Matousec Firewall Challenge = new Test

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by GES/POR, Mar 18, 2008.

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

    HyperFlow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Posts:
    115
    Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 6.0.2302.264.0490 [Beta] was tested....post #2

    03-19-2008,12:58 PM post #4 (since Version: 6.0.2284.253.0485 is the latest) it was not tested.

    Link
     
  2. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,656
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    We have fixed bugs in the product and asked for a retest. This is quite simply because: we want the test results published to be accurate, and of course, there is a marketing benefit to being listed at the top. Nobody has ever denied this.

    In that build the MAIN thing we fixed was stability, and, at least with our Beta testers we sincerely thought that we had nailed the explorer bug as well. It seems that we did not, just solved it for some. We did not add new features, but we have always, when we improved the product submitted it promptly for retesting.

    I understand fully that you have an issue with OA and in your case why you don't care about the test results. Please understand - just because I took 10 minutes to request Matousec retest our latest version, it does not mean my guys are not trying to resolve it.

    I think everyone understands that Tall Emu and Comodo involve themselves in tests for marketing reasons. Comodo even made their own test site for heavens sake!

    It's not like the results are so far apart anyway, so again - I am puzzled at this absurd over-reaction.


    Mike
     
  3. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    All those words about comodo firewall.... For me, it's as good as my toilet papers. It's probably another story for their embeded hips.
     
  4. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    Aha!

    Online Armor already worked it out and is 100% Matousec compatible.
    Transfered purchasers money to come off very well. Nice idea.

    Well Comodo's Melih "I feel dirty and somewhat cheap" will do the same.
    He expects a more credible, scheduled testing to be done. For money.

    And Outpost apparently thought "no risk is more fun" and sent an internal version to Matousec.
    If it fails, just send the next one, no one will ever know. Brilliant.

    Sometimes truth is an offence. :blink:

    Cheers
     
  5. Wordward

    Wordward Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Posts:
    707
    I want to make it clear that I'm not over-reacting to anything you did. Also I like OA very much and was simply using my particular dilemma as an example for why I really don't care about the Matousec Tests. Do I care that OA and Comodo provide a lot of protection for people? Yes. However, this Matousec thing has indeed caused an over-reaction. I have used PC Tools Firewall which doesn't do nearly as well as OA and Comodo, but it ran very well for me. That is the point I was trying to make and didn't mean to disparage a fine program like OA. I will add that both OA and Comodo have different and very good points about them other than their "leak test" capabilities, which is what should be talked about, and not what you or Melih do to promote them. I could go on, but this situation is starting to remind me of the current Democratic Canadates who are running for President here in the USA. Both sides are saying and doing things that are making some people leery of voting for either one them.
     
  6. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,656
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Agree. I'm not going to discuss marketing any futher here - it's not really appropriate - but if reasonable questions are asked, of course, I will provide a reasonable answer.


    Mike
     
  7. Shotwick

    Shotwick Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Posts:
    12
    Well, at least, finally OA users are able to watch a videoclip of their favorite HIPS in action :D
     
  8. lisalus

    lisalus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    7
  9. lisalus

    lisalus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    7
    Absurd? How rude!:mad:

    You're the one who does anything in order to put your product in the 1st place in the test.
    You're the one who claims that your product is the best based on the cheating.
    I consider what you did, paying for the retest and fixing the test results, to be cheating.
    As an ex OA fan, that's why I felt betrayed and I got upset.
    I wish my high school teacher had been as generous as Matousec is.
     
  10. DarrylW

    DarrylW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Posts:
    8
    A thread where people could propose questions to David Matousek - it would seem clear enough.
    No. Besides, it isn't an interview. It is a thread where people could propose questions to David Matousek.
    No. It is just what it says it is.
     
  11. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Of course you have facts to back this up.

    According to Wikipedia
    "Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others.[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules."

    So when OA was tested and a problem was found the vendor fixed it. Then to confirm it was fixed he paid to have it retested, and indeed it was found fixed. Naturally he paid, as Matousec only tests on certain intervals, so he asks to be paid to test when a vendor needs it. Just curious how this fits the definition of cheating.

    It is fine to not like a product, it is fine to be upset with a given vendor, but if your going to make accusations that are inflamatory then back them with facts.

    Pete
     
  12. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    Mike admitted there was a bug and a bug was fixed. Retest should show that there is neither a bug nor any other discovered leak anymore. So where is the cheating ?

    But I can say where the true cheating is. Look at OA score at testmysecurity, for example spt test, and there you find real cheating. Result is incorrect.
     
  13. Eh_Greg

    Eh_Greg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Posts:
    64
    Location:
    US.
    .

    It would be good money spent if perhaps you sent Matousec some money to help ya with the Explorer.exe error.
     
