Online Armor temporarily disqualified on Matousec Proactive Security Challenge

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by kerykeion, Sep 8, 2010.

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

    kerykeion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Posts:
    267
    Location:
    Philippines
    From http://www.matousec.com/

    Hmmm.. why remove the old results of OA? :thumbd:
     
  2. fsr

    fsr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Posts:
    190
    Is this a loss? Matousec results prove nothing.
     
  3. nessy90

    nessy90 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Posts:
    103
    Probably because they are trying to justify their own inadequacies, and the fact that any body with any intelligence will see this for the pathetic stunt that it is.:rolleyes:

    nessy
     
  4. drakester

    drakester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Just in case people needed more proof that Matousec is a bad joke.:rolleyes:
     
  5. ALookingInView

    ALookingInView Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    Matousec and drama, yay. :rolleyes:
     
  6. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I read that Tall Emu sold Online Armor awhile back to Emsisoft.
     
  7. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,949
    They did and this is slightly confusing and the incident claimed by Matousec is not very clearly written out.

    I also wonder what does Tall Emu's breakup with Matousec got to do with EmisiSofts OA?
     
  8. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    And Emsisoft will care why? Matousec has been a joke for a very long time. This is nothing more than some childish little pout and is completely ignorable by us and Emsisoft.
     
  9. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    I used to think that Matousec was a good HIPS test (if we ignore the results of all software which don't have HIPS), but with the weird, suspicious advertisements when trying to download their SSTS I don't really care about their tests. Also they have some very weird tests, like crashing Windows by taking all available memory. Is that a real security risk or something malware would do?
     
  10. Woody777

    Woody777 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Posts:
    484
    I am confused by their rational, & even what they are talking about. Whatever the reason for disqualifying Online Armor, they are now ignoring one of the arguably best Firewalls on the market. Their testing will now include all of Online Armors competitors but since they are now excluding OA serious firewall users will not be able to use these tests as definitive on which firewall to buy & recommend. I agree that Matousecs tests are sometimes wanting at best.
     
  11. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
    lol!? matousec and another dispute with <fill_out_with_any_name>
    ridiculous!? >> "Our company raised claims against"

    yes - it was time to ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ matousec from emsisoft
    feed the dead fish <*}}}>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2010
  12. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Posts:
    2,136
    Location:
    R.I.P. Roger(roddy32)
    I guess when the money runs dry...you cry like a baby!!
    Matousec..is nothing but that!!
     
  13. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,953
    Location:
    USA
    Could they be more vague! Blah Blah Blah.. Why remove past test result? Looks like someone got their panties in a wad. Matousec, you could give some reason if your going to post something like this on your site.
     
  14. henryg

    henryg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Posts:
    293

    For David Matousec.... it was always about the money.

    The group at Emsisoft knows well enough how good Online Armor is..... I wouldn't blame them if they decided not to pay David to support his extortion scheme.
     
  15. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,953
    Location:
    USA
    I wonder if Talle Mu or OA possibly owed money to Matousec from prior testing. That would be the only valid reason i could think of for Matousec to remove prior testing results. If Talle Mu did pay Matousec for prior testing then would their be any legal implications on Matousec's part for removing prior results? If Talle Mu paid for services rendered then could Talle Mu sue Matousec for breach of the terms of services rendered? On the other hand if Talle Mu did not pay for prior services rendered then Matousec could possibly sue Talle Mu for theft of services? Who would have jurisdiction if something like this went to trial? This is only a theory or speculation on my part. I do not have any of the facts, and this is only a stab in the dark. Just some food for thought.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2010
  16. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    If I needed a stand alone firewall I would choose OA without hesitation. I am not as well versed in all this as almost everyone else here, and did put some faith in Matousec's tests.
    I really have no idea as to how to choose a firewall except to see the results of tests. There seem to be very few firewall or anti malware tests.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  17. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    This is not a firewall test, it's a HIPS (Host intrusion prevention system) test.

    Remember the KHOBE thing which Matousec started? I read multiple blog entries from multiple AV companies back then that Matousec gave the companies no time to fix the issue and demanded money for giving the companies the necessary information for why their product failed. Well, that's when they lost their last bits of reliability for me.
     
  18. littlebits

    littlebits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    I used to trust Matousec's tests but then things started to get very strange.
    Several red flags started to show up.

    1. Vendors can pay additional charges for re-testing if their products get a low rating. Some vendors did paid additional charges and got a much higher rating. This was very suspicious because if the first test wasn't accurate, that was Matousec's testing error why should the vendors have to pay again??

