But beside all talking about the words “independent” and “validation/auditing”… My honest opinion is that you must criticise tests themself in there methodology etc. if you want to put some arguments.
But to start public flaming with releasing parts from E-Mails or NDAs where nobody beside the 2 parties knows which parts are left out and if we from outside really see the relevant parts of the story is nonsense. And when I then read that the same person is talking about ethics/moral it’s just sanctimonious for me - Sorry.
And there are so many other tests out there that don’t have the label “independent” but are not certified at all. But if Comodo is good in this tests all is fine? Come on - a little bit more objectivity. Nobody says that AV-C is perfect, but the whole discussion is more than strange. Look in other security forums, this is not good for Comodo. (In germany the tenor is often: the product is quite ok - but the CEO is an egoistic idiot)
Sorry? Yes, you probably should be. Couldn’t see the wood for the trees eh? After all, you must have missed the bit where AV-C attempted to blackmail Comodo I guess… it is why Melih released those emails in the first place.
Nobody really knows if it was only a language thing and beside all: Melih was the first (and only) who did it. And not only once, part for part, again and again: Emails, NDA …
But even than: Was it complete - or do we only see what he wants us to see? I don’t know. Creating trust online - wow.
Nobody would have said anything about REaction if there were some internals made public first by AV-C. But Melih was the only person who made things public - so there was action.
Thats my wood…
I see. Since AV-C are not contradicting what Comodo have published, you’re seeing that as AV-C being noble, as opposed to being unable to contradict it. That’s indeed some wood you’ve found there.
However, even if language was an issue, as some have claimed it was, then AV-C would have been completely insane to threaten Comodo in anyway whatsoever. But, that is exactly what they did. And with a deadline no less! This is your “action”. It was the explicit threat, with the added deadline that forced Comodo’s hand.
Of course, a threat with a deadline really does take this way beyond any plausible language translation issues. You don’t act like that because of possibilities and maybes.
By saying this what do you exacly mean
You only think this because he wants the truth out and want to support AV-C by auditing the test which is beneficial to users Do you find any harm in that unless something is really wrong in their results and tests
Or
You say this because he Provides security for free
In any case i dont think he is an idiot very few people out there do anything for free
and by the way how many CEO’s do you know actively take part in discussing things with users
i don’t know what you think but if he was an idiot he wouldn’t be running comodo for so many years now that’s for sure
Just to pop in for a sec.
Am not going to partake in this discussion but will instead monitor it.
I can see this is a heated topic so I am asking before someone inadvertantly says the wrong thing, please take a moment to breathe before posting.
Thank you.
No. Why unable? Not everybody cares about Melih’s statements or want to play this public fool game - thats all. BUT: That doesn’t mean that he is right.
Again - No. Nobody was forced. If they should have released anything then there would have been enough time to react. Now, we don’t know if we only see a part. And he made too much public again and again. Releasing private EMails to public is a NoGo - esp. in the security area. But I won’t go into a circle and repeat me again, like he does since a week. But all his doing has nothing to do with ethics and he was the first who came out.
Nothing is free
I only said something about the picture that exists outside your Comodo forums world. My opinion about the person is irrelevant here. I go for arguments.
But look a little bit outside Comodos Forums - many people argue that it’s the same egoistic blah blah blah as many times before.
[at]John:
No fear,I think the discussion won’t go out of order - but I’m also capturing all just to go sure.
Confused - whats now? Arguments over? Especially with you I thought it was a fair discussion…
Whatever, we are in CEO’s corner and my main questions to CEO Melih are in #29 and #32.
So if there will be no answer about that donating issue I suppose Comodo doesn’t cares about it.
So SLE, will AV-comparatives will continue to claim to be “independent” while getting money from antivirus vendors and continue to publish unvalidated and unaudited tests?
It is sad to see people protecting misinformation and is not interested in public interest and try to derail the search for the truth…good try but sorry you won’t succeed in your attempt at derailing us. We will continue to demand the truth! The days of spreading misinformation and getting paid for it is over…we will not stand for it!
It may have been fair from my side, but the more you posted the more obvious it became that it didn’t seem that fair from your side though.
The donation request was a poorly thought-out and immature stunt at best (probably another language problem I suspect). But, what’s this to you? Are you from SOS Children’s Villages?
I think you’re just trying to troll Melih personally. You’ve certainly been rude enough.
Thats exactly what my first answer to SLE was.
