Would you like to see comodo participate in Av-comparitives?

That was pointed out to Melih a long time ago. But he knows that CIS AV would be smoked in the state it is now.

Greetings all,

Honestly it is not clear at all why this particular thread changed it course to “AMTSO direction” ???

Subject of this thread kreated by Kyle is

Would you like to see comodo participate in Av-comparitives?

That’s straightforward and the question was

… Would you like Comodo AV to be tested? Or not?

That’s as simple and correct as that.

Yes / No / “I don’t care” (was added)

This is a Poll. Sure, the comments with the reasons regarding “the topic” are fine.

We have thread(s) dedicated to AMTSO , so why again? … which is definitely !ot! here

… and there is “flaming” mentioned already.
That is absolutely unnecessary within this particular Poll thread

My regards

eh?

the OP (Kyle) asked the Nay voters to explain themselves…So I explained!!!

Melih

Hi Melih,

Thank you for reply … but with all due respect, I disagree

etc.

That was at least the request for another different Poll

… nothing wrong with it… but different and not belonging to this thread

That’s how I see it

My kind regards

np SiberLynx…

Kyle asked why I said No, hence i replied…My reason is because of AMTSO…I tried to make that point…

Melih

As I stated in my OP, we already know that Defense+ is a great tool and no doubts, Comodo would score extremely well in amtso.

But, My OP is not about amtso. It’s about AV-C.
I’ll let the poll reach 100 votes then I’ll close it I think, that will be enough.

72 votes.
(62) 86.1% people would like to see it tested in AV-C
(4) 5.6% don’t want to see it.
(6) 8.3% don’t care.

So one thing I’d like to know…

Will comodo participate in AV-C? Or ignore the communities request?

Guys
Why would you test only the av component of a suite like CIS. It is a package. If you want to do that then I suggest that next time you go buy a car ask them to take out the brakes and do the test. They would think that you are stark raving mad. Why? because it is a package.
If AV Comp. came back and said that the av component wasnt that good it would prove that av’s are dead and complete suites are the way of the future. Why bother with a av test, why not do a real test using suites including CIS, Norton, KIS, Avira etc then you would have a REAL test and REAL results
shadha

In that case why test anything? If the brakes are ok on a car why test the steering?

Hi shadha,

Despite CIS is a Package many are not using it’s AV. (Defense+ does not belong to AV at all - it is part of the Firewall)

As it was noted here and in other threads the AV test only is important as a separate entity.

Testing other components of any Suite and whole Packages are interesting too but that rather be different tests.

It is not a matter of “…taking out the brakes and doing the test…” It is testing brakes and other car components … and then whole car.
If the brakes are not up to the standards - use other brakes from a different vendor.

My regards

DaRtH VaDeR Said:
"I want CIS and other security programs get tested in 2 ways:

  • how wel do they fight inactive malware (not AMTSO compliant)
  • how wel do they fight active malware in real-time (AMTSO compliant)

analyze all the data and compare the programs against each other!"

I agree.

Melih Asked:“how do u fight inactive malware?
There is no fighting needed for inactive malware…”

Detect and offer to quarantine or remove does it for me.

If you agree that CIS will score extremely well in AMTSO (which is a world wide standard that even avcomparitive has agreed to be part of), what are you gaining with a test that tests your ability to find “inactive malware”? Tell me what benefit one drives from finding “inactive malware” when they have been found to be “extremely well” at preventing and fighting malware from infecting your PC?

Melih

Melih you can’t seem to understand that WE decide what to allow or block NOT D+ So we NEED to know how well CIS AV performs if we make a wrong decision.

Is it that hard to get it ?

Cocktail…

You can’t seem to understand it has nothing to do with “performance”.

Detecting “Inactive malware” is a scenario that ONLY exists in tester’s machine. Do you really think when you get infected you have an “inactive malware” in your PC?

That is the point you are not getting! That kind of testing literally has nothing to do with what happens in the real life!

And that is what AMTSO has tried to address. Testing that can emulate real life environment.

Honestly, do you understand when I say: Inactive Malware?
do you understand the difference between Inactive Malware and real infection? Cos if you did, you really wouldn’t be writing what you did…

Melih

Active\executed ----inactive\not executed

Whats the difference? Comodo ANTI-VIRUS detects the same whether it’s executed or not.

Remember Melih, We are talking about CAVS, Not CIS as a suite with defense+. We already know its good.

How can this inactive test see the hidden malware which is actually “active malware”?

Melih

Melih, It’s what the community wants.

[b]Would you like Comodo Antivirus to be tested at Av-comparitives.org ?

Yes - 76 (87.4%)
No - 4 (4.6%)
I don’t care - 7 (8%)

Total Voters: 87
[/b]

I bet Comodo’s detection rate is higher than Kingsoft and Fortinet,
But their two was entered the test with Umm! “Tested” award.

If Comodo’s score are lower than it’s not matter.

Melih could you please re-decide.

That is not fair Melih. You have forgotten to mention that even if av-comparatives has to comply to the AMTSO dynamic test standards you would still not participate. The reason you would give would be that such a test was not approved by the AMTSO review board.

Nonetheless, what is misleading in all of this is that the AMTSO review board will not be involved in any AMTSO dynamic test unless someone reports that test of having something wrong. Then and only then the AMTSO review board would be involved to verify the AMTSO dynamic merits of that particular test.

You kept saying the same excuses. First you wanted to participate or at least get av-comparatives test samples and Andreas rejected CIS or your request for whatever his reasons were. Then you changed your mind and said that a dynamic test is what you are waiting for. When eventually you were showed that at least there is an organization that provides such an AMSTO dynamic standards test, suddenly you changed your mind again and stated that such a test is not approved by the AMTSO review board while you already know that the AMTSO review board will not review such a test unless someone reported it as not fulfilling the AMTSO dynamic standards.

Eventually, I can conclude even in the event of CIS 4 you will still say: “Trust me I want an AMTSO review board test”. What’s next in the evolution of your changing mind? God only knows.

Peace.

I do not know what to tell you Kyle; however, I could mention such a petition or survey with respect to the same subject. Please behold:

https://forums.comodo.com/empty-t46381.0.html

The CIS users have spoken clearly and Melih has repeatedly denied their requests.

Peace.

When did Melih ever listen to what people are saying on here (CBOClean anyone?) Having the firewall and the AV really being stand alone as he said it would be…People wake up! It’s Melih’s company so he does what he likes which is 100 per cent fair enough but please people if you think he pays you anything more then lip service then you are sadly mistaken. It used to be how can I help you now it’s I am helping you by…Big difference. I live in hope so people and things do change. Maybe I have him wrong and if I do then from the bottom of my heart then I will be the first to say I am sorry, but I feel the facts speak for themselves.

PS I am on topic thanks