the PE based malware (the trojans, viruses, spyware, rootkits etc) is detected well by Comodo and according to Andreas: “higher than what some few other products scored and similar to what other well-known products reached”
Melih
if they want to be open they should have their price list published for testing. How much it costs and what it includes.
is there anywhere on their site where they mention that they charge the AV vendors for these tests?
Yes; “AV-Comparatives is an Austrian Non-Profit-Organization, which is providing independent Anti-Virus software tests free to the public” = About us - AV-Comparatives
It’s assumed that the tests are charged to the private business
“In order to get included in our main tests, vendors must fulfill various conditions and minimum requirements.” Although the requirements aren’t noted until you use the contact form to actually contact them about pricing I searched through their site and no price/actually notice of payment is needed is shown.
This PDF is found on their website
“Our sorting and testing methodology and the FAQ’s can be found here (PDF). [08/2008]”
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/docs/methodology.pdf (Page 10 #4)
so they don’t mention that they get paid by Anti virus vendors… AMAZING!!!
Their wording is very clever…the “tests free to the public”…OMG!!!
But did you pay them to not publish the results as they mentioned in the e-mail? 
It would cost more to publish the results on their website; so Comodo Opt out to pay extra so the results were never published publicly
pls read the blog (as suggested…)…everything is there…
we did NOT pay them to not publish the results as they mentioned in the email!!!
I like their money making setup,
pay to test
pay to get results published (if you want people to see that you did good, they need extra money)
pay to get samples ( why??, they didn’t write the malware, they just got them from some sources)
What else do you have to pay for I wonder??
As I was personally quoted in the blog.
I’ve posted both on avast forums (my antivirus) and Wilders.
IBK posted his side of the story:
I like how they are now saying comodo wrote wrong things except they are direct quotes ( as far as I know).
In the end all of these testing companies get paid by the vendors to test products. The only ones that don’t are independent testers ( and even some of them might get kickbacks).
I say the only real way to show your results are real are to record all of the tests done and publish the results. That way everyone can see how the test was conducted and what the true detection capability is.
I would say that the ultimate way would be to find someway to disconnect the payment system from the testing system.
All the results should be published: the good and the bad ones.
The av company should NOT be allowed to an opt-out methodology.
To join the test, the company should agree that the results will be published without extra paying and will necessarily be published.