  14. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,750
    Location:
    EU
    It's nice you partipate here, but then stay on topic (Matousec etc.) and avoid one-liners.
    Did you post your eplorer.exe problem at the OA Forums?

    Gerard
     
  15. Adric

    Adric Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,429
    I am confident if a mistake in testing OA was made, it will be corrected. After all, the information supplied to Nick about the bug came from volunteer members that did the OA testing on the site you accuse of cheating.

    Al
     
  16. Eh_Greg

    Eh_Greg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Posts:
    64
    Location:
    US.
    [Sarcastic mode]No Gerard, I didn't post about it. I just make this stuff up.[/Sarcastic mode] :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  17. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,750
    Location:
    EU
    Thanks,

    Gerard
     
  18. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    I don't accuse, I just state the fact I have discovered myself and try to show what is real cheating and what is just a quick reaction. It seems the guy completely mixed these things. As for the service. It may be they will correct the mistake, then this is good of them. But for me personally this service will hardly be a source of reliable information. Though, I will not bush them. After all this is private service and they are free to do whatever they wish and show whatever results they wish.

    Information is only valuable when it is correct and up-to-dated. Restrospective picture may be interesting also, but for historians and PR managers.

    Edit: BTW, I personally thank those guys who helped to fix the real bug. They did great job for all the users and OA :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  19. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    I checked the Online Armor forum, and can't see any evidence you posted. Most of the people that had or are having the problem are also helping track the problem down.

    If indeed you "make this stuff up" there is nothing funny about it, and it's not the type of posting, that is informative, or helpful.

    Pete
     
  20. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Both of you are mixing around with the definition of cheating.

    OA did not cheat by paying for a test. Cheating would be paying to get a higher rating. And testmypc is not cheating, it is a mistake. The user who tested OA is retesting but you keep bringing this up.

    And peter everyone knows you like OA so it doesn't help when you come in to threads where fanboys are having wars :D.

    And alex you have purchased OA as you have told us which is probably why you keep trying to show that OA is better than comodo since you want to know a product you paid for is better than something free :D.

    I bet there is gonna be more problems when comodo also gets 100%. Matousec has to decide who goes on top of the other in the list.
    Is this going to be a gamble between tallemu and comodo by who can pay more for the top spot?

    I also think Melih should be allowed back at wilders. As comodo and tallemu having the most popular firewalls, both ceo's should be allowed to defend their product! CENSORSHIP I SAY!!!!!

    I feel a temporary ban coming.........
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  21. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,249
    Location:
    New England
    It's funny that you, a Comodo fan, would comment in this thread about anyone else being a fan of another product. You do enough defending of Comodo in threads here to balance things out.

    As for the status of any individual member and their access to this forum, or what you consider censorship, those are not things that are for discussion in public forum threads. Argue that and we might not be talking temporary anything. ;)

    As for this thread, there's been more than enough talk of cheating and the kind. Matousec has a set of rules and both Tallemu and Comodo availed themselves of the rule that allows for paid retesting. If you have argument with them doing that, take it up with Matousec as it is his rule. Blaming one then the other about using that option is pointless now since both have.

    Get back on topic - The test.
     
  22. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    BTW, I have purchased OA 2007 summer, when OA was not even in the rating :) Then I was glad when OA climbed step by step to the top. Not the case. I do not say OA is better than Comodo. I say they both good and Comodo is not any better. Some things OA does better, other things Comodo does better. And they have different target audience. Comodo for geekers and those who like to control everything. OA for those who hate too much alerts but still wants control on the dangerous actions and easy to use product. Most OA users say that it is very clear and intuitive.

    And as I said before I will not be upset in case Comodo will get the perfect score. I'll be glad for Comodo users. As for the spot. OK, Comodo is alphabetically the first. Let it take the spot. I can live with this :)
     
  23. Shotwick

    Shotwick Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Posts:
    12
    Let's get back to the topic please. Matousec, today the red hot topic, the giant company also know as the new marketing fart created and sponsored by the flouring success of "security-vendors"....

    Today Matousec, tomorrow another one. Those who pay most got the most points, it's democracy in its purest sence of the word.
     
  24. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    Just out of interest. Who are those vendors who sponsored Matousec back in 2006 ?
     
  25. hammerman

    hammerman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Posts:
    283
    Location:
    UK
    My view on this is that Matousec should have had software submitted from each company, carried out the testing and then published ALL the results. End of matter until next year or whenever.

    To allow retesting for a single company was in my opinion a mistake. If this is allowed for one company, it must be allowed for all companies. That means many companies could resubmit their software in order to get a higher ranking. What a nonsense.

    There would only be one winner out of this. IMO, if testing is going to be done, it should be done in a responsible way.

    I know that people have their favourite firewalls and won't hear a word said against them, but the reaction to these tests in this and other forums has been completely over-the-top.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.