Matousec Firewall Challenge = new Test

Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 6.0.2302.264.0490 [Beta] was tested....post #2

03-19-2008,12:58 PM post #4 (since Version: 6.0.2284.253.0485 is the latest) it was not tested.

Link

 

We have fixed bugs in the product and asked for a retest. This is quite simply because: we want the test results published to be accurate, and of course, there is a marketing benefit to being listed at the top. Nobody has ever denied this.

In that build the MAIN thing we fixed was stability, and, at least with our Beta testers we sincerely thought that we had nailed the explorer bug as well. It seems that we did not, just solved it for some. We did not add new features, but we have always, when we improved the product submitted it promptly for retesting.

I understand fully that you have an issue with OA and in your case why you don't care about the test results. Please understand - just because I took 10 minutes to request Matousec retest our latest version, it does not mean my guys are not trying to resolve it.

I think everyone understands that Tall Emu and Comodo involve themselves in tests for marketing reasons. Comodo even made their own test site for heavens sake!

It's not like the results are so far apart anyway, so again - I am puzzled at this absurd over-reaction.


Mike

 

All those words about comodo firewall.... For me, it's as good as my toilet papers. It's probably another story for their embeded hips.

 

Aha!

Online Armor already worked it out and is 100% Matousec compatible.
Transfered purchasers money to come off very well. Nice idea.

Well Comodo's Melih "I feel dirty and somewhat cheap" will do the same.
He expects a more credible, scheduled testing to be done. For money.

And Outpost apparently thought "no risk is more fun" and sent an internal version to Matousec.
If it fails, just send the next one, no one will ever know. Brilliant.

Sometimes truth is an offence.

Cheers

 

I want to make it clear that I'm not over-reacting to anything you did. Also I like OA very much and was simply using my particular dilemma as an example for why I really don't care about the Matousec Tests. Do I care that OA and Comodo provide a lot of protection for people? Yes. However, this Matousec thing has indeed caused an over-reaction. I have used PC Tools Firewall which doesn't do nearly as well as OA and Comodo, but it ran very well for me. That is the point I was trying to make and didn't mean to disparage a fine program like OA. I will add that both OA and Comodo have different and very good points about them other than their "leak test" capabilities, which is what should be talked about, and not what you or Melih do to promote them. I could go on, but this situation is starting to remind me of the current Democratic Canadates who are running for President here in the USA. Both sides are saying and doing things that are making some people leery of voting for either one them.

 

Agree. I'm not going to discuss marketing any futher here - it's not really appropriate - but if reasonable questions are asked, of course, I will provide a reasonable answer.


Mike

 

Well, at least, finally OA users are able to watch a videoclip of their favorite HIPS in action

 

What is this?
"Ask David Matousek" http://support.tallemu.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=2987
Are they going to pay Matousec for this interview?
Is this another attempt by the develop of OA to buy Matousec off?

 

Absurd? How rude!

You're the one who does anything in order to put your product in the 1st place in the test.
You're the one who claims that your product is the best based on the cheating.
I consider what you did, paying for the retest and fixing the test results, to be cheating.
As an ex OA fan, that's why I felt betrayed and I got upset.
I wish my high school teacher had been as generous as Matousec is.

 

A thread where people could propose questions to David Matousek - it would seem clear enough.

No. Besides, it isn't an interview. It is a thread where people could propose questions to David Matousek.

No. It is just what it says it is.

 

Mike admitted there was a bug and a bug was fixed. Retest should show that there is neither a bug nor any other discovered leak anymore. So where is the cheating ?

But I can say where the true cheating is. Look at OA score at testmysecurity, for example spt test, and there you find real cheating. Result is incorrect.

 

.

It would be good money spent if perhaps you sent Matousec some money to help ya with the Explorer.exe error.

 

It's nice you partipate here, but then stay on topic (Matousec etc.) and avoid one-liners.
Did you post your eplorer.exe problem at the OA Forums?

Gerard

 

I am confident if a mistake in testing OA was made, it will be corrected. After all, the information supplied to Nick about the bug came from volunteer members that did the OA testing on the site you accuse of cheating.

Al

 

[Sarcastic mode]No Gerard, I didn't post about it. I just make this stuff up.[/Sarcastic mode]

 

Thanks,

Gerard

 

I don't accuse, I just state the fact I have discovered myself and try to show what is real cheating and what is just a quick reaction. It seems the guy completely mixed these things. As for the service. It may be they will correct the mistake, then this is good of them. But for me personally this service will hardly be a source of reliable information. Though, I will not bush them. After all this is private service and they are free to do whatever they wish and show whatever results they wish.

Information is only valuable when it is correct and up-to-dated. Restrospective picture may be interesting also, but for historians and PR managers.

Edit: BTW, I personally thank those guys who helped to fix the real bug. They did great job for all the users and OA

 

Both of you are mixing around with the definition of cheating.

OA did not cheat by paying for a test. Cheating would be paying to get a higher rating. And testmypc is not cheating, it is a mistake. The user who tested OA is retesting but you keep bringing this up.

And peter everyone knows you like OA so it doesn't help when you come in to threads where fanboys are having wars .

And alex you have purchased OA as you have told us which is probably why you keep trying to show that OA is better than comodo since you want to know a product you paid for is better than something free .

I bet there is gonna be more problems when comodo also gets 100%. Matousec has to decide who goes on top of the other in the list.
Is this going to be a gamble between tallemu and comodo by who can pay more for the top spot?

I also think Melih should be allowed back at wilders. As comodo and tallemu having the most popular firewalls, both ceo's should be allowed to defend their product! CENSORSHIP I SAY!!!!!

I feel a temporary ban coming.........

 

BTW, I have purchased OA 2007 summer, when OA was not even in the rating Then I was glad when OA climbed step by step to the top. Not the case. I do not say OA is better than Comodo. I say they both good and Comodo is not any better. Some things OA does better, other things Comodo does better. And they have different target audience. Comodo for geekers and those who like to control everything. OA for those who hate too much alerts but still wants control on the dangerous actions and easy to use product. Most OA users say that it is very clear and intuitive.

And as I said before I will not be upset in case Comodo will get the perfect score. I'll be glad for Comodo users. As for the spot. OK, Comodo is alphabetically the first. Let it take the spot. I can live with this

 

Let's get back to the topic please. Matousec, today the red hot topic, the giant company also know as the new marketing fart created and sponsored by the flouring success of "security-vendors"....

Today Matousec, tomorrow another one. Those who pay most got the most points, it's democracy in its purest sence of the word.

 

Just out of interest. Who are those vendors who sponsored Matousec back in 2006 ?

 

My view on this is that Matousec should have had software submitted from each company, carried out the testing and then published ALL the results. End of matter until next year or whenever.

To allow retesting for a single company was in my opinion a mistake. If this is allowed for one company, it must be allowed for all companies. That means many companies could resubmit their software in order to get a higher ranking. What a nonsense.

There would only be one winner out of this. IMO, if testing is going to be done, it should be done in a responsible way.

I know that people have their favourite firewalls and won't hear a word said against them, but the reaction to these tests in this and other forums has been completely over-the-top.