Is this the kind of test Comodo Prefer to Participate?

There is a difference between a straight answer and what you want to hear…

What I wrote was the straight answer.


Hi Melih, let Jaki ponder some, as much as he thinks he knows what’s coming he has no inkling as to where Comodo is heading in CIS 4 and god forbid he’ll download it when it’s tiime, security has never been taken lightly by you guys and I know that and in the end that’s all that counts
Xman :-TU

Here is a straight answer for you. You know very well that the AMTSO does not review test as you stated. Someone must find fault in a test and reported it to the AMTSO. The AMTSO will review a test only when someone (not the tester by the way) like you Melih report it to the AMTSO review board as non compliant.

It is not the duty of the tester to submit his or her test to the AMTSO for certification. It is the duty of the test’s participants or even the public for whom the test was intended to decry it to the AMTSO if they think that test did not stay true to the AMTSO dynamic guidelines.

With all due respect you’ve been writing a bunch of poppycock just to avoid the fact that you do not want CIS to be tested while saying that you want it to be tested.


What on earth you are talking about? Stop tripping man.


I think I agree with Jaki…it seems like maybe Melih doesn’t totally understand about the process of testing/approving? ???

How is it I’m shortsighted when the only thing most CIS users want is to get CIS tested. Right now the only thing we have to show for is Melih’s word.

Peace and stop drinking.

I don’t know which document you are reading, but the document I read ( AMTSO Review Process ) does NOT state what you claim “It is not the duty of the tester to submit his or her test to the AMTSO for certification”

Can you pls point to me in that document where it clearly states that tester’s can’t submit for a review?

Because the document i read clearly states the following: “Any individual, entity or AMTSO member (the “Filer”) may file an Analysis Request” (

Thank you

PS: I would appreciate if you refrain from using disrespectful language.

The words you quoted above were my own NOT the AMTSO. Moreover, your own arguments could work against you. I could tell you as well to show me where does AMTSO state a tester should or must send his or her test to the AMTSO for its dynamic approval.

Once again, and as always with all due respect, you are just creating a smoke screen in order to win the unwary comodo forums users over while your strategy, at least to me, has always been quite clear and your strategy is to prevent or to delay CIS from being tested as much as possible until your intent becomes so apparent that you will have no choice but to yield.

It is up to you my friend you could do as you wish; however, when you used to say CIS is our product I thought CIS users had a say in CIS, but apparently not. There were at least two surveys to prove that most CIS users wanted CIS to be tested. Nonetheless the majority opinion got overruled by the will one person, you. The only thing that CIS users have to show for, like I used to say, is your word. And it just not enough for me.

PS: Could you tell me what disrespectful language did I use? I always carefully weigh my words and whatever words that I used were appropriate to the context of the subject at hand.


Thank you Melih for pointing out that document to me. I indeed read and reviewed it. The bottom line of that document could be found within its scope and I’m quoting:

“Scope: AMTSO shall provide for its members and the public at large the opportunity to request an analysis (an “Analysis Request”) of any review, article or analysis or other published work (collectively, a “Subject Review”) that meets all of the following criteria:…”

Now the main title of the document is: “AMTSO Analysis of Review Process” by the title itself I can deduce that a request for a review has already been made and the AMTSO with such a document is putting in place a policy infrastructure in order to deal with prospective requests for a review. In any event a request must be made first. The big question is by whom.

Well, the scope of the Review process is very, very revealing. The scope has to do with the fact of request and analysis by whom, by the AMTSO members, like Comodo for example, and the public at large, that’s by whom. Nowhere does it mention the tester, as a matter of fact it implicitly or even directly mentioned the AMTSO members as well as the public, just like I told you Melih.

From the bottom of my heart I would like to thank you Melih for providing a direct link to such a document and it was quite revealing.

PS: the quote above from the AMTSO Analysis of Review Process was posted only for educational purpose NOT to infringe upon the copyright of the AMTSO.



Oh dear…So all along you have been making those statements and calling me names and you haven’t even read the document! :o


Who told you that I did not read the document before, previous to my posts; don’t be hasty in making false conclusion. I simply was having a joke at your expense, don’t you get it? ;D

As a matter of fact that’s how I knew all along that the AMTSO does NOT require a tester to submit his or her test for certification. The premise of the document could be found within its scope and two entities come two mind the AMTSO’s members and the public.

Ah! Melih you should know when the joke is on you. ;D >:( ;D >:( ;D :wink:


Very funny…however not as funny as your statement:)

“It is not the duty of the tester to submit his or her test to the AMTSO for certification”

Can you pls point to me in that document where it clearly states that tester’s can’t submit for a review?

You still haven’t been able to point to where the document claims the above. If the document doesn’t claim the above, why are you claiming it?


Read over and over the document’s scope until it dawns on you and then behold…


You clearly made a false statement Jaki.


Oh yes you’ve really done it this time…What in the world you are talking about?

PS: Have you read and re-read the document’s scope? If not please do so now. If you have any question about the document’s scope please do not hesitate to ask me.


Hi Melih,
Thanks for the link. It seems that AMTSO is implementing a broad. I’ve read the Scope a few times in order to understand the cause of agurements between you and Jaki.

Yes, request can be made but as stated in the Scope 1b, the review process is just for publications that “must either be due for imminent publication or else must be already publicly available…”
Hence, this review analysis process is not for the compliance of a test methodology before it carry out any test. :-\ :-\

Assume my understanding is not correct. Is there any regular security tests (e.g. PCLS, AV-comparatives, etc…) under review or going to be reviewed by the broad?

Hi Melih,
To resolve the chicken and egg problem about AMTSO compliance test, I have the following suggestions;

  1. Comodo join the PCSL Total Protection Test (I think this test is more fair to CIS as it sums up both static and dynamic test results for total detection rate. They also say that they will follow AMTSO guidlines

  2. Comodo make request to AMTSO for an analysis of compliance of the test. (According to the document, request virtually cannot be made before completion of the test)

Thanks for reading the scope mon ami. I think Melih is still reading it as we speak, literally.


Thanks for that. I am fairly clear about this.

Your above assumption is based on an assumption that there are no other testing orgs who are being reviewed at the moment.

Also: the request for review is open to public…according to the document anyone can ask for a review. So why don’t people like Jaki who are amazingly spending so much energy on this subject request a review for likes of pcsecuritylabs? Because as soon as a review has concluded that they have followed guidelines we would be more than happy to get a test. Otherwise, we get a test…most likely pay…then run the possibility of failing amtso review board.

So getting a testing done by an organisation who has already got a green light from amtso is much safer bet for us. Hope you understand our position.



How about you guys start taking screenshots to prove your statements…I think it may be needed. :stuck_out_tongue: