PC Tools Firewall 6 beats Comodo at Matousec

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by aegreen, Sep 9, 2009.

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

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I do agree pc TOOLS firewall plus rules are strong.
     
  2. Joliet Jake

    Joliet Jake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    911
    Location:
    Scotland
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I think people should head over to the Other Anti Virus Software section and read the thread started by Blue Zannetti -
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=253123
    Take your time and take it all in, then come back and think about Matousec's results. Should we put too much importance in a single test or is it more important to view a Firewalls performances over months and years?

    Surely the firewall, any firewall, that stays in the top over a long period is a safe bet. One that pop's into the top of the rankings overnight shows they have gone all out to pass the tests but the important question is, can they maintain this?
    Any firewall that has demonstrated over months and years that it can stay in the top tier shows they have the coders, skill, will and experience that should make users feel secure in the long term.

    Personally I'm not the type of person that jumps on the latest bandwagon, if something serves me well I stick by it so Matousec and AV Comparatives, while performing an important function, don't influence me or my decision making on a three monthly basis if that makes sense!
     
  3. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec


    This can be flawed also. It also depends on the test and how the test works. Like this one, It does not even test "Firewalls" it test hips.

    Blues post is a great post but mainly Apply's to those tests and how detection works. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges here.
     
  4. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Without these software's someone could take over your system. Thus the need for such software. We can go at it all day how to test this one and all the others out there they all do one thing PROTECT! Some protect more than others some don't protect some fail some don't fail. Etc.

    Most features are

    Stealth Ports
    Closed Ports
    Open Ports

    I/O blocks
    I/O allow

    HIPS, HTTP (Web Guard) (Cookie Guard) Bad Sites Guard with today's firewalls. Some do so much more..
     
  5. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    An high quality, reliable hardware firewall router is all that is needed, optionally, along with Microsoft Windows Firewall at most.


    HKEY1952
     
  6. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    See I can understand where you're coming from with that answer, but frankly I got to disagree with your statement. With what I've seen online if you go into the deeper end of it then you need some beef-up software firewall. If you're going to play it safe and just visit forums and check your web mail and don't pay your bills online then you could get away with your NAT/SPI WAN ping attacks router firewall and windows embedded firewall. Still the old Sygate Personal Firewall was why most of us regulars on the net started going in that direction.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
  7. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Yes, I agree with the latter part of your statement, and perhaps I should have emphasized more.....one would have to navigate very deep into the basement of the Internet before an beefed-up security policy would be required, and I am referring to beyond porno. Also, yes, paying bills online would also require an little more of an beefed-up security policy.


    HKEY1952
     
  8. dave88

    dave88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    177
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I disagree, you can run into nasties pretty easily these days just straying from the major sites.

    What's beyond porno? :) facebook? myspace?
     
  9. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Funny! I am not talking about the naughty sites when I was talking going deeper into the internet. There are other areas of the net that are dangerous to visit. I am not talking about going there everyday also. I just like to play it safe. Once you get hit or attack it's not a pretty sight too deal with. I am sure you feel your okay with what you got.
     
  10. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec


    Twitter, Facebook, Myspace those are block by the router or if I use RIS then it can be block by IP on systems directly.

    Webguard protection on sites deem bad or unknown are many than 10 years ago. Where this problem wasn't so widespread.
     
  11. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    There is no doubt bad code everywhere on the Internet, and the deeper one navigates into the Internet, the more the odds increase for infection.
    Now, what do we refer to as major sites? I would refer to major sites as: Reputable security, software, news, magazine, review, shopping, banking, and hobby sites, to mention an few.
    Social Web Sites like: Twitter, FaceBook, and MySpace are also major sites, however, I consider those particular major sites as risky because there is too much interaction between the members and
    these major sites are also blocked by my router. Crack sites, some coding sites, some anonymity sites, some dating and porno sites are also major sites, however these particular major sites
    practice their activity in an underground like behavior. So straying from major sites is the improper terminology, lets say straying from reputable Worldwide renowned sites can increase the chance of infection.

    Now, about getting infected on the Internet as an whole. People all over the World bank and shop online everyday. If the chances of getting infected on the Internet were as contagious as security vendors, marketers,
    magazines, and paranoid people magnify it to be, then people simply would not bank and shop online.....well, that is not going to happen, because banks and businesses would loose profit.
    All of the Internets infections that are out there in reality are controlled, regulated, and governed by higher authorities and powers. This International dictation filters the Internets infections to only allow
    an certain degree of bad code to roam the Internet, this in turn generates revenue. We buy the security software, the security venders pay taxes, the taxes better our World.


    HKEY1952
     
  12. SammyJack

    SammyJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts:
    129
    The Dang Ole' Illuminati are our friends!!
     
  13. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Let's put it this way in 1995 there wasn't so much of a threat. You seem to forget all those who break into these online services we all use daily. Still let's say you don't have a router and you don't use a software firewall nor anti-anything what would then happen if you starting surfing the internet. You might feel nothing, but in fact the browser cache is the hole in the middle of this debate. I just say you don't have to go over board to protect the system from threats. The threat can be anything today, not just all these pest. All these re-direct when you click on a link or use one of the many search engines today to find the items you seek.

    You need protection for these even though those sites should have extra security.

    Online Banking
    Paying Bills
    Buying items

    These don't need so much protection since they just report what's going on.
    News
    Sports
    Mags
    New/Used Cars
     
  14. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,051
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    For whatever it's worth, I just installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 on my VM and ran Comodo Firewall Test Suite. It only scored 180/340. Not too hot IMHO.
     
