I thought I made it clear:
But at least you seem to have nothing that clearly speaks against their tests?
How often took you part in the past?
Yes and No … u must make a different. Comodo and the Software is still in “good mouths” (my opinion too) … but its true, Melih “split” the mouths …
I still think the way you have choose was wrong Melih. Thats my opinion, i think you have make a mistake! But what is the problem? Why so a big show? I think not that you and your company need this! You showed in the past more often as well that you and your Company makes good software and have new ideas or go other/better ways than other companies! Why this big show now?
No, its not my opinion! if you would read in german security forums then you would know that i criticize AV-C. very very often, like other test-organisations too 
… and i am totally not interested in AV-C.´s pockets! ( i am only interested in my own pockets 
)
Why end users/public cames not first in the past? - as you had not published the results of the AV-C. tests?
And again…cause this big show it comes more and more questions… no solution, nothing will better … is that the right way Melih?
and [at]loveboy_lion … i want talk with the Ceo Melih, cause i still knew that you more like to attack peoples personality than you really want discuss objectively (even if the moderators deletes your weird personality attacking posts)
It´s not only a faith, its a law! But i want not say its unethical from you Melih. You have your laws, other countries have other laws … maybe it would help if you try to be more open minded Melih. Open for other opinions too … maybe… take a view from both sides, not only from your side or the US-side
I have no proof nor do they provide any proof in terms of Audit of their tests. So its hard to say they do it right or not All we are asking is transparency and ethical conduct in the interest of public…and we were prepared to pay for the costs for this…
I personally find it difficult to take someone’s word, whose livelihood depends on the monies that antivirus companies who pay them.
So just like any other decent testing organisation lets see some auditing from AV-comparatives…So far all we have is their word claiming
1)they are independent
2)they follow those methodologies
3)they don’t reveal that they are getting paid by Antivirus companies
So based on the above, I want to see some proof, like everyone else does…look at ICSA…AV-comparatives are made of people whose livelihood relies on the monies AntiVirus vendor pay them. We want some proof so that we can trust them!
Melih: This last post sounds quite more objective than all your others! Fine.
And so we must ask - why such a public drama?
And: If you want transparency in interest of public - be transparent!
How often you took part in on-demand tests in the past? Why never results were published by you?
thats my opinion too! And @ Melih, great, that was your first step in the right way! Much better than all before… its true!
answers were in the blog.
fyi: they couldn’t test the sandbox and they said our detection was comparable to other well known providers…(sorry not want you want to hear but hey ;))…its all in the blog…enjoy…
So you have no problem with an organisation who mislead the public pretending to be independent?
great thank you…so do you have the proof that AV-comparatives follow their methodologies?
I talked about on-demand test. There you took part and it’s clear that this test tests only signatures and heuristics.
WPDT and sandbox are a complete other topic and irrelevant as long as I talk about on-demand test. Yes this o.-d. test tests only (partly) detection and not protection - but that is known and you took part anyway.
In blog (exposed E-Mails) I can read form 89% AV-detection this year and many FPs (everybody can compare it to big vendors) and something about a test in 2010 where was statet that Comodo wanted to decide if releasing the results or not.
As far as I remember never a AV-C on-demand test-result was offical released by comodo. And now: Why not? Transparency? In how many tests you took part?
For that I can’t find the clear answers in your blog.
(ok, 500 euro extra if they should publish it on their HP and if you would use it for marketing - but that is known before. And now you bet 50k, so 500 euro shouldn’t be the problem. So what was the reason?)
The truth is, no Melih, i have not the proof! Its easily a question of trust! like i trust you and your company! And so i try to trust AV.C. too. But, i can understand you if u want have this proof! You pay money for the tests, you want this proof, so its totally ok for me!
But it does not mean that i have no other things that i really really criticize at AV.C. … par excample, i can not understand that problem, that they not can test your automatic sandbox. They told me, its cause they cant count if regular/safe programs will sandboxed! I can not understand the problem, cause for me its easily to count this, cause i would count this as a FP! Point! Then they could test you! I asked they for this and gave them my opinion for this, but still got no answer. (I asked this in public german security forum, so i think i can speak about this here in public too)
Maybe you should give them this opiniopn too! Maybe if you say its ok to count safe sandboxed programs as FP, than they will test you!
