Matousec latest

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Longboard, Jun 3, 2007.

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

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Here's a perspective: vulnerable or not, a normal user will answer how to pop-ups? Pop-ups he does not understand? If he/she wants to make sure everything works, allow. FW's purpose defeated.
    Now a big safelist that clears most of the pop-ups, ie, pop-ups appear for Privoxy, America's Army, etc. The user will now pay attention, or tend to know how to answer.
     
  2. hiro

    hiro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Try to read this discussion:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=174291&highl
    ight=bits
    Is nearly identical with this problem.

    To understand this problem you must go with your mind aut of leaktest environment, where your first worry is to block all.
    User in real circumstances with Comodo sugestion that all come from a safe list, and firewalls force people to allow access of trusted application, to make a connection to the internet, normal user accept all and "pigs dance" it begins!

    I see that few have understood the problem?
    Here not exist alternative! with so huge "safe" list, Comodo is not only vulnerable! is danger! because give false sense of assurance!
     
  3. dread

    dread Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    195
    Leaktest are ok I suppose, but I don't pay much attention to leaktest scores. Like it has been said before these leaktest are only good after you are affected. Being affected is the job for your antivirus or antispyware program not a firewall. I agree with Pedro most people will hit yes/allow.
     
  4. hiro

    hiro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Hi, wat0114, you were right!!
    After the various tests carried out this evening with jetico v1,
    And then comparing with Matousec table: http://www.matousec.com/projects/win...ts-results.php
    I find that dear Matousec does not speak the truth!
    Jetico v1 block "DNStester", "ZAbypass" and "Coat" leaktest!
    Three leaktest more, it puts jetico v1 much further on dear Matousec leaktest table!
    http://i7.tinypic.com/4yyrnf9.png
    If matusec read this thread, and thinks otherwise, it should demonstrate!
    I can also to demonstrate with "dnstester" and "zabypass" leaktest!
    For this I are not paid by anyone!!!!
     
  5. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    I do not see what you have against comodo so much. There are people that don't like cpf but not because of leaktests. I will tell you that comodo does protect against real malware. A keylogger tried getting out and comodo stopped it. I was lucky because my av could not stop it as it kept generating. CPF bought me time to save myself.

    Who cares if leaktests had false information. It still protects higher than many paid firewalls.
     
  6. hiro

    hiro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Hi, Coolio10
    I am not against nothing and no one, I speak of my experience, anyone can do if know how!
    For so many-many-many user it's the only way to compare firewall!
    Take care to try one's luck with real malware and comodo, and change your AV!
     
  7. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    I'm not so sure it's his honesty I would call into question, rather I feel he is not necessarily applying the strictest settings for all the tests. For instance, Outpost will pass the dnstester test easily as long as dns client service is disabled and dns network rights are applied on a per/application basis. If you look at the Matousec latest results, Outpost now is awarded a third best (Very Good) rating, so this must indicate the developers are taking his testing seriously.
     
  8. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    Avia Security Suite is not build 98 as stated by Matousec its 114 :cautious:
     
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.