Matousec 21/02

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Rules, Feb 22, 2010.

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

    Rules Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Posts:
    537
    Location:
    Europa
  2. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Thanks for the information Bro..

    OMG, Norton 40% and Avast 3% :'( :'( ..What about others?
     
  3. a320ca

    a320ca Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    USA
    more to follow...
     
  4. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
  5. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    Matousec test results - irrelevant as usual... :thumbd:
     
  6. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    Irrelevant, only if you dont know how to interpret them.
    Thanks for your relevant post. ;)
     
  7. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Im pleased at PrivateFW's results.
     
  8. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    actually i do know how to interpret it and i also come to same conclusion, and that is, it is useless in reality and a more than just little deceiving since people still assume its a firewall test and then complain how products with no HIPS score badly, i think its most people that dont know how to interpret it which is why it is in turn irrelevant since that is the majority.
     
  9. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Right since Private Firewall doesnt have HIPs and still scored well.
     
  10. nikanthpromod

    nikanthpromod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,369
    Location:
    India
    thanks.
    But not excited abt the results:cautious:
     
  11. sded

    sded Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Posts:
    512
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    What is it that the rest of us don't understand about Private Firewall? Is it a different one than that described at http://download.cnet.com/Privatefirewall/3000-10435_4-10371057.html as "Privatefirewall is a Personal Firewall and Host Intrusion Prevention application" or that describes itself in terms of its HIPS features on its website? I have never used it, just don't understand the comment that it is not a HIPS. Or did Matousec use some other version?
     
  12. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Not sure, but the one Im using definitely doesnt have HIPs unless application control (basic inbound/outbound control) or having it set to ask weather to allow/disallow a specific program through the firewall.

    Maybe you should take info from the creators homepage rather than CNET. I dont see anywhere in Privacywares Private Firewall that says HIPs is a feature:

    http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html

    http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall_features.html

    They have another product called Threatsentry that is HIPs.
     
  13. Technic

    Technic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Posts:
    428

    Privatefirewall 7.0 - Windows 7 & Vista Compatible!
    Personal Firewall & Host Intrusion Prevention Software
    Provides Protection from Malware and Hackers for
    business and home PCs, laptops, and servers.

    http://www.privacyware.com/products.html
     
  14. sded

    sded Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Posts:
    512
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    Their website refers to "process monitor, and application/system behavior modeling and anomaly detection " which is pretty much what a HIPS does, although a "classical HIPS" tends to involve the user more in the process. Basically, a HIPS looks for processes doing things that could be characteristic of malware-global hooks, for example-and tries to determine whether the process is safe or not through various means, including the user. A firewall is really concerned with connections and protocols, along with some other goodies the various vendors throw in on packet behavior and other things that are done conveniently there. But in any case, they did very well on the Matousec test suite.
     
  15. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    i think enuff other people have already shown ur wrong about this...

    PS. PrivateFirewall has the DSA technology built in and DSA was a HIPS product made by them (think it was discontinued)
     
  16. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    Great... More of the Matousec's tests that have extremely flawed ranking system, designed to make certain products look good, and others - bad.
    Transparent security, my a*s...

    Thanks but no thanks.
     
  17. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    Its just an HIPS test, and not all the 148 test have the same relevance, and you dont need a software to block the 148 test to be good if you dont give so much relevance to the HIPS part of you security software, is this so difficult to understand?

    So the ranking is based in the HIPS capacity of the software.
    its not a firewall ranking
    its not a AV ranking
    its not a behavior blocker ranking
    its just an HIPS ranking

    I only pretend "educate" the people that complains about the matousec test without no reason
     
  18. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    I agree a product doesn't have to pass all the tests to be considered good. However that doesn't mean the ranking isn't flawed.

    By deviding the whole "challenge" into levels it's much easier to make a certain product look bad.
    If a program doesn't reach the necessary percentage to pass a certain level it doesn't get tested against the test beyond the reached level. However the total/final score is based on all tests, not the tests the program has actually reached. This basically means that the tested program receives a "fail" mark for every test that it didn't qualify for.

    How in the world is it fair to say a certain program has failed a certain test if it actually hasn't been tested against it?
    If they are using assumptions, then they are doing it wrong.
    Do courts assume an accused person is guilty of crime Z just because he/she had commited crimes X and Y, and base sentences on that?

    By using this ranking system they are deceiving people who look at the results into thinking that avast! (for example) passes only 3% of all the tests, which isn't true as it hasn't been tested against all of them. What if the program can actually pass a lot/most/all the termination tests? What if the program is actually rather tough to kill? Sure it may not do very well against leak tests and keyloggers but if it's tough to kill by malware that sure as hell counts for something and it would mean that the program is actually not as bad as it looks.

    Every program should be tested against every test. That's the most objective way of doing the tests. Although I doubt objectivity is the primary goal of Matousec's tests. Come to think of it, I doubt it's even goal at all.
     
  19. HJO

    HJO Guest

    Interesting, but not exciting. :doubt:
     
  20. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    Where is the trick? you have all the info in the pdf's so nothing is hide, everything is explained, the test suite is avaliable for download, you can donwload it a tests avast until 100% even avast can do it, the problem is that it takes a long time and an advanced knowledge a nobody want to do it for free.

    They have this rule that if a program is not bloking a % they dont make more test, if the vendor have the whole test they have 2 options pay for it or improve their software for pass the minimum requirements.
    Nothing is free in this world, the software vendors pay in order to participate in AVC, the security software companies spend a lot of money in finding bugs and erros and matousec is doing it for free, if the vendors dont want to pay or dont want to fix all the threats (bugs) is their problem.
    Do you know why most of the AV dont care about this?, because is not popular this is not going to make them win more money, but if they add an useless cloud technology and a super mega detection intelligent engine... ohh this is easy to sell.

    If somebody makes a 100% perfect "silent" HIPS how the hell are they going to make money if you dont need to download updates and ****?
    PE: defensewall can beats any AV and is only writen by 1 person, do you really think that the AV vendors doesn't know how to do the same? they know how to do it and even better but they are not interested because they can not sell you a license every year, updates...
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2010
  21. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    If you didn't get the point of my previous post, then there is no reason for me to try to explain it further.
     
  22. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    I got your point, the ranking is not fair but I dont mind because I know how to read only the fair part , I dont mind if avast can beat all the other test because I am waiting to see which are going to be the best 2 or 3 at the end and if avast or any other fails soo much at the begining is not going to get more than 60% or 70% even if can pass all the other tests.

    As I said you have to know hot to interpret the data.
     
  23. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    100% agree :D
     
  24. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    People still care about this test? Btw, LordRaiden, AV vendors purposely make their products less secure so they can sell licenses and updates, huh? Pretty harsh accusation there. I'm not sure why you'd compare Defensewall to AV software to make your argument either, they're different software. Anyway, back to the topic. IMHO, Matousec tests aren't that big of a deal. Congrats to Comodo though. This is the one area where they're still worth a damn (yeah, I took that shot).
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2010
  25. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,085
    The comodo test are old.

    I didnt say that they make their products less secure, I said that the AV are an industry and they have to make their business work forever.

    Defense wall and any AV are security software designed in order to protect your computer, is not a big difference.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.