When is the forthcoming test of AVComparative & any chances of CIS or CAV participation??
This report said something, if you read. This report said: “They agreed to be tested separately in a Single
Product (On-Demand) Test.”
Yes, now reading the report. The Quote from the report
“Unfortunately, although Comodo is a high demanded test candidate in this survey, Comodo did not
apply to participate in our 2011 test series, but they agreed to be tested separately in a Single
Product (On-Demand) Test”.
What does single product On-Demand Test means? Why Comodo did not applied to participate in 2011 test series??
It sounds like AVC was begging Comodo to test it. ;D
Good question, but I doubt that we have the proper security clearance to receive a clear/complete answer on that one, but maybe we will have better luck in 2012, if we survive.
It means that AVC received a lot of requests from the general public.
It does not mean that AVC repeatedly requested permission to test CIS but were knocked back.
And what about all promises back in 2010 that CIS will be tested in AV-C? I was waiting for every new test only to find out that we were told a fairy-tale again and no CIS in this test. And now I see that CIS again even did not apply to participate in 2011.
If CIS is so good as we all know why is COMODO afraid of participating in this test and meet face to face with Symantec and Kaspersky and other best paid software and prove they are better. Or may be we just think that COMODO is best ??? and this test may prove it’s not. That’s what developers are afraid of
@Adonis Its being tested as a single app by Av- Comparitives soon i understand.Simple eneough to put its results side by side when its done, and then we will all know for sure and compare away.For me i have seen eneough already that Comodos Av is up there detection wise, and far better than some big names, in many tests both personal here and there, and everywhere.
It seems to me that many people regard Av- Comparitives as the one and only holy grail when it comes to testing detection rate.It also seems to me all other testing organizations are not really taken seriously, and only Av- Comparitives will do.
Just my few bobs worth Guys.
Personally I think that the reason for Comodo’s reluctance to participate in the full AV-C dynamic test cycle is the issue of “dropped” files on the real system from sandboxed applications and whether or not these are deemed by the tester to be a fail.
IMO this should have been addressed a long time ago via a simple cleanup routine and a lot more focus placed on the widely-respected AV-C tests rather than the likes of Matousec.
It’s no good complaining that the methodology isn’t perfect since all the other vendors are quite happy to abide by it therefore it won’t be changing anytime soon.Not participating is damaging from a PR perspective especially after stating they would be.
At least this single prodct test is a start,albeit with a far less relevant on-demand test.
What’s so impressive about AV-C anyway ?
they don’t even use their own tools to test the security suites, they use other authors’ files to test < despite the fact that those files are malware or whatsoever, they are still not made by them…
why the big hustle then ? I’m sorry but, I really don’t C any point of such an organization that doesn’t test with their own tools to see the effectiveness and the quality of the security suite 88)
Now, some of their fans will jump and start yelling about their greatness :-X, please save it, because no they are not great folks :-\ :-\
Get real !
Did the programmer make the debugger themself? Did you make your own OS or are you using the work of others to get a GUI?
Why should they have to make their own tools to be a legitimate source? Its the result that matters and that they know what they are doing. Hardly any programmers only use their own tools for testing/programming. Please explain then, why should a virus testing company bother with coding their own tools?
Who said that they are not " legitimate" ? < don’t misinterpret my statement please ;D
All what I’m saying is that they are not great and seeing that is simple , they don’t have a tool which is made by them to test the security suites and find out whether they are good at what they are made for or not !
So, I’m sorry, but I don’t C the point of making a big hustle out of such an organization :-\
Besides, they have started their tests based on the old “legacy antivirus” fashion and if you asked me, not that professional. One of the funny aspect that they are taking to consider " a failure" is the presence of the dropped files< any one who has a bit information about computer security would lough out loud at this lousy part of the test :-[
So, why do we need our beloved product, which is btw more sophisticated than those tests, to be tested by such an organization ? you may say, Ok to get a better reputation … well, don’t bite me but if some1 didn’t credible the security programs themselves, they wouldn’t even look to see if they have earned those lousy certificates or not…
Thanks for your answer. Now i understand all. Its’ really unfair to score the fail if they see some dropped files without an infection of the system. Is it possible to explain AV-C how COMODO IS works?
Since Comodo and AV-C were in discussions for quite some time about CIS being tested,I can only assume that they couldn’t reach an agreement over what exactly constitutes a “fail”.It wouldn’t be an issue at all were it not for the general untidiness in leaving these remnants on the system and I’ve yet to see a good reason why this is the case.
It frustrates me personally because IMO CIS is as good as anything at preventing malware infection,but this ongoing issue with testing makes it look as if Comodo is running scared to its detractors.
Prehaps its silly not to use your own tools but it usually take skills to master the tools made by others too.
At least thats my experience. AV-C is a company doing massive testing, they has to value time vs correctness I suspect, so the results and the metology may be questionable.
Ofc there is no need to have CIS tested by “such an organisation”. Still if we want CIS to be tested vs malware AV-C is one option.
I guess we are arguing over nothing, cheers. : )