Judging from this post by Melih and discussions in various security forums, it seems that Matousec is untrustworthy now.

So I’m curious as to why Comodo still thanks Matousec and doesn’t raise this issue with them?


If you check the dates of Melih’s post and Egemen’s posts on Matousec’s site, you’ll notice that there are no posts from Comodo dated after Melih’s response. 88)

Also, all the responses on the Matousec site are from Egemen, not from Melih.

Ewen :slight_smile:

I saw “2008-12-01”, “Thank you for testing our product.” which seems to be after Melih’s post.

So what’s the “official” Comodo view on Matousec? Is it Melih’s comment?


Melih’s post was also lodged on December 1, 2008.

So what's the "official" Comodo view on Matousec? Is it Melih's comment?

Since Melih IS Comodo, I believe his line, as referenced in your original post :

We will NOT put unnecessary code into our Security products just to pass these tests!

would seem to the official position, but you could always ask him directly by PM.

Ewen :slight_smile:

OK, I think I get it now. Thanks!

However, if Comodo does not believe in all of Matousec’s tests then why do they have an affiliate link in Matousec’s website?

Because Matousec is an affiliate of Comodo, not the other way around.

Comodo didn’t put it on Matousec’s site - Matousec did.

Your question would be best directed to David.

Ewen :slight_smile:

P.S. The above is all supposition on my behalf as I can’t find any affiliate info (Comodo or otherwise) on Matousecs site. Can you please provide a link to the Comodo affiliation info? Tnx in advance.

Just my opinion :slight_smile:
Somewhere comodo and matousec made an agreement, otherwise there wouldn’t a recommended link on matousec web site.Matousec certainly doesn’t do this for free does he?

The Recommendation column in the table contains links to the online stores or products' webpages of the vendors that we have affiliate agreements with. If you click on any of these links and then buy the target product or other product offered on the target webpage, we will profit from it.

Now ATM, CIS is the only product not linked to its general product page but instead to Order Processing Form for the paid PRO sevices whereas the CIS score mention FREE (yep it looks like they corrected that above mentioned misrepresentation of CIS as evaluation version).;topic=33628.0;attach=26997

I would rather guess it was not Comodo that asked (or agreed) for such blatant inconsistent presentation as many users willing to install CIS for free would be discouraged seeing that order form which was meant to be accessed from CIS product page only if the users were willing to purchase or try PRO services for CIS (which as a Security Suite remain the same).

Bottom line: Matousec tested CIS, the free one, but linked to the order form for the PRO value added services (which BTW include also Trustconnect paid subscription services for free).

[attachment deleted by admin]

So did Matousec put the link up without asking Comodo? But how come on Matousec’s website (Shemp Howard quoted the info) it says, “we have affiliate agreements with”?


An affiliate progam is generally commerce based and is entered into knowingly by both parties. You’ll probably find that Matousec get a monetary kickback if someone buys a Comodo product after having arrived at Comodo’s site by clicking on a link in the Matousec site.

I don’t know this for certain, as I don’t work for Comodo or Matousec and am not involved in any commercial realtionship between the two parties.

Having said that, this is how affiliate programs usually work.

Ewen :slight_smile:

But if Comodo believe Matousec to be an unreliable source of information then why do they still agree to the affiliate agreement?


Probably because they are not stupid.

I don’t have to know, like, or trust you to let you steer a little bu$ine$$ my way do I.

I don’t think comodo see Matousec as an “unreliable source of information” many of those tests are good and Matousec has helped make some major improvements to the comodo firewall + other firewalls.


What Melih and some people here dislike is some of the new tests that has gotten way of, tests that don’t test anything that could be used by an attacker or a malware/trojan/whatever.

Tests like the “System Shutdown”. Where Matousec means that a malware could close the system, and install it self upon boot. Comodo means that you restart the computer anyway and that it could as well install it self then.


Anyway, I got no hard feelings against the Matousec tests, lets just hope they stop adding wierdo tests.