ZA Pro still fail PCFlank's leak test?

I tested ZA Pro firewall with PC flank's leak tester, and it failed.
How about you guys?

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Hi!
yes, its known and as far as I can see they will not fix it.
I think they just don't care about it. Once upon a time they black listed the website directly.

For the rest, the latest version have been improved against test leaks.
See here: http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php

If you are a fan of leak tests firewalls than go with OA or COMODO. They usually very much focused on leaks. ZA is not paranoid in fixing the firewall as soon as a new leak is released. They do fix leaks if they think are important to fix.

Why they never fixed PC flank? You should ask them...

Cheers,
Fax

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Most internet users probably don't care or don't know what a leak test is. ZA is going after the majority of users who know little or nothing about computer security.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

As do most security products. I do take your point that checkpoint has changed the ZA focus from being a non-leaky firewall to a mainstream solution.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

If i remember correctly, try the same test, but this time unplug the ethernet cable.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fails PCFlnak's leak test?

My view of leak tests is that they have no relevence in the real world.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fails PCFlnak's leak test?

+1 too much hype and marketing + firewalls with crazy pop-up disease.

Fax

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Comodo aren't crazy for leak tests either, And no Comodo aren't very much focused on leak tests at all. Believe me Comodo strongly believes in keeping end users computers protected with REAL threats rather than "leak tests" and improve usability, performance and security with each release (I.E, Next Comodo Internet Security version) while listening to users and supporting their views.

Cheers,
Josh

 

Re: ZA Pro still fails PCFlnak's leak test?

But ZA were the people who started detecting outward leaks in the first place. Kinda ironic.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Have not played with any leak tests in quit some time so may be way off base here. The last time I did try any they all exploited IE. If IE is set to ask then the exploit fails.

DISCLAIMER: As stated, has been a while so may be totally incorrect.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Of course, as most of the many respectable companies in this sector.

Cheers,
Fax

 

There is great value in having the ability to detect, and choose whether to block or allow, outgoing connections in realtime. It is in fact one of the reasons I do run the software that I run.

And it has been awhile since I ran any of the specifically-designed leak tests. I know that I fare well under the Shields-Up and similar tests. Still, some of the tests did seem a bit contrived and unrealistic.

Information is neither good nor bad. It is how that information is used and interpreted that determines its value.

 

Same here... ZAP let's it connect to the internet. But GeSWall Pro does not. The executable, upon download, is isolated by GW on my desktop. Then I am asked upon running the executable if I want to keep the program isolated? By saying yes (the recommended choice), the leak test is not successful. GeSWall Pro serves as a viable protection layer, helping my firewall. Worth noting, this GW isolation protection only works if I choose to download the executable and run it from my computer. If I run it without downloading it, GW doesn't help and the firewall fails the test.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fails PCFlnak's leak test?

I agree, and here's why... in order to run the test, the user has to first deal with a File Download-Security Warning that asks, Do you want to run or save this file? The user is given three choices... Run-Save-Cancel. If user declines, then PCFlankLeaktest.exe never gets to do its thing! Isn't this a bit like a bank robber asking a teller for a gun so that he can rob the place? It's always prudent to refuse the bank robber's request.

 

FYI:

There are several excellent firewalls that do not pass some of the well known leak tests. The reason for this is that those firewalls, while they recognize an outward bound connection attempt, are also intelligent enough to see that the attempt and/or the source is not malicious.

.

 

UmMM dunno, BUT Check Point claims that ZA passes the PC Flank Leak Test.

Look here at the bottom of the list of firewalls it is claimed that ZA passes.

http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/independent-tests-internet-firewall-comparison.htm

 

I think that the key is to make sure that the test program is actually testing your firewall, and not your router or your ISP's firewall.

Run the PCFlank Quick Test and view the results.

"IP Address test

The test has determined your IP address to be:

Please verify that this is your true IP address.

If the IP address determined by the test is not your true IP address please cancel the test as further results of the test would be incorrect. Commonly the test fails to determine your true IP address because of you are connected to the Internet through a proxy-server or your ISP uses Network Address Translation (NAT) to share IP addresses."

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

There are some very essential "leaktests". Actually they are not "leaktests", but stability tests. For example level9 and level10 verify kernel stuff for a correct imiplementation. I can live with some tests failed, but level 9 reached does mean that the kernelmode drivers are implemented incorrectly which results in intermittent BSODs from time to time.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Hi!
the original post relates to PCFlank leaktests and the comments too
Its not a stability test but a leak test. Or not?

...and btw Level 10 is not checked if previous test is failed
May be you can open a new thread with this breaking news?

Cheers,
Fax

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

level 10 is shadowhook - matousec selfmade tool, level 9 is MS driver verifier - standard MS tool to find the faulty drivers.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Yes, indeed and how does this relates to PCflank leaktest?
I am lost

Fax

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

PCflank is a child toy if to compare with driver verifier and shadowhook. Until those two are failed you need not to care about PCFlank. This is relation as I see it.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

uuuh, drive verifier is more about checking correct design and not much about security.... shadowhook has not been tested (test on each level are only performed if the previous has passed). In other words... you can get a crash of the system or a BSOD but this is not a way in for malware.

Fax

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

I disagree. Theoretically any flaw in design can be exploited to compromise security.

This is questionable. Intentional BSOD is nothing but DOS attack, and if it can be invoked from a usermode due to faulty driver this is inacceptable. To say nothing that "not lucky" BSOD can kill you system and your valuable data.

 

Re: ZA Pro still fail PCFlnak's leak test?

Are these flaws in the firewalls we are talking about or flaws in the design of the windows operating system?
Kind of wondering why use windows in the default administrative account if there are design flaws?