AV-Comparative test results are NOT validate nor Audited today.
It won’t cost them money to audit as Comodo will pay the auditing costs.
Why don’t they want these results to be validated or audited?
Melih
I wouldn’t put 50K in helping AVC, instead I would use it for developing CIS.
Let AVC clean up there own mess, just my opinion 
+1
i too think instead of comodo spending on auditing spend it on improving Comodo infrastructure and products
its better comodo let the users decide whats good and bad
everyone knows comodo is good and comodo doesnt need any tests to prove it
Comodo has millions of users faith and trust and if it makes those millions of users happy by protecting them more millions of users will surely come
For eg :- avast at start had very few users and now it has more than 100 million users
What? 
And … misleading? If someone does one test, and someone else reads as if this test would be the only truth, then the reader misleads himself. 
Btw, comodo has “one version”, avira has a free antivirus and a suite. So you cant put just the companies names as description of what you are speaking about.
And why should the antivirus be bad in real world, if it was good in an antivirus test? An antivirus is not bad just because it is just an antivirus, and no hips. Its only not also a hips then.
I think it would be unethical for AV-Comparatives to put out any Test Results without auditing/validating them now.
They know they can get it audited/validated at no cost to them, but if they choose to put a test out without validation/auditing, then i believe it will be totally unethical.
Melih
I hope everything goes well.
50 000 is not little, at least in my eyes. I think it would have been better for COMODO to invest that amount money in improving CIS, improve CTM and other application that are essential; we have seen in many tests that CIS is very good and provide the user solid protection and even better, when the user understand and knows how to handle. CTM, for instance, is innovative and few programs are like it. That’s where the the investment should go on.
I can understand that certificates are important, which gives good reputation and it shows that’s it solid as well as reliable.
COMODO does a great work and has great products that are improving and evolves towards the right way
Regards,
Valentin N
I have read through this thread for the first time now and my personal feelings are that Mehli’s idea sounded interesting and the first reply by the AV-Comparatives representative sounded positive, but “not quite there yet”.
If the process takes time, it takes time. Why would a company like that let itself be goaded into making a Comodo forum their place of choice for discussions about their business? Having the lead programmer of Comodo keep repeating the same questions over and over again takes away a lot of his credibility in my book. It’s just not done. Passion is good, but tact is also necessary.
Melih is not a lead programmer at Comodo, he is Comodo’s CEO (Chief Executive Officer).
As CEO’s go, I find Melih very tactful.
[at]melih:
Sorry for jumping in - but hey: Isn’t it time to stop this trolling game??
Talking about ethics? Talking about trust? So what…
What about releasing some private mails?
Is this ethical? And do you show all of the story or only the part that fits to your argumentation? Only you know…
What about the released parts of the NDA?
Is this the whole story, or again only the part that fits to your argumentation? Only you know…
We don’t know because AV-C have enough moral and don’t jumps in your public flaming.
Everybody who understands a little bit knows what the on-demand test is about: reactive signature scanning. Point. So why you took part at all? Nobody said that this test claims to measure whole product efficiency.
The money argument: Look at all the other big testing companies. Why don’t you critizise them?
AV-C said that they are in the process of ISO certification. And to do that without sponsoring from single one vendor is good! Very good. So - be patient and please show how generous you are: If they get the ISO certification donate your 50k to “SOS-Kinderdorf”.
Any word on that?
Is it ethical to claim to be “independent” while providing data to “end user” disguised as “independent” with ZERO validation/auditing?
Time has come to arm the end users with information about the “reality” of these tests. It is no longer “ok” to disseminate information and pretend to be “independent”. Its border line illegal to do what AV-Comparatives is doing according to FCC guidelines.
And when confronted to “flush” them with the offer of auditing, once again they find a way out, how original!
How about, for once, be transparent and give end users validated and audited data??? Its totally unethical for AV-Comparatives.org to continue to provide these unsubstantiated, un-validated and un-audited information to public. Today they are NOT certified. Today they are still disseminating this misleading information. Shame on them!
I am sick of people who open their mouth and feed end users with “poison”, time to stand up for end users! and I am sick of people who aid them without understanding what they are doing by aiding them!
Melih
I like the new game AV-Comparative.org is now playing.
Trying to draw money out of Comodo. Now they are asking the $50,000 to be paid to a charity organization they say they support. Its really good if they are doing that. Honestly!
