Mamutu Scored Last In Latest Firewall Challenge

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by GreenWhite, Nov 28, 2008.

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

    GreenWhite Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    110
  2. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I saw it and i was honestly wondering, what on earth was Mamutu doing in a firewall challenge... o_O
     
  3. lordpake

    lordpake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    563
    Location:
    Helsinki ~ European Union
    You ain't the only one wondering that ... o_O
     
  4. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    They could as well have put ThreatFire there... Seriously, this Matousec testing is more and more WTF kind of stuff. o_O
     
  5. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    AGREED, matousec mustve been smoking some crazy **** that night.
     
  6. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I am sure, that if you notify Matousec about it, he will apologise to you for forgeting to include TF. :argh: o_O

    They 'd better change the whole thing into "Leak tests vs. Security applications". And think that he dropped the most useful test, the TCP and UDP perf test. Of course, when you catch all the leak tests, who cares if the firewall itself sucks and has poor performance in TCP and/or UDP. The firewall part is secondary. Leak tests rule! :mad:
     
  7. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    Lol, yeah! He forgot EQSecure too with my ruleset ;)
     
  8. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    very tru, it would have been nice to see how alcyon's ruleset compared to normal EQsecure without them, or even just having EQsecure on the test would have been interesting if nothing else. id rather see a HIPS products on the test rather than a freakin behav blocker, lol :D
     
  9. evilscribble

    evilscribble Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Posts:
    48
    You could also ask what ProSecurity is doing in a Firewall challenge since its a HIPS and not a firewall. Mamutu is an IDS similar to a HIPS. Mamutu's score is hilarious.
     
  10. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    yes, but mamutu is a BEHAVIOR blocker... at least a HIPS is more similar to these types of tests than a BEHAVIOR blocker considering leaks or mostly blocked by HIPS component of all the firewalls on that list.
     
  11. The_1337

    The_1337 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Posts:
    112
    Maybe they could throw in sandboxie as a firewall next time.
     
  12. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
    Matousec has gone over the rainbow with this one. Running out of software firewalls to test, is he? With the ludicrous inclusion of this fine behavior blocker, any credibility he may have had has been lost in my not so humble opinion.
     
  13. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Mamutu in a firewall test? Clearly they don't know what they are testing. Makes one wonder how seriously to take their tests...:eek: :D
     
  14. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    I thoroughly just enjoyed reading like never before, every single one of your replies and opinions over this.

    And i have only to add this one of mine: Is that guy gone off his rocker or what? o_O
     
  15. hammerman

    hammerman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Posts:
    283
    Location:
    UK
    I totally agree with comments made that Mamutu has no place in these tests. However, I would have liked to have seen some results for the KeyLog tests which do apply. After all, it is claimed that Mamutu protects against keylogging activities but I haven't seen any evidence to support this. Has anybody tested Mamutu against these? If it's claimed Mamutu detects keylogging activities but doesn't, what else does it not do?

    Anybody know where there are any test results for the behaviour blockers? I really need convincing about Mamutu.
     
  16. ola nordmann

    ola nordmann Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Posts:
    89
    I think Matousec should broaden the scope of their tests, as too many good programs are left out in the cold.

    In the next test I wanna see how well MS Word and Minesweeper performs in their firewall leak-tests :D
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  17. emsisoft

    emsisoft Security Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    312
    Location:
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Mamutu is absolutely misplaced in this test.

    Mamutu is not a firewall, nor a leak blocker. It's a pure behavior blocker, made to detect real malware infections.

    I've already asked Matousec to remove Mamutu from the test as it turns our product unnecessarily in bad light.
     
  18. Max Zorin

    Max Zorin Former Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Posts:
    103
    I think they are planning to include a selsction of widescreen TFT monitors in their next firewall test.

    On a serious note, it is almost scary that they have included Mamutu. I hope they remove it - would have thought the vendor would have some legal redress against them for misrepresentation if they dont.
     
  19. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Without a doubt. The comparison tests are way out of order IMHO.

    As far as light, MAMUTU is in the highest level of light that Behavioral Blockers can attain and theres obviously more to come from this amazing specialized program.

    But a firewall test?

    Pfffffft, placing a pure BB as MAMUTU in that test must surely have been deliberatedly sanctioned as a contestant in that manner in some effort to confuse the public as well as attempt to discount how really very reliable it really is in what it's security monitoring is chiefly designed to address.

    That's as far off base as adding say FileMappbyBB as another competitor. Totally out of it's authentic context of the security it's fashioned to deal with without a doubt IMO.
     
  20. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    On another note - and leaving the leak mania aside as it's already been debated zillions of times - I'm seriously annoyed by the Matousec's obsession with the termination tests. Almost every level has a good 1/3 of those, and sadly vast majority of them tests local process termination. I guess the "ideal" firewall in Matousec's view is a one that cannot be terminated at all - leaving the users with hung system and requiring them to press a reset button or pull the power cord?! Ugh... :mad:
     
  21. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    A while back I emailed Matousec asking to include Sandboxie set to only allow the browser to use internet resources.

    They stated - no - as the setting couldn't be set through the gui which was fair enough.

    Now the setting can be set through the gui and their answer is still no?
     
  22. GreenWhite

    GreenWhite Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    110


    Here is Matousec response to emsisoft feedback;


    ¨We are testing a specific kind of security software for which we defined the term "personal firewall". A product must meet some fixed criteria in order to be included to our project. The main criterion is to implement a process-based security. Firewall Challenge is designed to test personal firewalls, HIPS products, behavior blockers and other behavior based systems. Mamutu met all the required criteria and hence there was no why not to include Mamutu to our project after we received several requests from our visitors. All the products included to our project implement similar features. These security features are tested in our project. We believe that using a set of open tests is the only objective way to compare all the products that implement the very same features. There are various tests used in Firewall Challenge, only a part of the used testing suite is based on leak-tests.¨


    Its funny looking at the vendor responses, LńS Firewall said they are not HIPS, Mamutu said they are not a firewall.

    I use both, and I´m not sweating over it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  23. Rickster100

    Rickster100 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Posts:
    152
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Sums things up perfectly. :D
     
  24. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    I don't use Mamutu but I agree with the sentiment. Matousec is non-professional, aimless organization. Their tests are totally pointless.

    "Lets load a kernel-driver and lets see how security products can stop it from sending out network traffic."... sureee!! Who are they kidding.

    Ofcourse, you always have some upstart vendors that always chase the latest fad... trying to keep up with each and every test. Comodo, take the message - "You are wasting your time".

    Matousec sucks.
     
  25. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,875
    Location:
    New England
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.