Matousec 21/02

Sure, you know how to interpret the tests. I do too. There are other people who know how to do it as well. But what about the masses? The vast majority of people are easily mislead. We're not talking about a company trying to promote its product by saying how good it is. We're talking about a supposedly impartial testing organization which should be presenting things as they are, which they don't seem to be actually doing. "Transparent security" is even their motto for crying out loud, and they are not living up to it. They never have.

What bothers me more is that first you say that a program doesn't have to pass all the tests to be considered good. Then you say that it's OK that avast! hasn't been tested further as it wouldn't have scored more than 60-70%. This basically means that you don't care because you don't consider it good enough and it kind of contradicts your eariler statement.
And even if we disregard that little contradiction between your statements there is still the matter of the difference between the 3% that avast! scores now and the potentially higher score. There is a huge difference between 3% and 60%. Heck, even if avast! scored 10% it would still matter because that's its true score, and not what the "experts" at Matousec want us to think it is.
It seems that a difference of around 50% doesn't mean anything to you but a difference of around 3-5% (or something) does, because that's probably going to be the difference between #3 and #4, and as you said, you care about the top 3.

Yes, there is a big difference. By your way of thinking we can also compare let's say Comodo Internet Security and SpywareBlaster. They are both security software designed for protection, aren't they?

 

I am not going to reply you again the same, you can read my previous post.
But this is short: I dont mind the score of any AV in matousec test unless they got more than 90%, I mean I dont use as a criteria in order to say if an AV is good or bad.

But I still think that you didnt understand what I say before and you dont know how to read the matousec test, I dont mind if there are some ignorants that base their security idea only in the matousec ranking.

As I said before, matousec is not free, if they want be tested maybe they should pay.

The difference that you dont seem to understand
An AV is designed to offer a full protection
DefenseWall is desinged to offer a full protection
Comodo is designed to offer a full protection
SpywareBlaster is designed to detect spyware...
Its really so hard to understand? Dont try again to compare different things...

 

DefenseWall isn't designed to offer a full protection. It's designed to run alongside an antivirus.
Spywareblaster isn't designed to detect spyware. Please research/inform yourself before you post.
And I'm not comparing different things. You were.

 

DW designed to run alongside an AV? where did you read this? http://www.softsphere.com/
Most of the people use defensewall without AV, you can run it alongside with an AV but If you really undestand how DW works you really dont need it. Also many people uses sandboxie without AV. You have your security apreciation distorted by the AV vendors.

SpywareBlaster
Prevent the installation of spyware and other potentially unwanted software! Simple, effective, trusted.
PUA + Spyware? This is not an AV, no?

 

How about here:

Just because you can use DefenseWall on its own doesn't mean that's the correct/best way or the way the author intended.

This is not the same as spyware/malware detection. Please get your facts straight.

And let's not drift away from the main topic.

 

Test defenswall and your favourite av agains X virus and them come back here with the results. who told you that you need an AV for be protected? your AV vendor?
You started to speak out of topic.

 

Are you dyslexic or something?
I never said one must have an antivirus alongside DefenseWall. What I said was that DefenseWall is designed to work with the antivirus program, to complement it, and not replace it. DefenseWall is one layer of protection and an antivirus would be another. How many layers of protection and what would they be is up to the user.

P.S.: you were the first to compare DefenseWall to antivirus programs so technically you started the offtopic.

 

In fact, DefenseWall is designed the way to couple AVs, because an average user just can't trash out malicious files from their hard drives after DW has stopped computer's infection.

Also, I always stand for multi-layered defense paradigm.

 

Gentleman,

We should not say wrong words to our fellow members. Respect and treat everyone in a gentle manner.

 

seems it was your first visit there(Matousec)....for these(norton,etc) have always been here(the ranking) but regardless of it be assured that both offer top notch protection

 

I still dont understand why he keep saying that mautosec is useless, I think that his point of view is clear, I just want to make the people know that they can read some good info from matousec, and how to skip the useless part.

 

What I keep saying is that their ranking system is very misleading, not that the tests themselves are useless.
Please read my posts and don't put words in my mouth.

P.S.: you got embaraced that avast! scored low and removed it from your signature and system?

Matousec strikes again.

 

No it was my 1000th visit...and probably second last visit.

 

Thank you Ilya . Now maybe the snipes will stop .

 

The real flaw is that some vendors seem to focus specifically on passing Matousec tests instead of protecting from real world exploits these tests are based on.
IMO, this is far more serious issue than the Matousec methodology.

This just looks like another conspiracy theory, which I'm personally not very fond of.
AV vendors don't do it because they are in the blacklisting business, not sandboxing or whatever. You can argue the benefits and shortcomings of both approaches, but each has its purpose. And this is not the topic here.

 

I went to wilders and a hockey game broke out.

 

PCTools Firewall Plus being the shining example of this IMO.
Still, I am inclined to agree that the obsession with these tests is indeed quite an unhealthy one and that it is more dangerous than the ranking system. The sad part is that users are the ones who are at real loss from this test-mania. However this does not excuse the people at Matousec fr representing the data in such a misleading way.

 

Nicely put...

 

You probably have windows 7 64bit.The hips feature(process monitoring) is disabled and not available in that OS .In reality private firewall in that state would probabaly fail matousecs tests.
http://www.privacyware.com/PF_support.html
ellison

 

Ok, I see that you are chaging you arguments all the time, I told many post ago that the raking is misleading but they do it in that way in order to earn money and in my 2 or 3 first post that you have to know how to interpret the info, and you were totally disagree with me, so what the hell are we arguing if you were agree with me all the time. I think that you are quite confuse. So if you are not quite clever to understand why the raking is like it is I am so sorry.

I have removed avast because I never use any AV (I have said this many some times in wilders) and my computer have never been infected, I wrote it because I thought that would be a good combo, I dont use Immunet either. I just thought that is better write what I actually use, so you can keep your strikes.

 

Not so nicely put.

 

Private Firewall is a big surprize.This firewall works excellent in W7 x64 bit and after this result i would expect it to gain some extra users .It doesn t crash the system like others and it protects a x64 bit system for free.Sounds very good to me.And it s soo light.
As for the Avast IS score , who cares, Avast 5 free + Comodo /Outpost/PC Tools /Private Firewall = 99% SAFETY for free.

 

Hardware firewall is more effective than all.
Why not just use Windows Firewall and have NAT enabled?

 

what a load of rubbish
windows firewall isn't even there for comparison
and how hard is it to interpret
not at all
you click the button that tells you duh

 

But privatefirewall on windows 7 64 bit would not obtain the result ,shown at matousecs .That test applied to XP service pack 3,and the fact that its hips features detected some of the malware suggests it was 32 bit.There is no process monitor (hips) functional on privatefirewall, that runs on a W7 64 bit.
ellison