But Melih’s word are VERY CLEAR:
Comodo agrees to pay AV-Comparatives.org $50,000 for 3rd party auditors to validate AV-Comparatives.org tests
So dont try to come with your new users that have only 1 post and talk about where the money should go.
Money should go to 3rd party auditors to validate your tests.
In other words, AV-C would never have access to that money, so dont own it already and give orders where it should go, just because of an ISO process.
reply to melihs post:
Your only argument against there independence is that they take money from companies. (The same from all - so who has influence???) Tests cost money, peoples work should be paid etc.
If you repeat your points all the time they don’t get stronger at all.
You criticise them for taking money and a few days later you suggest to help them with money for certification. At least: funny.
They were in certification process even before you jumped in…
__
If we wan’t to critize those tests - we can: but than with real arguments! We could ask questions about methodology, about sample sets etc…
But beside that: Sad to see that none of my previous questions was answered.
What is ethical with your behaviour? Incomplete (=misleading by only posting excerpts) or complete information of people? Will you donate to “SOS-Kinderdorf” if they get the ISO certification?
reply to w-e-v’s post:
Stop.
-
I have nothing to do with AV-C. Count on arguments not on the amount of posts - Thx
I read a lot of nonsense flaming (IMO) and decided to answer - what’s wrong about it? Some problem with critical minds? -
Melih said “I’ll give you 50k for validation”. They said “We are already in process of ISO validation…and don’t need your money for that”.
But I found the suggestion nice: If they get the certification Melih can show how generous he is and that there are more than just words. Will he spent the money for the children? Nobody said, that he should give the money to AV-C first.
Unfortunately, the ISO 17025-2005 certification/accreditation is fairly meaningless by itself. But I guess you, and AV-C, are well aware of that. Which does make their assertions sound rather strange as far as any ISO accreditation is concerned. But, I guess you both must know that. Right?
However, if AV-C are, as you say, actually in the process of ISO 17025-2005 “validation”, then there wouldn’t be any harm in showing us the Scope document. It needs to published anyway and it shouldn’t be changed because of the validation process. Or are you just making this up as you go along?
Show us where Melih did actually said that.
Melih never said that he will give 50,000 USD for validation.
You are mixing up everything.
Exactly! Melih never said that he will give the money to AV-C.
So neither them, nor you, can really say or suggest what to do with the payment.
Only the auditors would receive the money in order to audit the tests AC-V makes, so they become valuable to end users.
Forgot to say, its “cute” how you registered yourself to comodo forums only to participate on this thread.
Sure you have nothing to do with AV-C? :azn:
The bit that I find fairly strange, and more than a little suspect, about all of this… is that as far as I know you really need an audit (by external auditors) to validate/verify an ISO accreditation anyway.
Yes - I’m very sure. Will you prove me the opposite? If you don’t believe me - google my nick. You’ll see that I often criticise AV-C Tests / AV-Tests at all in different security forums. So I hope this point is clear now. But i found this “argumentation” too interesting - so I jumped in.
Or have you anything against new players in (t)his public game?
__
About: ISO and AV-C, ok no validation. I was talking about post 6 in this thread ([url=https://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/comodo-agrees-to-pay-50000-to-avcomparativesorg-t79151.0.html;msg567153#msg567153] https://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/comodo-agrees-to-pay-50000-to-avcomparativesorg-t79151.0.html;msg567153#msg567153[/url]) - where Peter only talked about certification/accreditation.
But nevertheless - the post made clear that they don’t need Comodo for that. But as Melih has made his offer in this public game - I found the suggestion that he should spend the money to a charity organization instead very nice.
But there was no clear reply to that - so I asked.
_
And: Nothing against you both. It was a clear question (beside some others) to Meilih himself which he didn’t answered.
Maybe not, but if Melih could see the scope of their ISO 17025-2005 attempt, then he might agree to pay for the external audit (which would be needed anyway). I didn’t realise that AV-C were so obviously flush with surplus cash to reject that.
To me this looks awfully like ISO is being thrown around as some sort of sacred object without many of the throwers knowing much about it at all! To put it another way, I could pay over my $200 (or whatever it is these days), download the PDF & I also could cheerfully assert that I’m in the process of ISO 17025-2005 accreditation. It’s truly that meaningless as it stands now and it makes me wonder what on earth is going on.