  15. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    No, let's put it the way it is, we are are not going back in time, we are going forward in time. From the current year 2009 onward, Internet infections, threats, crime, and
    advertising schemes and threats, as we know them today, will start to be phased out of existence and effectiveness within an decade. There will always be active counteracting
    Internet activity, it is human nature, however, instead of counteracting Internet activity in effective quantity, there will only exist an few with quality.

    The Internet and computer age has taken off the ground now and is airborne, there is no turning back now. Everything we do in everyday life involves computers and Internet activity.
    The world's leaders, backed up by and supported by "We the People of Planet Earth" will no longer tolerate the existing architecture of the computing and Internet infrastructure.
    Citizens of Planet Earth must feel secure, and in reality, have that security when performing everyday activity on the global transporter we call The Internet.

    Google has lifted the fog that was obscuring the horizon to safe and secure computing on the Internet with its introduction of the Google Chrome Operating System.
    The Google Chrome Operating System, currently, when released, will only support Netbooks. The only installation on the Netbook will be the Google Chrome Operating System.
    The Netbook will boot in seconds, is impervious to infections, and is designed to run Web-based applications very well. The final version is estimated for the second half of 2010.

    Also soon to be available on the now visible horizon, is Microsoft Office 2010, an Web-based application. Microsoft Office 2010 will add: Office Web Applications, slimmer versions of
    Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and OneNote. Final version estimated for the first half of 2010.

    Cloud-based technology and computing is the wave of the future, it promises ease of use, and provides the needed security to be "Safe Online". Cloud Technology is in its infancy, and
    will not be safe and secure as needed under the current infrastructure of the Internet and computer architecture. This needed change will evolve to maturity within an decade.
    Yes, 1995 was an good Year, but 2095 will be much better.


    HKEY1952
     
  16. Hmm I wonder why. ;)

    (Yes, maybe I'm paranoid. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if any company optimized a test suite to work well with their product.)
     
  17. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,051
    Location:
    United Surveillance States
    That wouldn't surprise me either. You have to display your product in a positive light. However, I don't think this particular test suite is optimized to perform better with Comodo products. You can download all of the tests that are included in the suite individually. They are written by various programmers. All that Comodo did was aggregate the tests into an easy to manage and execute program. The Comodo test suite tested with Malware Defender on my VM yields 320/340 and with Jetico 240/320. MD would get a 330/340, but the test suite detects direct disk read access and MD only alerts on write attempts.
     
  18. Joliet Jake

    Joliet Jake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    911
    Location:
    Scotland
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec


    It could but then why are people putting any stock into a single Matousec test if we shouldn't put any into looking at the long term statistics of Firewalls in Matousec tests.

    Like Blue said, is there really much of a difference between 95% and 99%? Yes there will be a difference between 40% and 99% but at the top it is so close. It's better surely to look at which firewalls maintain themselves right in the top two or three over the course of months and years than to select one test and read too much into it. That's the gist I was getting from his post.
     
  19. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,909
    Location:
    USA
    After I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 I checked how much memory PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 was using the reading was quite low. After two hours I started the computer cleanup with Ccleaner, I had files from the comodo firewall un instillation in the recycle bin to erase. I clicked on the recycle Bin and the computer froze, I then tried clicking on the desktop the computer froze. I ended-up going to safe mode to un install PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69.
     
  20. cqpreson

    cqpreson Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    348
    Location:
    China
    Maybe there was some comodo's vestigital in your computer before you installed PCT.So after installed PCT,they were conflict.
     
  21. Anonymous696

    Anonymous696 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Posts:
    16
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Just to point out, one shouldn't really be going by the results' order, but rather go by the actual scores.

    Matousec's ('Protection level' of "Excellent") ordering seems to be biased; when there's a tie in scores, the paid-for program triumphs. One could speculate that PC Tools came after OA(Online Armor) because of standard alpha ordering. But as you can see from a previous post of mine about a previous test of Matousec's, that isn't the case:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1497342&postcount=71

    The title of, "Online Armor Retains First", wouldn't really be correct, as PC Tools (Firewall Plus 6.0.0.69) tied with OA; receiving the same scores of 99%. A better title may be (along the lines of): "PC Tools ties for first".
     
  22. SammyJack

    SammyJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts:
    129
    I supose my point in posting was to say I see no problem
    with either the way the OP named his thread,(or the way the results were displayed by the testing entity.)

    Agree or disagree with the results is a different matter.
    If they carried much weight with me, I would use one of
    the top rated programs as my Firewall.
     
  23. lws

    lws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Posts:
    196


    Would like an answer regarding PC Tools firewall plus and the Gibson research leak test found at http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm PC Tools firewall shows that it fails this test and yet it passes the PC flank leak test and all the Matousec leak tests. All of the noted firewalls such as OSS, OA, Comodo, Private etc. etc. and even Sygate 5.6 passes the Gibson test. I am not here knocking PC Tools firewall plus as I am using it as of now. Maybe one of the testers such as Kees can give me an answer as he gave a good explanation on setting up Threatfire which is part of PC tools and is there is a way of setting up PC tools firewall to pass that pesky leak test.:rolleyes: Thanks in advance.
     
  24. nhamilton

    nhamilton Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    61
    Because the test is broken, if it receives a response of any kind it reports failure. PCTools blocks it since it is using port 80, a html page is returned explaining that the page has been block. So the test fails.
     
  25. Airflow

    Airflow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Posts:
    39
    They simply add pctools firewall to their old results, lazy guys.

    PCTools Firewall wasn´t a top product since yesterday
    why they did not find this top of the notch firewall earlier?
     
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.