New Matousec Firewall Challenge

Matousec Firewall Results ....well now
If I paid attention to this, I might care
But congrats to all the winners

 

The biggest bug in comodo are the ring3 hooks that malware can unhook with a very easy trick. BTW I saw comodo crashing more then once so it is no unusual behavior.

 

They used to, but then what would happen is that each time someone released a beta which improved the results (including us) we would resubmit for testing.

So, recently the policy changed and they test released versions only.

 

Well done Mike and your team for these excellent results.

 

Mamutu is absolutely misplaced in this test.

Mamutu is not a firewall, nor a leak blocker. It's a pure behavior blocker, made to detect real malware infections. I would be happy to see a high quality test with real in-the-wild malware samples. Most of the top rated products there would fail such a test because they're firewalls, not malware blockers.

I've already asked Matousec to remove Mamutu from the test as it turns our product unnecessarily in bad light.

 

Already?? the updater doo not find nothing...

Do you know if matousec will repeat the test soon? he normally does after some softwares fix the bugs.

 

New CIS version is out next week. The bug has just been fixed tho, and will be available in next weeks update.

 

Ok thanks, I hope that this update also fix my problem with the CLT tests

http://forums.comodo.com/leak_testingattacksvulnerability_research/leak_test_problem-t30656.0.html

 

Could you share your findings with me and with Comodo crew?

BTW in latest KIS 506 selfdefense is greatly strengthen, so I expect to see it in excellent group when Matousec finally decide to test it...

 

Hello Chris
Here is his answer, and your right why test a product that is not even a 'firewall'?? weird

 

I've done my best to convince them that Mamutu is misplaced in this test, but after 10 mails it turned out that for them, Firewalls, Behavior Blockers and HIPS are more or less the same. That's not a point I want to discuss any longer. The test is completely unacceptable.

Take a look at the level 1 criterias. They are testing if the application is able to filter TCP, UDP and ICMP traffic e.g. Well, Mamutu is not a firewall and therefore does not block web traffic in general. And we will not add such features just to pass such tests.

Badly, the ranking draws bad light on Mamutu - that's not necessary and so I have to take this as a harmful action against Emsisoft.

 

April 2008 I published my POV about Matousec's Firewall "Challenges" on my blog: they "wrinkle". Unreliable tests performed by an untrustworthy person.

My mind didn't changed at all, the current tests even confirm my negative opinion about Matousec.

 

This is the point why theses sort of tests are going for nuts.

My firewall has a HIPS and it stops every leaktest on execution (i verified this). However it is on of the lowest rated. It is fore sure a good idea to test but the test should adopted to the product tested and not to the results someone want to have.

 

The problem is not the people from Wilders and other Security Forums. We all know that these tests from Mamutu means nothing.But what about the other people that have no clue about Security Software and will read this crap revue.

 

well legal action may change his mind and remove that review??
frankly as Smokey has stated "tests performed by an untrustworthy person" not really much more to add!!!

 

The whole website project disqualifies itself with these recent actions. It's not worth wasting any more time and money. I'll continue ignoring the project, that's it for me.

 

Those people will more likely be vieuwing porno sites then matousec, security software tests results/forums/sites are for geeks only

 

Aside from TCP/UDP/ICMP level 1 includes Kill1 and Kill2 which Mamutu also failed. You can disqualify the rating, but you cannot disqualify the idea that any security product must be able to protect itself. If malware can disable security, this is hardly good security.

 

Come on, please talk with common sense. Matousec provide Firewalls, Behavior Blockers and HIPS all with the generic test label "Firewall". So addition of Mamutu to his "firewall test" was already totally out of place.

That is highly unprofessional, unreliable, untrustworthy and misleading the user. At the same time he disadvantage Behavior Blocker and HIPS vendors in a non acceptable way. Bah!

 

In order to cry in the forum send an email to matousec...

 

The problem isn't you or Wilder's members. People here know that Mamutu shouldn't be in that list.

The problem is that outside Wilder's, in various fora and download sites, there are many people that "have heard of Matousec" and they use his results as a "gospel". And they advice other users about what to buy. This, is damaging the reputation of Mamutu unfairly and most probably will scare some people away from trying Mamutu and of course buying it. And indirectly, it reflects badly to the entire emsisoft chain of products. Because when Mamutu turns out "last" in Matousec, one will think "Boy, this Emsisoft is the worst of the worst!".

Anyway, it's your company.

 

So it's possible for regular visitors to request software to be tested? (see above, boldface is mine) If so, one would think that it should be possible for a vendor to opt-out of testing, seeing as a handful of people could "encourage" a product's participation.

 

The best that we can do it send a email to matousec and explain that mamutu and some other apps dont have sense to be tested, he will hear us.

 

The "someone asked for it, so we included it" is insane as explanation. If 10 imbecills go and ask Matousec to include, say, WinPatrol, he will actually do it? He is supposed to be the expert, not the random visitor! Duh!

This is a good idea, but honeslty, the man didn't listen to the complaint of Emsisoft itself, who are security experts, he will listen to simple "enthusiasts" ? Anyway, it's worth to try.

P.S.: You think that Matousec isn't reading in here what's been said about his tests?