LnS & Matousec

Discussion in 'LnS English Forum' started by AaLF, Oct 14, 2011.

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

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
    LnS in the Matousec tests fairs poorly. no doubt because the tests are biased towards HiPs. And LnS is an excellent FW. But not a HiPs.

    What product would you suggest I install to compliment LnS so it and whatever else I install will match Comodo's setup etc?

    http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/
     
  2. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,486
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Permanent placement results of L'n'S in tests of Matousec is just like a "malicious joke"...I don't know why they still show it. Comment from more than 3 years ago
    To avoid some long discussion I go back to meritum...I think SpyShelter (you know why) and some virtualisation (SD or Returnil)...maybe Sandboxie, but I rather dislike "sandbox" software. At the end EMET.
     
  3. COMPYPY

    COMPYPY Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Posts:
    80
    I really find Matousec Review & Test as "Read and Forget". They give 0-10 points to some major security product and there test are only favour the annoying pop ups software which terms as HIPS.
    If a user had to take all decision and handle annoying /useless pop ups what is the function of the security software?
    However general user dont know about the tough rules & regulation and they didnt know what to allow and what to block
     
  4. Sevens

    Sevens Guest

    I have alot of confidence in DefenseWall Personal Firewall running along side LooknStop, with Phantom's ruleset of course. I don't think you can do better, any simpler than that. DefenseWall only works on 32bit systems though.
     
  5. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Back in the day, there was experimental features that could be activated via registry, but Frederic removed these, I figure it was difficult to maintain and distracted him from the more important areas in a pure firewall like its packet filter.

    I don’t have nothing against Matousec, but like another mentioned, I feel its a joke to continue to keep Look 'n’ Stop on their list, especially when there are no bells or whistles to detect the different potential malicious leak methods thats listed on "Proactive Security Challenge" from Matousec.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.