New Matousec firewall test, we got new leader...

Check this out:

http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php

Congrats Comodo

 

Ah, and they continue to test Mamutu... Maybe ClamAV will be next .

In any case, thanks for sharing the link.

 

They didn't make a new test, they just retested Comodo

 

... OR you could configure your hardware Firewall correctly and don't give a crap of either these leak-tests or the hassle of software FWs - then concentrate on the malware which is the real issue left. Simply run a free setup or buy products which are worth their price - AntiVir Professional or Premium to name two examples with Premium going for 19 euros. Compare that to Symantec's NAV offering which I normally prefer for many reasons at 39$. That made me atleast make a temporary switch...

 

No news really. Comodo technically has been #1 there "almost" since the lunch of the 84 set of tests..

Anyway now it says so on the paper also.
Comodo - keeps users protected.

 

HIPS and Sandboxing techniques, most often hands-down, but I'm personally more than happy using behaviour blocking and strong heuristics together with (generic) signatures.

 

I think the software leading the tests are only as good as the users behind it. No matter how it passes PoC tests, it would all fail if the user doesn't know much about what they are using at all.

 

Wait until OA launches their new version which is now an RC version. The test results may be different.

 

Does it matter

You are perfectly right here

Greetz, Red. ( A Comodo fan MAN )

 

It only matters to the folks who follow this stuff. I have used Comodo, and now OA, and they're both great. The difference for me is the complexity (for a dummy like me) of Comodo, and the simplicity of OA which I can handle. What I was saying was that OA's last version, compared to Comodo might put Comodo in 1st place, but OA has been developing the next version for a few months and has released the RC version to try. If the RC version is a good indication, the 1st place (not that it matters) may shift when OA releases their final copy.

 

It might..

Comodo has decided to not pass all tests since it sees some tests as irrelevant.
https://forums.comodo.com/empty-t30896.0.html;msg222603#msg222603

OA and Outpost just pass tests to look good on paper.. They don't care if the tests are unnecessary to pass.
You can always intercept stuff. But as long as it can't be used to do something reasonable by a hacker then its unnecessary interception.

Also that CIS was #1 is no news really since it has done so for months. Just not on paper, but technically since some bugs was fixed.
(A fixed version that dealt with the tests was released days after 3.5 was originally tested. And CIS was since then technically #1...)

 

Boys, boys, boys ...

It is only a leak test

Greetz, Red.

 

Bah I wish the guys over at the Comodo forums were as nice as their software.

 

So, only COMODO was retested? Why?

I never really understood why this test is called "Firewall Challenge". No firewall is being, practically, tested.

What they are testing is a functionality that began to be part of firewalls. Sure, every firewall should have a nice outbound traffic control. But, that's it.

And, what is being tested is not the capability of a firewall to block unsolicited inbound and outbound traffic. All Matousec tests is a capability to block "leaks", and mostly to what happens within the system, and not what goes out or comes in.

I'd like to see a test performed to show the most efficient firewall preventing, in first place, inbound traffic. But, then I guess everyone would realize Windows own firewall is more than fine for that task.

Heck, can't Matousec just test the capability of a firewall to prevent hackers from getting into a system?

Then, I'd like to see a test done for outbound traffic control, which, Windows own firewall is not that easy to work with (The Windows advanced firewall.).

 

Not true.. The following was retested:

* BitDefender Internet Security 2009 12.0.12.0
* Comodo Internet Security 3.8.65951.477
* ESET Smart Security 4.0.417.0
* ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 8.0.298.000

However Many others has already been retested.. Among them Outpost..
And If CIS was retested earlier wouldn't have mattered.. Since it has passed those tests for months..

Not that it matter but it was a free retesting. (all get the right to that each 3 month I think..)

 

Eset smart security gets +1% from 3 to 4

 

I think it's great that there are so many products out there now with good antileak properties. And no one seems to be targeting the firewall test specifically, since the tests are all available for anyone to run, and if you want to distort your product just to pass the tests you certainly can get 100% . Congratulations to all, and to Matousec for bringing it all out into the open.

 

What do you mean? I'm the nicest person I know

 

This is nonsense. They perform not on the paper, but on the real tests. Every test demonstraits some security hole, they just do not think that security hole may be unnesesary to be handled.

Hm.

Kill3f - failed.

"Comodo Internet Security failed Kill3f test because process “cssurf.exe” that is installed with the product could be
terminated under rare circumstances by this test even if the user denies all queries of the product that alert about the attack against this process."

Which does mean Comodo process protection is flawed.

SSS - failed.

"Unwanted user logout was not prevented."

SockSniff - failed.

Which does mean Comodo cannot control Raw Sockets. This test is from "keyloggers" type, but instead of keyboard it invisibly sniffs your network traffic (including sensitive information).

Crash7 - failed.

Which does mean Comodo can be terminated by any usermode program that uses this technique.

I do not think these tests are unnesesary to pass, especially crash tests.

 

This has already been answered on Comodo forums, most of it by Egemen month ago

http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackco.../comodo_back_on_top_at_matousec-t37571.0.html

Greetz, Red.

 

if this statement was true, OA would annoy the user with thousands of popup regarding unnecessary stuffs, while Comodo would have less popup and would be much easier to use.. But a lot of people say that OA is easier to use. There must be something wrong.

Plus, OA doesn't pass the tests just to look good on the paper. May I remind you that OA was originally an HIPS, and Comodo a firewall?

As Pete, I believe you need more documentation..

 

Yep, it was answered in a traditional Comodo way "everything Comodo fails is irrelevant and intentional". I just never found this approach convincing.
They never accept their fails, they blame everybody, but themselves. I trust the vendors who accept fails and go with "yes, we failed here, but we will do our best to fix it".