Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Lisandro on November 27, 2011, 08:12:23 PM
-
Well, the discussion arise about how independent is av comparatives?
Do they get paid by the av companies?
Seems they're paid for testing the product?
They're paid to publish the results?
If the results are good ones, well, do you need to pay more?
They're paid to release/share the samples that were tested?
I'm publicly quoted in Melih's blog (Comodo CEO):
http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
Melih said:
AV companies pay these testing organisations.
I've answered:
Not all of them.
I was clearly thinking on avast company (my antivirus).
He said:
so AV comparitives don't get money from vendors?
I've finally questioned (:
Are they lying?
http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/about-us
Or let us say clearly: are they results influenced by money or paid - in this sense - by the av companies? Aren't they independent in any way?
Of course, regardless they are a non profit organization, they need money to live...
I have an NGO also. I'm completely independent of my financial sources.
And then:
But, do they? Before the testing or after (to publish)? Are the results influenced by this?
Can avast team post what is the real financial relationship with av comparatives?
Is it independent?
Can we trust it?
I've posted both on Comodo forums and Wilders:
https://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/avcomparativesorg-bullying-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors-t78869.0.html;msg564749#msg564749
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=312965
-
Interesting Tech. :o
Could this be why McAfee scored at the top this time?
-
Hi,
as stated in the methodology document of 2008, vendors pay for the services.
For the public main test series, every vendor that applied for inclusion (if he gets included) pays the same fee, in order that we can cover the costs of the tests etc. Of course, it does not have any influence on the results. Comodo never applied for the public main test series, as in that case results are being published in any case.
Instead, Comodo paid us several times for internal/confidential single product detection rate tests. As they are confidential, we can not publish them if Comodo does not want to. Comodo decided to keep all tests they commissioned to remain internal. If they would have wanted to use them in marketing (i.e. use the logo etc.) and to have it published together with a review, they would have had to pay additionally.
There are many wrong perceived things written (in a misleading way) by Comodo, so we may reply soon to clarify at least some of them.
-
Thanks for joying IBK.
Well, seems the financial relationship with av companies is now more clear.
But, in my opinion, companies should NOT pay to be reviewed in main tests. Otherwise, I can't really think on independence or full trustfulness. Well, the results won't be complete as some av products weren't tested as they haven't paid for it. Am I wrong?
-
Thanks for your reply IBK,
I've always been told that you are an independent lab and aren't paid by companies that make they product.
Your statement sort of shoots wholes into my prior belief. :'(
How do I really know how well any AV scores if the results depend on you receiving payment ???
-
Due to the complexity of tests and the work behind it, there is no testing organization which could live from nothing or user donations (I tried that at the beginning). I think that test results should be made available for free to the public; users should not pay for the external QA etc. of AV vendors.
We have a waiting list of vendors which would like to get included in our tests, but we test only ~20 products in the public main tests. As all the ones which get included (if they qualify) pay the same fee (even if they took the given opt-out option for the retrospective test), I see no way how it could influence the results. It is a very insulting to insinuate that results are influenced in any way.
Furthermore, my goal is and always was to provide independent tests (that's also one reason why I opted for a NPO instead of a company focused on making profits), so I get quite angry if I see people trying to bring us in bad light for their own purposes.
-
I can't see the reason for the opt-out methodology then.
The users are being conducted to a false sensation of completeness and security.
The results should be public and the av company should agree with this to join the test.
-
@IBK,
My intention was never to insult any one but simply to find out if my belief in the
impartiality of these tests was true or a myth.
Since I use some of these test results, I'd like to make sure that they are as independent as I
make them out to be.
-
My intention was never to insult any one
I really doubt that he was talking about you, but about them.
-
Interesting that Comodo don't want to have the results be published. Because I remember that before Melih was banned from Wilders, he made a statement there he had no problem with testing results to be published.
Greetz, Red.
-
http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1054
-
Mileh ends up with his foot in mouth again, eh? Not surprised, he is clearly the Rev. Al Sharpton of the computer security field.
I mean, come on....even if you use and love Comodo products you have to admit, Mileh's mouth has a habit of writing checks his facts can't support.
At the end of the day....you can either trust the documentation and methods the tester/s (in this case av-comparatives) provide you...or not.
While I still question the use of the results of such tests in such a rapidly changing threat environment, I never really had any questions about "who the tester is working for", especially in this case. I trust av-comparatives to give me the best possible broad-based product vs. product tests.
-
Always doubted Melih Abdulhayoglue ::)
-
Seems now it clearer how things work and who pays for what.
At the end of the day I won't be sad to know that vendors pay a fee.
But I still think, if I'm not wrong, that:
1. *Any* result should be published (in an open test), liking the company or not.
The company shouldn't have the option to not-publish a public test.
2. No problems on asking for a second fee if the results are published for marketing reasons.
3. Confidentiality agreements are to be followed.
4. Payments should never interfere in the results. If the user receive just *part* of the truth, then the trustfulness in the tester and the professionalism and the independence would be zero (at least for me).
5. Testers should public acknowledge their paid for the vendors to test the products (again: payments should never interfere in the results).
-
Tech, that list is what IBK explained, so there is no problem, no contradiction.
The only thing that was not clear (in this specific topic, but it does not mean it is not explained somewhere else) was which are the criteria for a company to get rejected from the first starting point from participating in the public tests.
-
Interesting that Comodo don't want to have the results be published. Because I remember that before Melih was banned from Wilders, he made a statement there he had no problem with testing results to be published.
Greetz, Red.
Hello Red,
My Two Cents;
It's not that Comodo Doesn't want to have the results published, It's the fact that they don't want to pay Couple Hundred Euros Extra to have AV C to publish the results.
