Matousec: Proactive Security Challenge 64 (bits)

Latest news

• 2012-03-27: A response from Agnitum Ltd., the vendor of Outpost Security Suite Pro, has been added.

Agnitum Ltd. – the vendor of Outpost Security Suite Pro

2012-03-27 (Outpost Security Suite Pro 7.5.2.3939.602.1809 scored 86 % and took 2nd place): Securing 32- and 64-bit systems is in many ways different due to Microsoft Kernel Patch Protection. According to the tests some products protect only 32-bit OS's. The technology behind our products lets us protect all PCs - both 32-bit and 64-bit.
Konstantin Kutikov
Agnitum's Head of QA Department

Source: http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

Latest news

• 2012-04-16: New results have been published for:
  • BullGuard Internet Security 12.0.218
  • FortKnox Personal Firewall 8.0.205.0
  • Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 12.0.0.374
  • Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete 2012 8.0.1.165

The very same version of Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 was tested almost a year ago (on 20th June 2011) in former Proactive Security Challenge (tests were performed on 32-bit Windows XP platform) and its results were excellent, over 90 %.

Source: http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

[trjam]

kudos to Eset, at least theirs made it out of the red.

Avira still doesnt know how to make a firewall. I know, I know, consider the test site but it isnt about the test sites, it is about all of the test sites.

I never trust one or two, but if something smells like donkey dung on a continued basis no matter who tested it, then it is likely crap. And Webroot is acquiring a distinctive smell to it, that I can only hope they eradicate before to much longer.

[datarishik]

VirusBuster Internet Security Suite scores 71% (is placed third) in the newly published results.

http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

Latest news

• 2012-05-21: New results have been published for:
  • Ad-Aware Total Security 21.1.0.30
  • eScan Internet Security Suite 11.0.1139.1150
  • Total Defense Internet Security Suite 8.0.0.87
  • VirusBuster Internet Security Suite 4.1

VirusBuster Internet Security Suite is a product that is based on the Outpost engine. This is why it did not surprise us that it scored well and took the third position in our challenge. It is natural that products that are based on third party engines do perform a bit worse than the original products. Most common reasons are that the derived products use slightly older versions of engines or that they are not so perfectly tweaked or do not utilize all possibilities of the used engine. This is the case of VirusBuster. It finished with 71% score, which means a protection very close to what Outpost Security Suite Pro offers.

Source: http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

Latest news

• 2012-06-18: New results have been published for:
  • ESET Smart Security 5.2.9.1
  • K7 TotalSecurity 2012 12.1.0.119

ESET Smart Security goes up by 18 %. It is clear that the new HIPS feature in ESET Smart Security is under development and it is getting better and better with every bigger update. There still are some unsolved problems and uncovered attack methods that prevent ESET Smart Security to join the products at the top of the table in Proactive Security Challenge 64, but the progress is evident. We hope to see even more improvements in this product in the future, keep up good work!

Source: http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

Latest news

• 2012-07-13: New results have been published for:
  • avast! Internet Security 7.0.1456
  • ThreatFire 4.7.0.53
  • Outpost Security Suite Free 7.1.1.3431.520.1248
  • ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall 10.2.064.000

Except for avast! Internet Security, the products tested today are free of charge. Outpost Security Suite Free and ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall are free versions of commercial products that we already tested in our challenge. ThreatFire is new to Proactive Security Challenge 64.

Source: http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...4/#latest-news

[Amin]

anyone knows about these tests ??


source:
http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...64/results.php

[TomAZ]

I think these results are pretty reliable.

[Amin]

how come Esset stands higher than KIS and others ?

[fax]

Already posted in a single thread here:
Matousec: Proactive Security Challenge 64 (bits)

May be good to keep the discussion there....

[Amin]

thank you for putting my thread where people rarely come to.
besides , that was a firewall test , not a proactive
noone even saw this thread

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by a m i n

thank you for putting my thread where people rarely come to.
besides , that was a firewall test , not a proactive
noone even saw this thread

Matousec's tests are proactive tests and not "pure" FW test. So FWs with HIPS components fare better than FWs without HIPS features.

It's hard to compare different FWs with this test because they use levels when they are testing software. If software doesn't pass first level they don't test it on next levels, so we never know how it would do if it was tested against all test. This is IMO the biggest flaw in testing procedure of these tests.

News

Privatefirewall Awarded (2012/08/07 09:30)

Privatefirewall is the third product to succeed in Proactive Security Challenge 64 by beating the 80% score limit. With its 88% from today's testing, Privatefirewall took the second place in our challenge, 6 % behind leading Comodo Internet Security Premium and 2 % ahead of the currently third Outpost Security Suite Pro. Congratulations Privatefirewall!

