Bad news on Online Armor

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by MikeNash, Aug 1, 2007.

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

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  2. hiro

    hiro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Thank you Mike, this is honest from you, this is example how privacy protect software developer must communicate with user to construct trust in this so delicate area (how to protect online security and privacy).
    It doesn't matter if software is FREE or pay (or first or last on leaktest stairs)!
    Thanks again!
     
  3. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    I disagree. There is such a thingh as 2 much honesty. Every software is bound 2 have bugs and Talemu is the most dedicated company 2 resolve any type of issue lightening fast. This update didn't need 2 be brought 2 our attention this loud. However it is interresting 2 know the best can be inproved and therefore my thanks 2 keep us posted.
     
  4. Thanasis159

    Thanasis159 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    86
    Thank you very much for your honesty... II really appreciate it! Keep up the good work!
     
  5. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,056
    I have two reactions:

    1) I applaud Mike in his candor to post problems as well as triumphs.

    2) It really makes me question the value of the Matousec tests. True there can be debate about protected usermode hooks vs kernel mode hooks, but the tests are tests, and eitherr the software passed or not. If Matousec is saying a product isn't as good using usermode hooks, then the tests should reflect that weakness. But to run the tests, have a program pass them, and the say oops, the results aren't that good because..... is just plain bogus testing IMHO.

    To trust the tests you have to trust the tester. NicM is a good example of a good tester. I have to question Matousec's tests.

    Pete
     
  6. Dwarden

    Dwarden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Posts:
    176
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    well at least he found out his mistake and most likely works on correcting these results and updating test methology ...
     
  7. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    To be fair, They tested two versions of Online Armor - first of all we came in the middle of the pack. Then, we gave an updated version where had expanded our protection, but also we had added some code to protect our remaining usermode hooks.

    We did not advise Matousec that we had added this protective code - probably, we should have done so.


    Mike
     
  8. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi, folks: We, users will deliver the ultimate verdict, not the testers. But any software needs an mirror such as these tests to see how they look, and to make necessary improvements. In OA, trusts remain. :thumb: :thumb:
     
  9. Bio-Hazard

    Bio-Hazard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    529
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    Hello!

    I think is show lot of respect from Mike and Tallemu towards their users to publicly say these and not trying to hide behind any explenations. :thumb: I dont know much about testing, but i have to agree with Peter that something went wrong and it should have been picked earlier. Online-Armor still is the corner stone of my security set-up. Now we just have to wait for the updated results and see what happens. Atleast now it doesnt come as a suprise to people when it happens.

    Kristian
     
  10. danny9

    danny9 Departed Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    678
    Location:
    Clinton Twp. Mi
    I'm still trialing Online Armor and I appreciate the honesty Mike has shown.
    To me it's refreshing to see this.
    Thanks, Dan ;)
     
  11. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I hope this isn't too far off topic. Would you consider Online Armor's firewall to be among the top tier, or middle of the pack of firewalls? I don't pay too much attention to Mr. Matousec's tests, so I'm not concerned with that. I ran the 30 day trial and liked it, but not sure I want to spend around $40 since I'm using a pretty good free firewall now.
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    OA may be one of the best products created, until, Mike added Kaspersky and the only other thing is the modules or tabs that ask for scanning specific tasks like email. The firewall is the best and I wish that is what he concentrated on and had a Vista version ready. I would buy it in a second then.
     
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,056
    Yes, for me it is. I also don't care about Matousec's test. It does it job as do most firewalls, but the traffic led, and firewall status display are simply unrivaled. Check it out.
     
  14. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,056
    Not sure why mention Kaspersky. If you are thinking about the great Iswift controversy, OA doesn't use it. One can license the engine, and additionally other modules such as Iswift, but OA only uses the engine.

    Pete
     
  15. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Hi trjam,

    Can you be more specific on what you dont like regarding the modules/tabs (PM me, start a thread at our forums, etc) - I'm not sure I follow but I am glad you like the firewall :)

    You know you can turn off mail filtering, and you dont need to buy the AV version?

    Mike
     
  16. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I think I have my answers from your forum and will be patiently awaiting a Vista version. You are a very dedicated and honest vendor and your product shows it.
     
  17. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Well I guess it falls to me to point out the elephant in the room.

    Even if Mike didn't disclose this, there was zero chance this thread wouldn't be created anyway , so it was smart to head it off first by posting this. This is something that has to be gotten out of the way.

    As for the other comments about not trusting Matousec tests, I never understood where this came from. Leaving aside the whole business practice thing of selling their findings (which you may disagree), it's pretty obvious they are knowledgable and their testing standards is as high as anyone can wish for because they know they will be subjected to intense scrunity given that they are playing with the big boys.

    Moreover despite aspersations casted on their age (some are college??), they are mature unlike say certain anti-rootkit authors I shall not name, who engage in flamefests or pointless boasting.

    Of course they are not perfect, but I would trust their testing because clearly they are a professional outfit or at least aspire to those standards.
    Something I can't say for many of other tests as useful as they may be.

    Anyway I agree leak testing isn't everything, and some might not realize this with all the focus on leak testing (cos it is easiest to do and understand) but Matousec agrees as well. Comodo might have the highest leak test score, but the firewall with the best overall score in the Windows Personal Firewall Analysis project is not Comodo but ZoneAlarm PRO!
     
  18. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  19. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    Thanks for the update Mike. That is still very respectable for a brand spanking new firewall.
     
  20. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California

    Thanks Peter2150. :)
     
  21. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
  22. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Yes, unfortunately our firewall is merely "Very Good" at leaktest prevention, and not "Excellent" :)

    We've already started to fix it, and indeed a new version will be uploaded to the beta team (and released) which will gain us back some valuable places.
     
  23. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    What is there to be concerned about? Leaktest results are not the only criteria that should be considered when choosing a product. You need to be comfortable using it, it needs to perform its intended task very well, it should run stable on your machine and the vendor should offer good support on it. it would seem OA falls very nicely into all of these categories.
     
  24. Seer

    Seer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Posts:
    1,596
    Location:
    Singidunum
    I just saw the thread title and expected some real "bad news on OA", but this is just ridiculous. :p 7th place on Matousec list?! LMAO. Funny how this guy (David M) became the one and only beacon in a world of firewalls/leaking/plumbing so quickly :rolleyes: Our dear vendors are sooo afraid of his verdicts... this guy alone literally shapes the firewall market. It's all, of course, users' fault.

    BTW, 7th place is quite excellent IMO... more than enough for ALL of us. I know, the 3rd place would make Tall Emu's sales department a bit busier... ;)

    Relax, Mike & Tall Emu. ;) I'm not sure if this topic is even worth a thread...
     
  25. GES/POR

    GES/POR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,490
    Location:
    Armacham
    No concern at all but i think leaking is a serious issue for firewalls since malware wich is not detected by tons of scanners needs to be stopped from communicating from a personal pc to another wich happens rather often on most pc's. If im not mistaking the primary function of HIPS is total control of one's pc meaning not leaking as well.

    For Matousec i wish he made some kind of table of other aspects of security that is tested such as termination,etc.

    Funny 2 c everytime a fav product fails some tests then the tester get's bashed while infact he is only trying to improve security for all. Y not bash those leaktest authors or malware writers?

    Still i am content with OA's results and have all faith theyll climb the ladder soon enough.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.