Matousec 148 tests new results

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by lordraiden, Mar 6, 2010.

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

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php

    We are introducing Proactive Security Challenge Awards. Every product tested against the full set of 148 tests that reaches at least Very good protection level will receive a Proactive Security Challenge Award. The vendor of such a product may request for the PSC Award logo that can be placed on the product's web page or printed on its box.

    We have also retested two products in Proactive Security Challenge, namely Malware Defender and McAfee Internet Security. Malware Defender has become the first product that received Proactive Security Challenge Award. Check out the latest results!
     
  2. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Oh boy here we go again.
     
  3. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Why did some test with 148 and some with only 84?
     
  4. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Only the 148 tests are new, read the news in the main page.
     
  5. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Ok. I thought we had determined that the results of these tests were flawed and unneccesary.
     
  6. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Who is "we"? anyway is flawed only if you dont know how to interpret the results. So please dont start again another "war", if you dont like it say it but we dont need to discuss again the same.
     
  7. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Sorry. You're right. I was one of the people that actually thought the test had a lot of valid points. Didn't mean to start any trouble.
     
  8. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    These tests are not realistic. Security suites detect these viruses/malwares (or injections in this case) used in the test before they can do any harm to begin with.
     
  9. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Do you understand what is HIPS?
    That's funny you could show to wilders where is your 100% effective AV :p
     
  10. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    thats exactly why i dont like matousec, first of all, it is kinda just a POC test, but nothing wrong with it out of curiosity, its just most people, even on wilders dont understand what the test does, they assume this test is showing a good firewall, which its not even testing that area.

    thats really the only reason i dont like matousec tests, gives people the wrong idea. now whether thats matousecs fault or people's fault is up for argument.
     
  11. Sadeghi85

    Sadeghi85 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    747
    Matousec should explicitly state that this is a HIPS test and only test HIPS products, then everything will be OK.


    This is the problem:
    :rolleyes:
     
  12. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    I know all this but we can still take profit from this results and if somebody want to know how to differenciate the garbage from the useful data from the matousec website only have to ask here.
    I just want to see how to Comodo and OA and maybe any other hips will do it in the 148 test all the other tests are quite useless (AV and not HIPS soft) but at least you can see which AV's care about the HIPS like kaspersky and which not.
     
  13. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,363
    Location:
    Sweden
    I do understand what HIPS means and what it brings to the security aspect. But the whole point with a security product is to prevent infection in the first place. That's why Matousecs tests aren't really important - it just shows how good a certrain application is when the computer is infected. And in most cases when you're infected, you won't be able to get rid of the virus/adware/spyware anyway. See my point? Security Suites are so much more important than some tests checking the self-protection of a firewall.
     
  14. Sadeghi85

    Sadeghi85 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    747
    That's arguable. I only use HIPS in realtime, OA+Rising. To me Matousec tests are important. Problem is Matousec also tests other products than HIPS while it shouldn't IMO.
     
  15. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Ok, reading your answer is evident that you dont know how an HIPS works and what is being tested in Matousec tests
    You can easily prevent an infection when the malware bypass the AV.
     
  16. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada

    ye the test is fine to just see, but id have to disagree with the part that they just need to ask here, cuz ive seen countless discussions here wer people still dont realize wat theyre looking at. also if u check quite a few other forums, namely Remove-Malware forums, they use Matousec as a firewall bible without even understanding its results. Matousec shuld have a big bold disclaimer saying "THIS IS NOT A TEST OF FIREWALLS, BUT A TEST OF HIPS"
     
  17. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Just curious why people post this in the firewall section.. Even Mat has admitted they do not test "Firewall Portion" of the firewall. Only hip's this test is completely pointless when applied to a firewall. This test is nothing but a lame excuse for testing hips.
     
  18. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    because 90% of people still think its a firewall test and if Matt thinks matousec in that way, why does his entire forum think otherwise? lol
     
  19. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Probably because the top HIPS are all of them integrated in firewalls, the next time I will do it in "other anti-malware software"
     
  20. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    Next time you may want to keep posting it in the same thread. Much better for someone that wants to follow the matousec saga or someone else that does not want to see the spreading of different posts everytime a new software tool is matousec tested. :)
     
  21. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    It is not pointless if one value his/her private data (passes, bank accounts etc. etc.), that is why personal FW should have good outbound filtering per app. and thus must have good anti-leak protection which can be done only by behavior blocker component or by complete behavioral HIPS...
     
  22. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    I'm sorry that is not the JOB of a firewall. A firewall is there to protect you from Network based attacks. Not watch your system for every little change. I think they have a thing called a Anti-Virus for those, But then again I could be wrong. Hip's is ONLY as strong as the person clicking Yes or No. Hell even I could write a program that pops up everytime I move the darn mouse and ask if its ok.
     
  23. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,078
    Yes, you should write this program, but the secret is only ask when is needed not always :p
    This is simple, if you dont like the HIPS dont use them.

    "A firewall is there to protect you from Network based attacks", yes
    A Firewall + HIPS is a Firewall + HIPS
    And an AV + HIPS is an AV + HIPS
    And an AV + Firewall Is an av or a firewall? xD
    And AV is an AV...
    And AV + Firewall + Parental Control + System Backup + registry scanner + privacy protector + ..... what the hell is this?
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2010
  24. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    To be honest, I don't care, one thing is certain, good personal FW must distinguish which application goes to net, how will do that? it is not my problem ...
     
  25. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    Correct, they are highly ineffective for the majority of the users and this is why there are thousands of users still getting infected everyday whatever HIPS they run (A nice empirical evidence was the results of initial Prevx releases where 80% users were allowing malware to install regardless of prevx pop-ups).

    In a nutshell, pure HIPS approaches (i.e. leave decision to a third party) are for experience users while sandbox and virtualization (i.e. isolation and damage control) are more adaptable to novice operators. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.