Proactive Security Challenge 64 now contains results of 33 different security products, many of which were tested more than once in different versions. Only 9 of them are not in the red zone, which means only 9 out of 33 products scored above 30 %.

Source.

2012-08-07: A response from PWI, Inc., the vendor of Privatefirewall, has been added.

PWI, Inc. – the vendor of Privatefirewall
2012-08-07 (Privatefirewall 7.0.28.1 scored 88 % and took 2nd place): Thank you Matousec for this latest testing effort for Privatefirewall and your continued commitment to security software vendors and their customers. Overall, we are pleased with Privatefirewall's improved score of 88 % and #2 ranking, but now have our attention focused on addressing the COM based and other vulnerabilities that remain.

Greg Salvato
CEO - Privacyware

Source.

News

2012-08-07: New results have been published for:

• Bitdefender Total Security 2013 16.18.0.1406
• G Data TotalSecurity 2013 23.0.4.0
• Privatefirewall 7.0.28.1
• UnThreat Internet Security 2012 4.2.33.12488

The latest version of Privatefirewall came with many great improvements that caused its score to jump up from the previous 56 % to the today's almost excellent 88 %. There are just few techniques left that can be used to bypass its protection. COM based techniques that are used in tests such as Flank, BITStest or Schedtest3 cause big troubles to Privatefirewall. Otherwise the protection of Privatefirewall is very solid. Privatefirewall takes the second place in our challenge, a great result for another product that is available free of charge!

Bitdefender Total Security 2013 scored exactly the same as its previously tested 2012 version. This means no improvements on the field of host protection security that Proactive Security Challenge 64 focuses on. 9% score is just not good enough.

Bitdefender has not improved, but G Data TotalSecurity in its 2013 version scored even worse than its previously tested 2012 version. A huge security suite that ended deeper in the red zone than the last time. 4 % for G Data this time.

Unlike other three products tested today, UnThreat Internet Security is new to our challenge. However, its debut testing ended early in the first level with 3 % score, which means that we have just discovered another product that we can not recommend.

Source.

[AMIGA500]

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

That's odd. I tested Comodo Firewall (v5.8 though) myself and got a significantly lower score than that. Also, results were different with the enhanced protection disabled/enabled. Smells fishy to me. I suspect there is something going on behind the scenes between Matousec and Comodo.

i agree.

[BoerenkoolMetWorst]

Originally Posted by Beethoven1770

i agree.

Afaik Matousec always test products with settings set to maximum.

[DonKid]

http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...64/results.php

[nikanthpromod]

Always comodo first.
I dont care these results

[Breakfastofchumps]

so judging from the fact that private firewall is there I assume this is a firewall/hips test? Which would explain why Comodo is first? Because lets face it CAV is sub-par at best.

[AMIGA500]

Nice to see kaspersky come in at 3rd.
Comodo always is first.?
Why is this?

[lordraiden]

Originally Posted by Breakfastofchumps

so judging from the fact that private firewall is there I assume this is a firewall/hips test? Which would explain why Comodo is first? Because lets face it CAV is sub-par at best.

It's an HIPS test. no fw, no av.

[JRViejo]

Merged Threads to Continue Same Topic.

[kdcdq]

I am sticking with PrivateFirewall.

WSA Essentials + PrivateFirewall + MBAM Pro =

[fax]

Latest news... sounds like HIPS is slowly getting out of fashion

2012-11-21: New results have been published for:

• F-Secure Internet Security 2013 12.71.102
• Norman Security Suite PRO 10.00
• Norton Internet Security 2013 20.2.0.19
• PC Tools Internet Security 2012 9.1.0.2898

Today's results are disapointing, especially in case of Norton Internet Security and PC Tools Internet Security. These two products belong under Symantec Corporation and their results are similarly poor. Since previous versions of both products did achieve better results in the past (in former Proactive Security Challenge on 32-bit Windows XP platform PC Tools once reached almost the perfect score and Norton was once as high as on 67 %) it can be concluded that proactive security features are not of high priority for Symantec anymore. It is funny that the latest version of PC Tools Internet Security implements some kind of protection against permanent malware infection (i.e. autorun techniques) while Norton Internet Security 2013 fails this part completely. And on the other hand, Norton Internet Security offers some self-protection features that PC Tools Internet Security misses. Instead of having two products under development, it might be a good idea for Symantec to have one good product. PC Tools Internet Security finished with 6 % today and Norton Internet Security with 9 %. F-Secure Internet Security 2013 and Norman Security Suite PRO 10 also scored poorly with 3 % and 4 % respectively.