Matousec Firewall Challenge = new Test

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

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

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    ===
    Every vendor has a right to request a paid Firewall Challenge testing, in which case its product will be tested in all levels regardless the results on each of the levels. After the vendor receives the results of the paid testing, it can either keep them private or request their publishing on our website. There are no limits of the frequency of the paid tests.
    ===
     
  2. Eh_Greg

    Eh_Greg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Posts:
    64
    Location:
    US.
    Sorry Petey, Forgot to add *Goes into sarcastic mode*

    - LowWaterMark: ~~ snipped comments ~~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2008
  3. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    This is the essence of the Matousec's Comedy of Errors, to adapt Shakespeare.
    Retestings are good for revenues on each side.
    Direct for Matousec in any case and for vendors indirect, hoping to get more recognition.

    Now there could be a unwanted adverse reaction.
    More and more people will see through this humbug and realize that Matousec's 100% tests have nothing to do with a real gain in security.
    They only indicate a 100% "compatibility" to Matousec's tests, likely achieved only after a series of tests.

    IMO, no man of sense can respect such fake tests
    and no real attack will unfortunately respect them too.

    Cheers
     
  4. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    I keep bringing this just because testmypc is bringing disinformation. People are misguided. And I feel I'm completely right trying to beware them that testmypc resource brings incorrect information. What do I do wrong ?
     
  5. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Whats wrong is going on about it even though its fixed or going to be fixed.
     
  6. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    So is it fixed or just "about to be fixed" ? This is very important.

    Let you take a look from outside. You see incorrect information. You say about it. Some fanboys try to persuade you this is not a cheating, but mistake.

    OK. If it was not Comodo resource, I'd likely to agree that it was a mistake. But since this is Comodo resourse and Comodo takes top position in the research, while there are obviouse mistakes about non-Comodo products the only natural summary is: "This is nothing but PR project".
     
  7. hammerman

    hammerman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Posts:
    283
    Location:
    UK
    Hi Alex,

    Thanks for pointing out the rules to me and I am sure nobody has broken any rules. I'm still of the opinion however that allowing paid retesting is a mistake.

    I'm not totally convinced that these tests are going to bring about great improvements in security anyway. The aim of producing a 100% Matousec rating for this set of tests and any future tests that may be devised could divert attention away from real improvements in security. To be frank, some of these firewalls have good leak test results but their stability, performance and user friendliness is a lot to be desired. There is certainly much room for improvement in these areas. A vendor that comes up with a fast, stable, user friendly and secure firewall is onto a winner. A high Matousec rating is not a prerequisite.
     
  8. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    I'm far from divinization Matousec and the tests he run. Do not think, please, I'm Matousec fan or advocate. I just give him what he obviously (IMHO) deserved. As a sofware developer I can say that his last serie of the tests is worked out on a high professional level. Another point (IMHO again) he is one of the most professional and independent testers. This is positive. Now negative. The testing scope is not comprehensive. But this is not for us, this is for him. I do not see another reliable project about FW testing where an average user can get more technically correct information. I completely disagree with the methodology he uses to calculate the score.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  9. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    Such a situation is really disgusting, isn't it? It's not security anymore. You call that fake tests, I call it fraud, intentional misleading and false publicity. They must be sooo proud of themselves!
     
  10. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    If you know a secret about where anyone can find fair, compehensive, complete, God-approved testing, then you are welcomed. If you don't have such a secret, then you are just a pointless criticizer.
     
  11. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    The comodo part of it is the site hosting and site template. The tests are run by users who wants to test. If comodo staff was testing it then you could call it cheating but users are testing it so how can you call it cheating?

    If comodo screwed around with the results than the testers would be mad.
    You are just against this so much because comodo owns the site.
     
  12. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    alex_s, there's no secrets on how to be honest and fair. You'll sooner or later realize that i'm not the only one to saying that it's fraud, intentional misleading and false publicity. Not everybody are neophytes.
     
  13. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    If you set the bar high into the sky ("God-approved") every human criticism is pointless of course. ;)

    Cheers
     
  14. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    Oh, no. For one I'm not against it, I just do not trust it. For two I do not trust it because the few checks I made showed that results are incorrect.

    PS. You are wasting our time. I'll stop bringing it up the moment you say "I bet all the results are correct there". Then I will just check some results. Then .. then we will see :)

    PPS. This is what they call "public control". Running something public you must be ready to face public control. And do not think people eat only what they are proposed to. Sometimes they do something on their own :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  15. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Oh No! 1 Mistake means a site can never be trusted again.
    Matousec still makes mistakes today! And guess what? Those mistakes were corrected by comodo users.
     
  16. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    You call it cheating by using the ignorance of others to your own advantage.
     
  17. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    I not smart enough to know what that means :D.
     
  18. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    I know you are not the only one. The problem is you (and other people I heard) are only saying, not proving or acting. And nobody suggested a better source or did at least as much as Matousec. On the other side Matousec is acting and acting very professional.
     
  19. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    OK. let us remove "God-approved", but let us leave the rest :)
     
  20. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    I know. Comodo users pay much attention to OA results at Matousec. This helps OA to go better and better, thank them very much :)

    As for Matousec. He is decent enough to admit his mistakes publically. This is what testmypc lacks.

    ===
    Latest news
    2008-03-25: We have received an email from ailef and MaratR with information about a security weakness in Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.112 Free that was tested in our challenge recently. We have successfully verified the information that the tested version of Online Armor automatically allows various privileged actions if it receives no response from the user in a few minutes after the alert is shown. We would like to thank ailef and MaratR for their findings, we would like to apologize to our visitors and other vendors for possibly wrong results in case of Online Armor.

    We have contacted the vendor of Online Armor and received the information that the latest version of this product, Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.119 Free, does not suffer from the problem any more. To solve the problem with possibly wrong results, the vendor ordered a paid testing of its product. We have tested Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.119 Free and found that the security hole was fixed and also that it passes all current Firewall Challenge tests. Online Armor is thus the first product with the perfect result in Firewall Challenge tests. We are going to implement new tests to the testing system in next months and try to violate its perfect score.
    ===
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  21. Lundholm

    Lundholm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Posts:
    108
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Old Zealand
    Alex,

    Your logic is so unique that it was noticed by Einstein.

    The fact that you cannot find "good" does not mean that you have to accept "crap". That is, not in a free country.

    I like this thread. It's the first reasonably realistic thread about the matus-what's-his-name circus.
     
  22. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    Still stirring it up, eh Lundholm? :D ;) :shifty:
     
  23. Lundholm

    Lundholm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Posts:
    108
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Old Zealand
    Hi monty,

    Haven't seen you post for a long time. Some topics are forever interesting:

    matusse,
    "leak test" (I have to P now!)
    COMODO is good,
    OA is even better,
    Scot

    They will always generate an enormous thread. Try posting "Nothing new about OA" :D
     
  24. 3xist

    3xist Guest

    Well, Matousec has to apologize twice for incorrectly marking tests passed... They had to apologize TWICE for making OA on top of the leak tests!

    If any of you remember:


    So you tell me whats going on? If anyone can! ...

    Cheers,

    3xist.
     
  25. Lundholm

    Lundholm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Posts:
    108
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Old Zealand
    Hi 3xist,
    I believe that there is still an open question in this thread about who is actually funding matusse. What do you think?
     
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.