    2. They started to test methods that is not even used by know malware. Who cares if their HIPS Firewall doesn't stop these methods when known malware don't even use those methods?? Adding these detection methods to software will just make them bloated, resource hogs, full of bugs and not user friendly, example: Comodo

    3. "The group and all its projects have been acquired in April 2009 by Different Internet Experience Ltd." Who is DIFINEX LTD??
    DIFINEX LTD simply doesn't exists, no info anywhere on the web about the company. Where is DIFINEX's other projects?? Matousec appears to be the only one. Whois is blocked by DomainsByProxy.com. Which even is more suspicious, who would a legitimate company block their registrant?

    4. Controversial testing results for some products tested. Example: Norton Internet Security was not tested in advanced mode, therefore it didn't have all of its HIPS features enabled. Norton is setup for basic users this make less pop up notifications and the advanced features are not so easy to find, you have to disable automatic detection and manually configure. Kaspersky Internet Security has advanced protection at default settings. Norton got cheated on the testing results. Other examples; products like ThreatFire, Mamutu and many other products which intended features are not developed to protect against all these testing methods were tested in the same exact way.

    Some of these product just have basic one-way or two-way firewalls while others only have a few HIPS features, why test them against methods that they are not developed to defend against?? The end result, is Matousec paints a picture that these products will not protect you which is false.

    5. Removing one of the best user friendly HIPS Firewalls available from testing over a stupid dispute, if Online Armor is not going to be tested then why should anyone care about the other results? You have to have all of the main players or the result is not accurate.

    Too many red flags for me, there needs to be a more accurate HIPS Firewall testing site. Anyone know of a better testing site??

    Thanks.:)
     
  19. Rampastein

    Rampastein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Posts:
    290
    No, you have to enable it, otherwise KIS doesn't throw any pop-ups and decides about application permissions without asking the user. And the guys at Matousec have always enabled it (interactive mode). Good points there though.
     
  20. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    When $ changes hands twixt vendors and testers then the testing results are not independent and never will be.

    This "disqualification" is probably a good thing.

    This no doubt a money issue.
     
  21. littlebits

    littlebits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    I'm not making any accusations, but in several online chats, people are saying that DIFINEX LTD is a cover up for Comodo.
    Comodo bought Matousec and used the anonymous DIFINEX LTD. because people wouldn't discredit the testing results.
    So could this be true that DIFINEX LTD is really Comodo in disguise??

    If it is true then it would be a conflict of interest since Comodo Firewall is always at the top of Matousec Proactive Security Challenge.

    Of coarse there is any facts to support these accusations except for just people are saying.
    It would be a shocker if found to be true.

    Thanks.:)
     
  22. emsisoft

    emsisoft Security Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    312
    Location:
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Well, the only unfair thing for me (Emsisoft) is, that it is NOT any issue between Matousec and Emsisoft, but Matousec and Tall Emu. Tall Emu does not own Online Armor anymore, Emsisoft does.

    Delisting is wrong. It is a black-hearted attack against Emsisoft. With all its consequences felt by us, not by Tall Emu.

    Matousec also tried to blackmail Emsisoft to pay money that Tall Emu (for good reason imho) denied to pay them.
     
  23. Warlockz

    Warlockz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    642
    I trust Comodo and I also trust Matousec, I tried Online Armor but it was to slow and unresponsive especially when I opened explorer to brows files or started apps. it felt like I was infected with a virus, and this was tested on Windows XP SP3 with 2 cores at 2.4ghz and 3 GB ram which is more than enough power to handle the processes.

    Everyone who has doubts about matousec can always download the Security Software Testing Suite and test it for themselves inside a VirtulBox or VirtualMachine, you have nothing to loose. all I see is accusations flying left and right with no proof to back any of it up? whattt o_O
     
  24. chris1341

    chris1341 Guest

    I suppose that is what forums like this are about, different views, but my opinion is entirely the opposite.

    I won't comment on Comodo or their 'entertaining' CEO (to much hyperbole here already), as for Matousec does anyone care anymore? Anyway, Emsisoft and Tall Emu before them are 2 of the more trustworthy companies you will find and as for performance I'm currently using OA++ and on my set up at least its much lighter than CIS5.

    Goes to show who you trust is as personal as how you judge performance.

    Back on topic could not give a rats if OA is never tested by Matousec again but any attempt to get Emsisoft to contribute financially to resolve a dispute with Tall Emu should be deeply disturbing to to those who 'trust' this organisation.

    Cheers
     
  25. stackz

    stackz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Posts:
    619
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    I'm hoping that Matousec find grounds to disqualify everyone. ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.