But back to the reality, in past it was so, you knew they cant test you. But you knew they can test you on-demand and you choose this on-demand test! In past you was not complain about a proof that AVC will follow their methodologies. You trust them too! So i think you can not complain today! But ok, how i told you before, i am totally siding with you, if you want this proof now! But not complain
Are you talking about AV-Comparatives? And whose livelihood? The livelihood of the organisation or the livelihood of the people? Surely, either livelihood does not matter here as they are a non-profit organisation.
not sure when they setup as not for profit, we have seen some documents saying that they only became not for profit this year…but again transparency for AV-comparatives is very difficult…
No validation/auditing of their tests…
No details about who paid how much…
Still they claim to be “independent”…
Does anyone know when they setup as a not for profit organisation?
LOL…and what does on demand test prove? my views of “detection only” tests are well known…pls open another topic to discuss it…more than happy to come and give you my opinion on it (or you can be bothered you can read all my forum posts about it…
so…do you know when AV-comparatives became not for profit organisation?
do you know if they audit/validate their tests? Do you have any proof to say that they follow their methodologies?
does anyone have any information about how much money they make? Like Companies House details or Dun & Bradstreet details etc?
what is the law in Austria (or wherever they are registered) about companies registering their companies and submitting their accounts etc?
thanks
Melih
BTW Melih, if u really want “creating trust online” and really want fighting against a company who spreading misinformation, who lie to endusers and customers, who make since many years fake software that does not work, but people still pay for their lies, than fight against AxBx Viruskeeper! VirusKeeper Antivirus
They spam spam spam the people with lies, and people pay much money to get their fake protection software! They lie with fake AV-Test certification and send thousands of emails to internet users and spread their lies again and again and again and since many years. And make money with this! That is unethical and illegal! Fight against this company if you want “creating trust online”!
http://hosts-file.net/?s=viruskeeper.com
Classification FSA: sites engaged in the selling or distribution of bogus or fraudulent applications
This classification is assigned to site's being used for the distribution of "rogue" security or other such applications, for example: SpyFalcon, SpywareQuake, AdwareAlert etc.
at loveboy_lion
Just imagine you would speak about yourself.
Example: If you make a contract about a test, would you say, i know for absolutely sure that i was totally correct, missed nothing, did all, if you cant be sure about it? They know that their test doesnt test “the world”. If something like that stands in a contract, its honest.
Look, isnt it funny? Antivirus test, “the big not-enough testing!!!”
But on the other hand you want them to have a contract without any exclusions. Like as if they had to claim they would be perfect?
And another example. About the money, and that you said like as if Melih just had needed to give more money for better result.
Would you want that someone accuses you for something just because it could be somehow theoretically possible what the accuse was about?
Before you anger around and point on a picture of an “enemy”, think twice, look from both sides.
In a discussion about others is it not only the other one who gets characterized, its also the person who speak.
And in general about what i read lately. The tendency to write assumptions as facts, or making transfers about unrelated things to speak about “theoretical possible behaviour” as if it was proved, is not doing right. Is unethical…
01-July-2008
[source]
No, not as far as I’m aware. But, that doesn’t mean there isn’t. However, there is a recognised issue of “transparency and accountability” with NPO’s for many member states within the EU.
… removed to reduce topic pollution (cited below anyway).
We spoke so often about “unethical”, “illegal”, “misinformation”, “trust”, so i thought there is no better place than here! If not, than i am sorry and a moderator can remove it.
… removed to reduce topic pollution (cited below anyway).
Kail, again for you : my off-topic post ( you are right, it´s off-topic, i told you i am sorry for ) was about “unethical”, “illegal”, “misinformation”, “trust”! What about we have discuss in the last 50 posts? We discuss about “unethical”, “illegal”, “misinformation”, “trust”! So, for me, its the best place to post it here - Cause it makes my “off-topic” post nearly topic (Forum Guidelines §6 point 2)! And so i want not and will not remove, change or delete it!
But, i am agree with you - If my post a problem or not right for the moderators or (really?) against the forum guidelines, than the moderators can remove it. Its ok for me! But i will not remove it.
And Kail, i am not here for making new friends! i am here for discuss, giving my opinion, or ask about something.
But thank you for your well-intentioned advice