You can see the results at Melihs Blog (http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/)
Jacob
-
I'm publicly quoted in Melih's blog (Comodo CEO):
Guess you're famous now... ;D
PS: I read all threads on all forums. I'm tired now... 8)
-
Tech, that list is what IBK explained, so there is no problem, no contradiction.
In this situation, when one says one thing and the other a different one, it won't be bad a confirmation from IBK.
which are the criteria for a company to get rejected from the first starting point from participating in the public tests.
It could be said, couldn't it? IBK?
Market share?
-
I'm publicly quoted in Melih's blog (Comodo CEO):
http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors
I always knew you were a Comodo fanboy.
-
YoKenny don't start picking on Tech as a Comodo fanboy, otherwise you may have world smallest wood pecker between your front lower door knob >:(
-
I always knew you were a Comodo fanboy.
No, he isn't.
As Tech always says his personal opinon, independently where he posts.
-
There is a huge difference between posting on a forum and being a fanboy.
I've posted on their forum but Comodo has never called me a fan. ;D ;D
-
I've posted on their forum but Comodo has never called me a fan. ;D ;D
Yes, I remember this incident... ;)
-
None of this Comodo sidetracking changes the fact that I'd like to see
the fact that the AV companies are charged for AV Comparatives services
in plain view. So that no one thinks that their services are free.
I'd also like to see their impartiality in their testing methods clearly spelled out.
If we are to rely on these test results, then every legitimate AV Company should be treated equally.
-
(http://www.comodo.com/images/about/Melih.jpg)
Melih : Are you looking for a fight with me?
-
There is a huge difference between posting on a forum and being a fanboy.
Thanks Bob.
Seems that YoKenny wants to bash me.
I'm not even an avast fanboy.
-
None of this Comodo sidetracking changes the fact that I'd like to see
the fact that the AV companies are charged for AV Comparatives services
in plain view. So that no one thinks that their services are free.
I'd also like to see their impartiality in their testing methods clearly spelled out.
If we are to rely on these test results, then every legitimate AV Company should be treated equally.
+1 Bob, you've matched the shot again.
-
I'm not even an avast fanboy.
We know that Tech and I'm not even a fanboy at any forum website or the software product I choose ;)
-
Hello Red,
My Two Cents;
It's not that Comodo Doesn't want to have the results published, It's the fact that they don't want to pay Couple Hundred Euros Extra to have AV C to publish the results.
You can see the results at Melihs Blog (http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/)
Jacob
Hi Jacob,
Thnx for the link :)
In my opinion the results are good and promising, if you take in consideration the relative short time Comodo is on the AV market.
Greetz, Red.
-
That guy sure got burned.
-
That guy sure got burned.
Who is that guy?
-
Spin-Doctor's advice to any would-be Saviour of the World
See yourself as the White Knight, the instigator of a new paradigm of PC protection?
Happy to let such a cult of personal adulation persist and grow?
Then try to always have someone in your sights to paint as the Black Knight.
e.g.
Symantec
MRG
Bob3160
AVC
-
Spin-Doctor's advice to any would-be Saviour of the World
See yourself as the White Knight, the instigator of a new paradigm of PC protection?
Happy to let such a cult of personal adulation persist and grow?
Then try to always have someone in your sights to paint as the Black Knight.
e.g.
Symantec
MRG
Bob3160
AVC
I'd certainly like an explanation of your statement. ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Bob,
He is talking about Melih, and you were one of his " targets/victems " as well ;)
Greetz, Red.
-
Spin-Doctor's advice to any would-be Saviour of the World
See yourself as the White Knight, the instigator of a new paradigm of PC protection?
Happy to let such a cult of personal adulation persist and grow?
Then try to always have someone in your sights to paint as the Black Knight.
e.g.
Symantec
MRG
Bob3160
AVC
I'd certainly like an explanation of your statement. ??? ??? ??? ???
Bob, you gotta watch The Dark Knight. You will get what he means. The thing about being a White Knight or a Dark Knight. The movie is good though :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/
It is kinda EPIC :)
A bit off topic so no need to say that I am :D
-
Bob,
He is talking about Melih, and you were one of his " targets/victems " as well ;)
Greetz, Red.
Understood. Not a victim but certainly a target. I guess the truth hurts. ;D
-
<comments removed>
-
Personally, I've never paid much attention to AV-Comparatives. They remind me of J.D. Powers, which in my opinion, is the poster child, of skewing data, to fit whatever results they want.
I think Andreas (IBK) is running a respectable organization and a lot of users were guided by his tests that are conducted seriously.
The only point was that we thought no company pays nothing. In fact, all pay the same.
If the results are not influenced by the payment, and there is no evidence at all of this, we can trust in av-comparatives tests.
-
<comments deleted>
-
So, I'll go with your opinion, and will remove my original comments.
Well... They can be there, no problems, no need to remove them.
-
<comments deleted>
-
I'd certainly like an explanation of your statement. ??? ??? ??? ???
Hi Bob. No cause for alarm on your part.
I hope you found the interpretations of my post given by others here to be helpful.
(I wasn't thinking of the movie 'The Dark Knight', more like a hypothetical chapter of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.)
In any conflict, important questions will be asked of, and revelations will be made by, each party. Each party must also honestly examine their own behaviour.
In a case where one party has a history of lambasting opponents while simultaneously exalting themselves, it makes it just that much harder to sympathise with them.
-
@Vladimyr,
Not a problem. It was my error for misunderstanding your post.
Sometimes when one acts in haste, he/she sooner or later finds out
that their actions where a waste. ;D ;D