Online Armor temporarily disqualified on Matousec Proactive Security Challenge

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by kerykeion, Sep 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    It seems to me that Emsisoft has pretty much cleared this whole mystery up now.

    Matousec and Tall emu had a dispute over money,Emsisoft now own the relevant part of Tall Emu,Matousec (quite wrongly) is taking the dispute to Emsisoft.
     
  2. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    As I said it is about $.

    IMHO vendors should just stop paying anybody for evaluations.

    Those who potentially can benefit from solid objective product evaluations are the customers. (that's us) so we would be the ones who should "pay" for testing.

    Why is it we can have AV evaluations from AV Comparatives but not similar quality on SW Firewalls?

    I took the link at the top of this forum to the icsalabs

    https://www.icsalabs.com/

    The certification for PC F/W's is very limited and dated.

    Other products listed there why not F/W's?
     
  3. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,782
    They would, if everyone would stop paying Matousec's (Extortion) fees.
     
  4. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Exactly!:D
     
  5. emsisoft

    emsisoft Security Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Wrong. Emsisoft does not own parts of Tall Emu, Emsisoft has bought the intellectual property of the Online Armor product from Tall Emu.

    Well, that little difference is reason for all the conflict we've got. Matousec denies the fact that Tall Emu no longer owns Online Armor and is still asking for money for it.

    David Matousek thinks that "Online Armor" owes him money and therefore Emsisoft has to pay for it now. Which is quite nonsense because a product can't owe anybody money, only the maker of the product can. That's like me saying your toothbrush owes me $10...

    I've clearly stated that Emsisoft will not continue to finance that crazy testing system and as a result, Online Armor was delisted, even if the earlier tests have been paid by Tall Emu correctly.

    Currently, the vendor paying the biggest money stays on top of the ranking. Why? Every re-test costs money and the tests of all products are not performed at the same time. So it ends up in a battle of vendors paying for retests everytime a new test component is added. If you don't pay again, your product is ranked lower because there's another one paying to get the top score. Sorry, I can't support that. In my opinion that's a rip-off.
    :thumbd:
     
  6. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,113
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    Well this has all back-fired on Matousec very nicely. Difinex (whoever they are) should have kept their mouth shut and swallowed the loss from their 'dispute'. Instead we all now understand how their 'tests' work and how worthless they are. Net result - why would any vendor now pay for testing to continue this sham? Bye bye Matousec.
     
  7. emsisoft

    emsisoft Security Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Those who know me a bit more can prove that I'm defnitely not a guy who has fun being the asshole who uncovers the dirty secrets and I don't want to start a bigger conflict for sure, but in this case I feel personally attacked by this aggressive guy who loves fighting a lost game more than doing serious business. Now I'm not willing to back this organization anymore, sorry. I have been quiet for a too long time.

    However, I'd accept an apology from Matousec to end this issue as soon as possible.
     
  8. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Because most users still beleive in it... Matousec gives an easy way to get visibility for security related 'second tyres' (not in a negative way) companies and products ;)
     
  9. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,113
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    Matousec has been outed. Any organisation with a sense of self-respect would see this as their opportunity to get out of this sham. If Wilders and other similar forums are aware of this, how much of an audience does Matousec still have I wonder?
     
  10. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Still a lot... normal users don't read this board... and companies actively advert the award... like this:

    Capture.JPG

    Removed name to avoid funboy wars...
     
  11. Scoobs72

    Scoobs72 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Posts:
    1,113
    Location:
    Sofa (left side)
    But 'normal' users don't read Matousec either. I take your point and there is clearly some influence that Matousec has. In the early days Matousec served a purpose, but you can't make a business out of this sort of thing - the products and environment he is testing against is largely static. Hence the approach to testing and generating revenue becomes more desperate (increasingly implausible tests) and unethical (repeat tests for money) over time.
     
  12. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Well said :thumb:

    You have nothing to apologize for. You made an ethical business decision. I for one am proud of you. :D
     
  13. geko

    geko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    35
    I understand what you are saying, but I supose marketing is a big bsuiness...

    http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7060/portapapeles01.png
     
  14. emsisoft

    emsisoft Security Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Tests ARE important for marketing. That's the main reason for vendors to support testing organizations. Each vendors needs those "best in test" stamps on the products to convince customers to buy.

    Online Armor was always a top ranked product on the Matousec website, so there was no reason to not-use the test results for marketing. And in early days, the Matousec tests seemed to have a minimum of quality. Except the complete failure to include a behavior blocker product like Mamutu in the firewall tests.

