Matousec - Leak-testing update

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by MaB69, Jul 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MaB69

    MaB69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Posts:
    540
    Location:
    Paris
    Hi all,


    Updated Results

    Regards,

    MaB
     
  2. Bio-Hazard

    Bio-Hazard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    529
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    Hello!

    Online-armor in third place. Well done Mike!:thumb:
     
  3. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Great job Mike and keep aiming for that first place spot.
     
  4. xuesisi

    xuesisi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Posts:
    71
    PS1.4 good
     
  5. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Oops, I'm using a "poor" firewall of straw : Look'n'Stop. Is that true ?
     
  6. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Matousec tests a firewall's (or HIPS) leaktest abilities and in that aspect LnS does poorly. Of course, its inbound protection is good.
     
  7. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    So Inbound = wall, Outbound = straw. OK. Thanks. I will think about it.
     
  8. Doc Serenity

    Doc Serenity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Posts:
    105
    When I google Pro Security Site Advisor show them with a Red 'X'.
    If I google Proactive-hips Site Advisor shows the same thing.
    Is there a problem that I'm not seeing or perhaps a mistake by Site Advisor?
    Doc
     
  9. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Site Advisor only marks the site as red because they found a link to itshareware.com

    ProSecurity is safe and I generally take SA's ratings with a grain of salt.
     
  10. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
    Most impressive regarding Online Armor. Quite a formidable firewall/HIPS its becoming. I'll echo the well deserved kudos to Mike Nash! :thumb:
     
  11. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Hi All...

    It's a team here at Tall Emu... I'm just the public face.. :cool:

    Thanks for the kind words. We still have a way to go, but we're making consistent progress. Thanks to the everlasting patience of our beta test team, we should have a new release coming out next week with some much awaited features, plenty of minor tweaks, cosmetics - and hopefully even better leaktest results.


    Mike

    PS: Our Beta test team :) http://www.tallemu.com/beta_test_team.html
     
  12. Doc Serenity

    Doc Serenity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Posts:
    105
    WSFuser-
    Thanks for the info.
    Doc
     
  13. Bio-Hazard

    Bio-Hazard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    529
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    I am looking forward to the new release of Online-Armor. :thumb:
     
  14. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    No, this is not necesarilly true. Of course, it is true for the methodology used by Matousec for testing, but my advice is to test your firewall and your rules against some of the leaktests. You will see that the results you get will differ from Matousec's results.
     
  15. fce

    fce Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Posts:
    758
    True!

    I thought K I S 7 is also tough firewall base on Matousec testing, but when i test it myself (firewallleaktester.com)....BANG!! it failed (YALTA, AWFT)

    Btw, im using vista 32....according to other user, if i'm using XP it will not fail. duh i thought this firewall is vista ready.
     
  16. Jo Ann

    Jo Ann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    508
    Comodo still rules and it's free, so why look elsewhere? ;)
     
  17. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,061
    Because being free, and being best at one person's leaktests, don't necessarily add up to the best product. I've looked at Comodo, and I for one, just don't like them, so that's why I look elsewere.
     
  18. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    1,620
    Location:
    Canada
    Same here, I tried Comodo twice and did not really like it.
     
  19. Jo Ann

    Jo Ann Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    508
    Hi Pete,

    I have no stock in Comodo and as the saying goes, 'to each his own'. However, I must add that Comodo gets top scores in most every independent FW test I have come across!

    Regards,
    Jo Ann
     
  20. TopperID

    TopperID Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,527
    Location:
    London
    There's much more to FWs than leak tests, which are 'proof of concept' after all, that's why Kaspersky are refusing to maximise their scores on this test - to do so would involve tightening up default settings which would impact on the general user who has no practical need for such concerns. Of course the knowledgeable user can always apply configurations that would pass the tests if they so wish. The exception being OSfwbypass which KAV 7 was supposed to pass (according to Kaspersky) but apparently does not - I bet it will soon though!
     
  21. Jarmo P

    Jarmo P Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    1,188
    Some prefer leaktests so much.
    It is only that with Comodo even if it passes those leaktests and hope it does not get rules messed like I experienced or more serious, you just cannot get to know about security or other software you have installed how they connect to internet.

    A simple packet filter like kerio 2.1.5 does a very good job in that. Something Comodo cannot do. You can put to log every rule connection made to internet and examine how they behave. It is something you cannot get information from Comodo 2.4.

    I am not against Comodo. No BSODS on my install and was mostly well behaved. But mostly is the word and not at times when appmon and network monitor showed red! that happened too and are one of the reasons I dont run Comodo now.
     
  22. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,650
    Location:
    Hawaii
    The Tall Emu folks (proponents of Online Armor) are awesome! Starting from scratch, they built a first tier firewall in speedy jig time, quickly surpassing FWs that have been around for quite a long time.:eek:

    I tried Comodo. It did NOT play nicely with my other security apps.
     
  23. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,061
    Totally Agree.

    Jo Ann. Never thought you had stock in Comodo. Lots of folks love it. I just am not one. I for one don't care about leak tests. If it passes muster at GRC it's good enough.

    What I like about Online Armor, is the firewall works from my point of view. I don't have to mess with rules, although if you like them you can. Also the systray Icon traffic indicator. That was a must and Tall Emu folks did a great job. Also their status display is unmatched.

    Finally when it comes to listening and responding to what I want in a product Mike Nash and company listen and respond.

    Pete
     
  24. hiro

    hiro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Can Matousec honestly perform test what comodo collect from your PC and send, repited questions from first comodo day, or user get satisfy with ridicule reply from comodo CEO and fan like this:
    Then read some user experience!
    Yes it's creepy, but true!
    Yes gather "who".
    Yes gather "where".
    Yes gather "why".
    Yes gather "how many".
    And I think much more, just not forget this frightening word from CBOC eula:
    There is user/system identificable information transmitted anywhere during every boot of CFP.
    This is more important, but people prefer leaktests so much? do you need another firewall to control comodo? Realy seems a firewall for people without questions!
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2007
  25. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    Same here, Pete. But hey, it sounds like you and bellgamin at least got it to work!!! I couldn't even get it to work on my system, and that was the very first piece of software I've ever had that refused to even work (let alone, "work flawlessly")!

    I tried it on three seperate occasions, and even the folks at the Comodo forum couldn't figure out why that was....so it's been off my computer ever since.

    :thumb:

    I'm been waiting for the right time to use Online Armor for the exact reasons that you mentioned, Pete, and from the sound of things the Gold RC version is about to be released for the public here very soon..... :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.