Why doesn´t CIS 4 take part in the latest MRG test?


Why doesn´t CIS 4 take part in the latest MRG test?

Thanks for answering me.



That’s why.

Comodo always making new friends :-[




Shall we let wrongdoing go unnoticed?

Sorry, but We stand for whats right and good and will fight wrong doing, fraud, malicious intent no matter in which form they come in. If you want to make friends with these kind of people, then be my guest :slight_smile:

fyi: we did try nicey nicey approach with them initially…they insisted on their wrongdoings and false reporting and they even went and modified their “report” AFTER the fact…

Lordraiden: are you saying its ok to modify the “report” (testing methodology) after the test?


No of course it’s not Ok, I was just informing what happened, anyway I have been reading both parts and it’s not very clear.

In reply to Comodos accusation that we changed the methodology of our test, this is untrue.

You only have to think about this to prove their accusation is false.

The tests were conducted on the 18th of April and the report generated at this time. So on the 18th of April, all the results were in.

We started contacting vendors after testing was finished to inform them of the result of their specific application. We contacted Comodo to tell them CIS had failed. After contacting them, the above mentioned discussions took place (two separate sessions on 20th and 22nd April respectively).

We had fixed the methodology before conducting the test on the 18th. We conducted the test on the 18th, informed Comodo after the event that they had failed and discussed our methodology with them on the 20th to explain why they failed.

Where have we changed the methodology? They failed on the original test on the 18th, they were failed when we discussed the matter with them and they were failed when we published. The only thing we have done is add some explanatory detail in the report as to what is a pass and what is a fail.

We do not want any further posts on this matter.

I think that they didnt want to test malware against a sandbox because the efficency will probably be 100% and they found a bad excuse

lol, i appreciate you don’t mean any harm with your statements.

In testing, changing your “testing methodology” to match your “test result” is Pure and simple Fraud!!

I don’t know what other way i can describe it.

They told us they tested CIS and it failed…
we said ok tell us what was your methodology…
we looked at the methodology and said: as per YOUR methodology we did not fail…
They said (in their mind oh shit they are right)…and went changed the testing methodology they provided… and put exact wording to match CIS and said…now it fails cos we changed the testing methodology…

This is nothing short of testing fraud! :slight_smile:


I need to do this question ;D
When Comodo will participate in AVcomparatives? they already do dynamic testing.

We have asked them to include us in dynamic testing.
They will slot us in, if they can.
but we did ask for it :wink:


Oh good news, but Comodo is going to participate only in the dynamic testing or in all of them?
I think that comodo needs to wait until the next “season” to be include in all the tests of avcomparatives.

This test should score very high
with the current CIS 4.1.

all of them…

how else can we show off our “detection” capability… (not that we care about that but hey)…


I think nobody expects top scores at on-demand and retrospective/proactive test, but I think that in the dynamic test comodo will be the first one :slight_smile:
If comodo doesnt get a 100% in the dynamic at least you will discover maybe new ways to bypass the sandbox and D+ and you will be able to fix them.

always up for improvement…
we do expect 90%+ detection in static tests…

for dynamic tests…we expect total coverage…and only expect a theoretical PoC as vulnerability if there is any.

I think *.pdf, *.swf and java exploits are no1. for “only” expected 90+, to blame? maybe some nonstandard malware e.g. zip bomb and so

btw: we provided evidence about the 2 different “testing methodologies” document they provided.
they lied that they didn’t change the original document.

Lordraiden: both documents are there on our posts, did you see them? they prove they modified the testing methodology “AFTER” 18th…

they claim they fixed the methodology on 18th…
but why is there 2 different versions after 18th, if it was fixed then?

What they have done is nothing short of “Testing Fraud”.

And not only its “Testing Fraud” but they also “LIED” about “fixing the testing methodology” on their own forum by telling their users “they fixed the methodology before 18th”.

here…MRG: You have committed a “Testing Fraud”, come and sue me if I am wrong :wink:

I would not LET them benefit from Comodo name by putting our good name in anything they do!