    However, Matousec tests are no longer valuable for users now and therefore we'll remove all references to them from our websites. The mentioned banner has already gone. Thanks for letting me know.
     
  15. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,694
    Location:
    USA
    So i was right all along! Funny quoting myself lol :argh:
     
  16. geko

    geko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Posts:
    35
    You have my respect (if that means anything), anyhow :thumb:
     
  17. Warlockz

    Warlockz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    642
    I can sit and bicker on and on, but the fact is that I used OA for almost a month, maby I shouldn't have used the word tested as I could have been misunderstood? this wasn't just some install it for 20 min than make an ignorant comment about OA, and no Im not trying to talk bad about OA by any means as it did the job it was intended for, no I didn't get infected wile using it, who knows maby they have fixed the performance issues as you said you feel like its faster than Comodo?

    2010-09-19_163537.png

    This entire deal with Matousec :D the issue looks personal?
    Anyways Comodo has proved more than worthy against any opponent, "at least for advanced users" Ive made my point so Im done in this o_O thread!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2010
  18. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    this should be made public as much as possible.

    once enough people know about this they will crumble:
    "And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually"
     
  19. Warlockz

    Warlockz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    642
    Ok so I couldn't help but reply one more time, If I was running a business like Matousec, and if someone payed me to test their product, "they Obviously trusted my service or they wouldn't have asked in the first place for me to test their products" and their software failed some of the tests, and they wanted me to Test their product again over and over until it passed, of course I'm going to charge them to test it again, it wouldn't have been my fault they failed, it would be their fault, so why should I test it again for free until they get the scores they were hoping for? Especially a company that has loads of money in the first place, unless they were broke for some reason lol

    This isn't about "the vendor paying the biggest money stays on top of the ranking" this is about the software not passing the tests, and the vendor making changes to their product so that it would pass the next test, but crying about paying for the next test like their some broke company with lack of funds or something doesn't say much about that company except that their mad about having to pay for their product to get tested over and over again because it didn't pass in the first place o_O

    So their not "paying to get top score" their paying to see if the added security/bug fixes fixed the problem they were having that failed the test in the first place!

    Example #2; When you buy a house that has been foreclosed on, and the previous owner didn't pay the HOA for 6 months, somebody has to pay it, whether it be the bank or the new owners, its not the HOAs fault they never got payed for their services, so is the new owner going to go out and talk mad smack about the HOA because the previous owner didn't pay the bills? How about talking smack about the previous Owner because they didnt pay the bills.

    Have a Nice Day!
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2010
  20. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,658
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Nonsense.

    Vendors trusting the tests or not doesn't matter. It matters only if the users/potential customers trust them, so it can be used for marketing purposes.
     
  21. Warlockz

    Warlockz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    642
    In the end it would fall on the software vendor being trustworthy or not if their going around using untrusted testers just for marketing purposes, they wouldn't want that kind of attention would they? so obviously they had some kind of trust in the testing services they're using to promote their products!
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2010
  22. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,658
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Emisoft is not "talking mad smack" - Emisoft is undertstandably irritated that some clown is trying to extract money from him that he doesn't owe. If you want to see "Mad Smack", you should see some of the emails I received from David Matousec.

    It is simply impossible for a product to owe money. This is a nonsense dreamed up as a justification for putting the squeeze on Emsisoft for cash. It's just as likely that your stapler purchased a timeshare property in the Maldives, and your toaster being upset by it.

    Your example is not the same situation, because when purchasing a house, the purchaser probably signs a contract that says "I will pay any owed taxes or HOA fees" as part of the conditions of sale. That doesnt happen here.

    If Matousec honestly believes that Tall Emu does owe money, and we refuse to pay it, the only correct action is for Matousec to take legal action against Tall Emu, not play games with Emsisoft company.

    Emisoft is an innocent party in all of this and is being attacked unfairly.
     
  23. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,658
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Well, as a Comodo fan, I'd recommend you read Melih's thoughts on Matousec tests. Last time I read, he was only there because Symantec was - after publically saying he was done with it.

    He changed his position because a larger competitor was playing in the matousec pool, just like I did.
     
  24. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    Maybe the matousec list of ranked vendors is a black list. :D

    This is about $ and the sooner more vendors stop paying these "fees" the better.
     
  25. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,841
    Location:
    KEEP USA GREAT
    +1!! fo sure
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.