It was not an assumption, it was an impression based on what AV-C posted on their own forums and the fact that the topic was locked on creation.
Without wanting to state the obvious, even though I do secretly enjoy it, a locked topic by a Forum Administrator really does mean end-of-discussion.
I’d prefer not to. Considering the above, it could be construed as being fairly hostile by AV-C.
But, I’m surprised. Given what yourself and SLE have asserted and posted here, I would have assumed that both of you would have posted multiple questions on AV-C’s forums by now.*
*Now that is an assumption. Btw, I do try to say “assume”, “assumed” or “assuming” when I’m making an assumption. :)
Look how old this topic is. It is from february and after the answer from AVC no other member have answered again. So the moderators can close this topic if no one interested anymore.
SLE, you are now being disrespectful…reply number 173 clearly answers your questions. If its the langauge that is the issue pls say so, we can expand on the wording you might not understand. But to anyone who speaks good enough english, my answers are pretty clear in the reply # 173.
the question still stands:
The question still remains: Why do AV-Comparatives.org call themselves indepedent? it is clear that they get paid money from AntiVirus vendors and they do not reveal it to public where they reveal the reports. They don’t want to be audited, why? Are they hiding something that they don’t want public to see?
this is so funny…they try to mislead public and never say that they get paid by AntiVirus Vendors!!! OMG…this is truly amazing!!! They have a difficulty with being straight and honest… Thanks for that!..they even mislead their own forum members…that is bad…really bad!!!
It is not my aim to be direspectful and maybe it’s a language thing - but I only see your opinion about on-demand tests (I already said that I share much of it) BUT even in post 173 I can’t see an answer about:
Why you joined those tests at all? How often in the past? Why you never informed your customers about the results?
So maybe it is easier you quote question for question and give clear answers. Or complete my sentenses
We took part, because…
We took part … times in the past.
We never released the results, because …
here is reply #173
because the way detection is touted around is misleading to start with! it proves nothing of protection, yet promoted as score of protection, which is totally misleading. this is why we wanted avc to do a “proper protection” tests and hoped that with working with them, we could talk sense into them…but to no avail
i know of 1 test they did and its result which i shared…
but the issue is still:
The question still remains: Why do AV-Comparatives.org call themselves indepedent? it is clear that they get paid money from AntiVirus vendors and they do not reveal it to public where they reveal the reports. They don’t want to be audited, why? Are they hiding something that they don’t want public to see?
don’t you find this misleading? AV-Comparatives get money from AV vendors yet they make the forum member believe that they don’t by their misleading wording…its totally unethical…
Is there a reason why your citation stopps when it becomes interesting? Lets proceed with the next sentence:
“An example of a connection that is ordinarily expected by viewers and need not be disclosed is the payment or promise of payment to an endorser who is an expert or well known personality, as long as the advertiser does not represent that the endorsement was given without compensation.”
And now:
“However, when the endorser is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation…”
So, all fine now according to ftc. A “testing organisation” (expert) is to be expected to take money for being part with his expert opinion in a later advertising. The antivirus company doesnt say, it was free.
If you had wanted to citate the paragraph §255.5, why did you stop? And then you also spoke about ethic related to your citation, while you used a half of the words.
ok, that’s your choice and your presumption! Its ok for me
Believe me, i asked many many questions to AVC (to IBK from AVC) and i criticized many many things. But i do it in an german security forum (rokop-security). Cause there i can speak in german language with IBK from AVC. Thats more easy for me!
thank you, sometimes its not easy to understand all or understand the right meaning, so maybe sometimes i understand something wrong or its not all clear for me, but i try my best. But we can speak in german if you want, than i will understand you better! ;D (just a joke)
Your interpretation of the “law” is different than expert lawyers I have talked to. Are you a lawyer? I am not thats why I asked experts in Law what that meant, I suggest you do the same before you conclude anything. I gave the full link at it has many different scenarios that apply to different circumstances since i had nothing to hide…so do not insinuate pls, thx.
The issue is: AV-Comparatives can’t call themselves independent while getting money from AntiVirus vendors and not mentioning that these tests were paid for in the report they publish…they should have clearly stated that they get paid for these tests…they did not…that is a no-no border line illegal issue (according to expert legal opinions).
Ok. So nothing with details, only abstract words.
What makes me wonder:
Everybody knows how on-demand tests work, and that it only tests signature detection. So it’s nonsense to hope that it shows protection-capatibilities. But you still joined.
You as CEO of Comodo know only about 1 test - ok. So there was only 1?
but the issue is still:..
I answered in post 179 - but many of those aspects we already had.
also did you see this? http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1025
don't you find this misleading? AV-Comparatives get money from AV vendors yet they make the forum member believe that they don't ...
Short and abstract answer (like yours above) - could be better of course. But "international companies around the globe" - ok, we could guess who is ment. Only partly information, yes - wrong information, no.
@clockwork: Exactly that I indicated in post 179 ! Example 1 is even clearer.
I asked you, “why you stopped”, or"if there was a reason for the way you citated". Look how easy it is that you feel “accused”.
If you call my question that rises when i read the 255.5 compared to your citation, if you call it “insinuating”, how should i call your speaking about av-c?
You insinuate they have something to hide, they this, they that.
Thats what i found allways strange. Giving big hits on others faces, but if a feather comes back, you describe it like a rock.
And i asked you, the one who citated. I didnt spoke about that somewhere else. If that is wrong, asking is wrong.
Ehm, wait.
As stated earlier: I had no problem of showing detection ratio as long as the full capability of the product could be tested, as detection is not the first line of defense.
here is what av-comparatives said(full text in my blog):
[b]“your product with the current sandbox and the current way it is working, is not compatible with our automation system and as your sandbox”
“Furthermore, your ~90% is higher than what some few other products scored and similar to what other well-known products reached.”[/b] (this relates to PE only detection which AVC claim similar to other well-known products)
So we thought, lets establish a relationship with AVC, and try to educate them about new innovation so that they can test it. At that time AVC was an AMTSO member which we thought was a very positive move.
But they turned around said: they can’t test our product and they left AMTSO full membership and then started bullying around…
OK, fine. But, asking many questions is one thing, raising a topic on a subject that AV-C made clear that they didn’t want to discuss is another.
Indeed, as it is yours. And as such I will, of course, hold you personally accountable for any unpleasant outcomes of the nature that I warned about (which you duly ignored) in encouraging forum members in this most unwise course of action.
Even there they do not accept that they get paid by Antivirus Companies…amazing to see…in this day and age they think they can suppress this information from public…shame on them…(btw…they claim they want to be like ICSA yet they don’t show our Certification of ICSA on that post :)…they are experts at misleading with their words. Shame on them.
1)they still do not admit that they get paid by AV vendors
2)they say they want to be like ICSA and get certification, but they don’t display Comodo’s certification from ICSA
All in all, a typical misleading post by AVC
Honestly guys, why do you put up with people who want to mislead public for $$?
An organisation is an entity containing multiple people (experts), whilst the FTC guide line clearly states “expert” in the singular, not the plural, both in the name and context (the section is about individuals, famous or otherwise).
In short, what Melih snipped is not in anyway relevant to AV-C.
and then started bullying around…