I didn’t tell what i think, so why do you wrench my words? Are you a sharper?
Yes, he did. And never hide it afaik.
No.
Are you sure the users are reading this way? I mean, aren’t the users reading “paid” = “posts as being paid, acts like a employee, acts by order of avast team”?
Then, we need to separate what other people said elsewhere. In all topic, users jump and said that Comodo was attacked in some other place. It’s wrong, ok. But we can’t join all these things together.
In other words, some users see conspiracy theories and actions. Maybe there are commercial interests and in some (or many) cases FUD. But we can’t - in my opinion - see the world with these eyes. A friend of many said that I wouldn’t understand United States at all if I think that all behind it are conspiracy theories. This makes me think, specially, when I read antivirus companies make virus/malware just to keep their jobs…
FUD is combated more with acts than with words. More with credibility, facts, than words or posts.
I think Comodo is doing a very good job trying to improve users protection. And won’t FUD and conspiracy theories change the fact of CIS is a very very good suite. The only one full free.
About the “sharing samples/malware on access” I’ll post a separate post. It worths a discussion that I could have already with other virus analysts and, more or less, is what Igor posted in avast forums.
You distort picture. Because you not just simply called Bob “paid”, you beat all in such way that Bob’s negative comments about DACS is a result of his employment on Avast. Hence according to logic Avast pays Bob to say spiteful things about DACS, among other things.
I suppose this is what meant by “crazy accusations and insane stories”.
Sharing samples/malware on access thoughts:
- Comodo thinks it’s fundamental.
- It already exists with some delay between companies (paid ones included).
- You must have a way to avoid “data poisoning” (distribution of false samples, fake malware).
- You must avoid sheeper behavior (one detects and all others come behind). Kaspersky has already “proved” that people do this at VirusTotal (Google will find the links to this).
- Other will think that the delay is necessary and does not break down the cooperation, on contrary, it increases the samples quality. For instance, Igor’s thoughts here.
- The huge percentage of duplications of shared samples. Source: Waste management: the current state of sample sharing linked by Igor in earlier thoughts.
- DACS is an online sharing system source.
Thanks James. Did not remember that option.
My comments:
Completely wrong assumption from Bob’s side. iObit stolen the work of Malwarebytes, i.e., the virus analysts’ work and the definitions.
But, after that, can we come back to discuss the technology itself? 
DACS is sharing the results and the malware. On DACS thread it can be discussed more.
Another error of good manners and interpretation. Not all people are fanboys.
Here could be the Bob’s thoughts, i.e., he won’t present any proof as this is not his work. He’s posting his opinions - with vehemence I agree - but nothing more than this.
Again, Bob’s thoughts. Please, read it out of the context, without prejudice:
He’s not bashing, just doubting. Some posts before he talks about false positives (the “sheeper” behavior I’ve posted before, the quality of the samples).
After that, all posts inflamed from all parts…
Sorry. It was not my intention twist anyone’s words.
Tech for me it wasn’t just his accusations, it was his sneering manner of trying to talk down to all of us here, such as him saying “Hope that’s simple enough for every one to understand.”
I thought a thoroughly unpleasant individual.
But what I said is totally factual right? and its factual based on what Bob has said, right?
thanks
Melih
this the pm that i got from bob
We must not have been reading the same thread at Comodo.
the last thing I saw written by Melih asked for my apology.
Since except for a few posts everything in that thread where derogatory remarks directed at me,
for simply expressing my thoughts about this new technology,I don’t there is any reason why I should
reopen the lions den.
Accusing me of Spamming the forum and worse because my assessment of DACS doesn’t muster up to Melih’s standards,
didn’t deserve the treatment I was subjected to.
You may tell Melih that if he’s looking to make peace which is probably a good thing to do, he can simply erase
my original remark which seems to have hit a sore spot and also remove the Thread he honored me with.
Peace,
Bob
You are making comments about moderator’s lack of friendliness that are defamatory and then you cop out because by saying you didn’t track it.
Can you respond to this?
Again thank you for the compliment.
It's not a matter of money. Why do you think people that moderates for free will do it better if it is for money?SS26 did not imply that. Don't put him words in his mouth.
Why do you think working for free is the passport to work worse or not having "fabulous demands"?Again. Thank you for your compliment. Still I would like to see corroboration with continuous accusations. Repeating this over and over again without corroboration surely has my radar up.
I find that hard to believe in light of the above.
Agree. He overwhelmed his reactions. Lost the equilibrium.
Knowing Bob, I can almost say for sure that this is not his intention at all.
He’s not arrogant, he’s not a fanatic.
And we know how to deal with these situations. I think it does not worth to flame… in any case.
Valentin, I’m not sure Bob allows the disclosing the contents of a personal message.
Anyway, Bob’s feelings are within it.
Not Eric. I thanked you for some of your interventions and thank Even because of his.
I have already say sorry (reply #74).
Eric, seems that I can’t say a word and you see second, third intentions.
I don’t know what to do or post about that.
Do you really think in Bob’s case you could achieve comprehension?
Melih, any thoughts about this? Thanks.
what aspects of it?
Avoiding:
- Fake samples.
- Duplicate samples (the huge increase of samples).
- The necessity to share samples asap and not with a small delay (after processing them).
By the way, afaik, one of the companies that shares “excellent” quality samples is a paid one: ESET.
Why would a trusted AV company give a fake sample to the other trusted AV company?
Duplication: its a simple sha1 check…
Once u process…u know if its malware…if u know its malware…u share instantly…
Makes sense.
But in case of million of samples?
Is it done this way? How long does a company take to share the sample?
if you share regularly…u won’t have millions of samples to share…and sha1 is totally viable even for millions of files…
how long company takes to share a sample: longer than a malware needs to do its damage!
Well… not really. The practice of deception is not limited to explicit claim.
But back to my point…
In leading by example, what virtues are on display in a snide taunt such as: “how much are they paying you?” What is implied in that question that couldn’t or wasn’t said in a much less innocuous and far more trenchant manner? Melih, what do you have to say to the subject of tact (not to the subject of whether Comodo should be defended, nor to the subject of whether you should be involved)?