Matousec refused to test DefenseWall.

Hi everybody!

For those of you who were expecting Matousec's test of DefenseWall Personal Firewall, I have bad news- I got refused.

"Unfortunately, DefenseWall does not comply with this statement:
"This means that it allows its users to control selected actions of applications."

Other words, they didn't find "File and Registry Protection Excludes" dialog.

 

Hi... nice to hear that, no love for you from Matousec? Well it might be actually good, you might not get a way out once you are in - remember when they refused to remove Mamutu from the test and they keep constantly awarding it w/ 2% score since it doesn't include packet filter and hence fails straight in round one of their broken tests? I guess things can't get any worse w/ Matousec.

Keep the good work.

 

it's a good news indeed Ilya ... don't bother w/ matousec tests it's not worth it.

 

You are right with your suspicious, I don't.

I just feel those who were expecting this test are betrayed.

 

One Question...

Then what kind of test they are running if they have not able to find it out?

 

Well there you saved some money anyway!
Since I guess they wouldn't let DW be tested for free?

 

+1
IMO those test are worthless

 

They are testing only classical firewalls, with a bunch of popups. So, the "granularity" in their terms means "I have a popup and I can select".

BTW, just look at the bottom of the CIS V4 test report- it was made with its sandbox switched off. But it's on by default! They made the test with non-default configuration.

 

As far as I know, their regular tests are free.

 

Oh right, But I thought Matousec didn't have any services that are fee free

 

Basic service (regular tests) are free, but additional ones are not.

 

HI Ilya!
You not need matousec.... your software already proved what can do... and you too... keep the good work and THX for bring a great software for us.

Take care

 

+1

 

Actually, since I can remember Matousec never tested firewalls, in its true meaning.

For I to say that they test firewalls, I'd have to see them show results on how those firewalls protect systems when an outsider tries to hack those very same systems.

All those tests do is to check whether or not those firewalls block xyz process from doing this or that action, including communicating with the outside.

And, this has been always my opinion, those tests are a joke. Why? Well, my guess is that you've been there at least one time. They mix firewalls, firewalls + hips, behavior blockers, and maybe more (I'm not there to check.).

In my way of seeing it, they don't even follow a methodology, because they test apples against oranges against peaches.

People like us, when seeing those tests (the results in the table), we understand what they mean, but most people trying to find some on-line review won't. For example, why not test alike suites altogether? Not all security suites have the same alike components; some have HIPS, others don't, and therefor, in my opinion, wrong to test them in the same bucket.

So, as you've already said it, and others too, don't give a damn about it.

And, a good protection is not one that is too intrusive, rather one that's quite silent. This way, users will be better protected. Sure, maybe people like us like a more intrusive way, but let's not forget that more than 90% of users don't understand the concepts of how an O.S works, for example, even less what they should or not allow to happen.

 

@m00nbl00d
very well said +1

 

That's exactly my words I told them.

 

Your review on Raymond's site would be better exposure for DefenseWall considering the traffic he gets for a blog.

Don't worry about Matousec, the hard-core fans who live and die for it, would most likely ditch you and your product anyway if you dropped from 97 per cent to 95 per cent!

 

It seems to me that what is needed is for some testing group to come up with a methodology that accurately tests HIPS in a real-world way and refects the individual product's capability.Matousec is not,by common consensus,that organisation.

 

No offense to the fans, but whenever I read 'matousec' anywhere my stomach trows up its contents. I'm just getting sick of this matousec virus.
Again no offence to the fans, but I don't like puking.

 

Who cares ? Lol . This is funny . Can anyone really care what that guy does or does not do ? What a joke . Get over it . Defensewall has a great reputation so just move on . Stop wasting your breath mentioning that guys name

 

Too bad DefenseWall is not compatible with Windows x64. I'd easily use your product then!

 

Yeah even I agree DW is one solid product infact it can give all the antivirus company a run for their money even your product is not be tested at matousec it will still remain one of my fav security application

Good Luck Ilya for DW and keep up the good work

 

Is there a firewall test that you folks find meaningful?
I know essentially nothing about this stuff, but no matter what organization tests security applications immediately some jump on it as garbage.

OK, it might be but if so who conducts valid tests? If no one why not give us the benefit of your own expertise?
Any good firewall tests?

Regards,
Jerry