Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by kerykeion, Sep 8, 2010.
Hmmm.. why remove the old results of OA?
Is this a loss? Matousec results prove nothing.
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.
Just in case people needed more proof that Matousec is a bad joke.
Matousec and drama, yay.
I read that Tall Emu sold Online Armor awhile back to Emsisoft.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 <*}}}>
I guess when the money runs dry...you cry like a baby!!
Matousec..is nothing but that!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'm hoping that Matousec find grounds to disqualify everyone.
Separate names with a comma.