New leader at Matousec

I don't consider myself to be an expert of any kind, but I do share my knowledge in a local, native forum. I don't call users stupid because they are uneducated, I call them stupid because they tend to not think rationally and take everything they are being told or read as a given fact. They don't question things, which is very wrong. No person should take in information without questioning it first. No person should take what's being reported on the news for a fact. Just like journalists should seek confirmation for their story from at least one more independent source, before presenting it to the public, so must people in general excercise their curiosity. It's a very nice human charaterisic, which is mostly beneficial. It may sound harsh and insulting but if a person doesn't think for his-/herself and allows other people think for him/her instead, then that person deserves to be insulted.

You don't have to be a genius or a computer expert of some kind to ask yourself "is this the whole truth? is there another side to this? are there other importants things I should consider as well, before I make a decision/statement?". It's common sense.

 

I'll bow out with something I learned/read long ago.

"We think our fathers fools so wise we grow.
Our wiser sons no doubt will think us so."

Regards,
Jerry

 

Your attitude on all this is pretty much just wrong. No person deserves to be insulted. Period. Perhaps one day you will come to realize this.....

 

A handful of off-topic posts removed. Stay on topic or thread will be closed.

Blue

 

I am new to hearing of Matousec. From what I am reading here, this website is not to be trusted.

is that so?

 

Trust is not the issue . The tests are . They refer to them as firewall tests . Leak tests . First , leak tests mean nothing anyway . And they are not testing the firewall's capabilities . More so the HIPS part . They make it look like a firewall is good or bad based on the firewall itself . This is not the case . Whether they are to be trusted is a different issue . Lol

 

so in a nut shell, why should I not take their word for it? They say Comodo is the best and its free. Should I believe that?

 

It tests HIPS instead of pure firewall.

Maybe some firewall like PCTools and Jetico will disappear from top 20 of the test result.Their firewall features are excellent,but other aspects are not perfect.

 

Matousec ONLY test the HIPS part of each application, so if you want a good HIPS matousec is a good place to look.

 

not exactly...

 

A good leak tests HIPS?

 

So, is a bad place? there is no other place to look for HIPS test.

 

OFF TOPIC (have laugh)

Just for fun try "HIPS tests" on Google...

third result: http://www.somaxsports.com/dev/free_hip_test.html

 

i said not exactly, as in i wuldnt use matousec as the end all decision maker...

 

I didn't say that, I just said that is a good place to look at for HIPS test, and the only one.

 

u wer implying that if u want a good hips look at matousec basically...and since u just said its the only test it also shows that indirectly.

 

Well, this is your vague interpretation, not what I said.

 

Real tests are the ones done on real malware where you can infer 'directly' the ability of a given tool to protect the user. Matousec tests only tests the ability of the security tool to protect from... Matousec leak tests. It is up to you to give them the right value.

I have seen top scored security tools failing miserably against real malware and vice versa. Just take them with caution… something most users unfortunately won't.

 

Matousec leaktest are base in the different methods of infection that the real malware use. Is not something that they have invented, they took this methods reading the source code of real malware.

Any example? just to see what do you exactly mean.

 

Not really, most are laboratory tests. No direct link with real malware.

Just take any test that run malware on the system and look for the performances (capacity of protecting) of various security tools. None is perfect so far, this is why Matousec should invest in it rather than keeping expanding the laboratory tests more and more (see KHOBE fuss). For example, the av-comparatives 'dynamic test' where HIPS, cloud, web scanner, etc is also considered. You will see that some low rated Matousec security tools have superb real malware protection capability.

Again take Matousec leak test with caution or you will have a distorted impression of the real capability of security packages to protect the user.

 

Total BS.
Just name at least one malware that was in the wild the last 2 years that used leaktest methods.

Panagiotis

 

Is ridiculous to test the apps tested in Matousec agains malware and compare then because some of them are just AV, others AV+hips, other hips... the only way is isolating the hips part and this can not be done in most of the applications.
This is why if you want to compare the hips capabilities of different security applications use "artificial" leaktests is the only way.

I dont care the malware protection capability when I look for a good HIPS. A HIPS is a tool to block any kind of dangerous modification in the system, I dont care if the file blocked is a malware or windows media player.
You are mixing everyting.

I think that the problem is not that Matousec test are "bad" is just that the people dont want to understand how are they done and how interpret the results, of course they could be done much better.

 

Any malware that tries to kill a process, any kind of autorun infection (a lot of malware use this kind of infection), a malware that tries to modify the host file...

 

Dear guest,

as a matousec fan and someone that says that understands his tests I would expect a better answer.
-I did not ask about Spying tests, Autorun tests, System Integrity tests and Self-defense tests.
-I asked about Leak-tests methods....

Panagiotis