Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by FleischmannTV, Mar 30, 2014.
Is the methodology relevant at all to measure the security of a FW?
Weird that Comodo was not tested...
I'm sure it would pass with flying colors. I just find it funny that so callled "better" firewalls that you have to pay for failed compared to free and pre-installed Windows Firewall. What's the point of paying for it if it does worse lol.
Chip says G-Crap ended up at the dead last even though they were supposed to pull out and its results didn't appear:
Too embarrassing to show? Expected of people not fit to work at McDonalds, let alone develop a supposedly "industry-leading" AV.
~Personal comment removed~
so Comodo failed and pulled out
dear oh dear
and Online Armor...
Except their devs have at least two brain cells to rub together unlike those of G-Fail. Not to mention they don't bribe on AV-Test.
Yeah, always believed OA was good. I am using it on my Laptop, so maybe I should consider just using Windows Firewall.
I'm still looking into the methodology used with these test. At a brief glance it appears they only tested certain aspects of what a FW should do, but neglected to test everything else. Did they test outbound access request at all?
that was not on the table
they tested a particular scenario
and the fails from well established products are
I'm using Comodo and believed I was
I was lied to
and I'm upset
I think it comes again to what have been discussed at Wilders in the past - turning a firewall into a firewall with HIPS, etc. sometimes results into not being able to do firewall's main task (which the built-in firewall does exactly) - filter packets at network level (not simply per application basis) and keep your system from being accessed without your authorization. What use is outbound if your system is compromised and your firewall cannot defend it from inbound attacks. And someone will say well, they won't be able to steal your precious info, phone back home. But if your firewall doesn't do its main job - keep your system form inbound attacks, what makes you think it will keep you from outbound leakage. And a firewall of course is as good as the rules defined for it to follow.
This test only tested very few functions that a firewall should serve. It would be unscientific to use this test to define the overall effectiveness of a Firewall. To use this test as some sort of proof that a Firewall is no good makes no scientific sense. The test is way too limited. If you test the products that did well in this test how effective they are at performing other functions a firewall should perform they may not do well. This Firewall test only points out some weak areas that should be addressed.
Interesting results. Some great FWs that have good results at Matousec (they test mainly outbound control) have failed at basics - inbound control. I have been considering to use ESS again, but I guess I will stay with EAV and Windows Firewall.
Matousec has nothing to do with a firewall test, matousec test are only about the HIPS component.
Yes, that was kind of my point. Some firewalls have created great HIPS and other components but forgot about firewall's basic protections.
Online Armor has been neglected by Emsisoft. Not surprising.
Their main interest is EAM.
What's weird is that BullGuard, AVG and Avast all have firewalls containing Agnitum technology and they all did better than Outpost itself. This might indicate Outpost just has an internal configuration issue that may be rectified soon.
If my machine is behind a router firewall, is any of this relevant?
No, avast dropped Agnitum technology.
is avast using now an internal develop fw?
The report is about a scenario where you are in a public network and need protection from other members of that network.
I see tests run in both private and public networks.
Yes....but I'm not sure if they have developed it completely on their own or it's more like a front-end for Win FW....Rejzor could answer to this.....
I see, but in both scenarios it's about protection from other members of the same network. I guess, when you were talking about your router and its firewall, you had intrusion attempts from outside your network in mind?
A common result for both Matousec and Chip -
Kaspersky Internet Security 2014 does well.
Outpost is still good at the inbound ping test.....
Can remote desktop / assistance be turned off in Services?