I suspect he has a strong connection with AV-C or with the organization that AV-C wants that COMODO supports.
Why do you have to much interest in the money SLE?
Your getting paid a percentage? :azn:
I don’t know. But even if the tests are not certified or independent in a hard way that no vendor paid anything. That says nothing about their quality. So many other tests which are presentet often are not certified or really independent. When will you attack them or help them to get certs?
... We will continue to demand the truth!
Thats fine, but for me the truth is between the lines. If public sees only excerpts (from private things - which were never made for public) it has for me nothing to do with searching for truth or with ethics.
[at]loveboy_lion
I have a good job, thx. And you seem more to know about how I spent my time than I - wow. But enough - I’m not going down to your poor niveau and attacking people. :-TD
I was just interested. But no answer sometimes is also an answer. All other things are written - different opinions, maybe. No prob. Thank you for beeing the only fair replying person.
You can suspect many things - I said before I have nothing to do with AV-C and also not with SOS Kinderdorf. I wasn’t the person who first talked about a money offer in public, in a guerilla marketing style
Why don’t you just accept that there are people with further questions or different opinions, even if they have nothing to do with both parties?
So for some people it may be enough to read again and again “Not independent - cause they take money and have no certification…”, “Not ethical - cause they claim to be intependent…” - for me it is not enough.
_
It was never my intention to attack any person in this thread! So if somebody feels so - sorry.
But beside that I’m quite shocked to see how some members react: Pure claiming somebody is part of some organisation (only because of the post number and even if the person says multiple times it isn’t so), or even personal attacks in a really poor manner.
Start your own online Kettle and help those in real need of help :-TU
What type of Online Red Kettles are available?
Individual Kettle - An Individual Kettle is your own personal online kettle where you can invite others to donate.
Team Kettle - A Team Kettle consists of multiple Individual Kettles. Funds raised by each Individual Kettle within the Team Kettle are combined and reflected on the Team Kettle page.
Company Kettle - A Company Kettle consists of multiple Team Kettles. Funds raised by each Team within the Company Kettle are combined and reflected on the Company Kettle page. Individual Kettles can also directly join and fund-raise for a Company Kettle without being a part of a Team.
SLE: Are you saying that its ethical for AV-Comparatives to call themselves “independent” while getting money for those tests and not revealing to this public? (oh btw, this is illegal here in the US according to FCC regulations…)
Why it has not disturb you before? Why you have work with “illegal” AV-C. together before? Is it ethical for a security company to work together with an “illegal” company? - a simple yes or no answer will do, thank you Melih.
So, and now out of irony
Melih, i think, that all is not the question! I can understand you, that you felt attacked from AV-Comperatives with their email they had send to you, that they want publish something. And you only defends your company and yourself and your really good product now!
I can really understand you. But the way you have done it, the way how you wants defends yourself and your company, that is critical - cause now, the situation is that the only one who has make something public, that is you. “Creating trust online” … hmmm -________- … critically …
I want not say something new now, cause i think SLE have say all. After all this big discussion and this big public show, i can understand the point of SLE too. - As well as i understand you Melih.
I think, in future it is better to make not so a big show, it is better to clarify this all without the public. And not post every day the same questions about ethical and so on again and again and again. It makes nothing better! That is no solution! do concentrate on the good work that Comodo really done, do, and hope will do allways! - then all is ok
Here is no simple answer possible and you do a wordplay with “independent” Melih. “Independent” is a nonsense word at all.
But some details:
Your starting point is wrong - and thats why the question becomes irrelevant:
That they get money from vendors was long known even before your posts.
In their methodology (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/methodology.pdf) interested people can read it since a long time (page 14f.)
But where is the evidence that this fact makes the test unreliable?
And in that understanding independent for me (sig!) means that the vendors (who all pay the same) have no influence on the results etc. - thats all.
So what remains? Is it unethical that they not print with large letters in every report “Paid by all participants” and only written it down in there methodology (to which is reffered in every report)?
Everything depends on somenthing, esp. in buisness - “independent” is a nonsense word at all.
AV-Tests always depends on many things:
without money no tests would be possible. In that point they are dependent.
the tests also depend from methodology, from samples sources etc. In that point they are dependent.
So now I wait for your answers! What is with all the testing organisations?
I’m not totally sure, but I suspect that it might have had something to do with all the other AV testing organisations not attempting to blackmail Comodo into censoring their own forums.
