matousec.com - right or wrong

[Tony Cole]

Hi Everyone:

Comodo states that http://www.matousec.com is the golden grail of firewall testing. I wanted to know if you agree? According to matousec security suites like eset, Panda, Norton etc., have NO firewall protection

 

[Sven]

Yeah, IMHO they are quite OK with their firewall tests. Those guys doing this job over 8 years now and they run their tests only for Firewalls. Well, they don't tell Panda,Norton etc. doesnt have firewall, just they're assuming that those firewalls was not capable to pass from their tests.

Matousec is well-known and respected in the security/IT based-world, due to their own test methods and their one-sided job of testing firewalls only, yet I do not know if they are not 'financially-supported' by a security company, you know what I mean

 

[Littlebits]

Go to Wilder's security forum and search for "matousec.com". You will find that their testing methodology has been discredited many times.
Some of the most common reasons:
1. They test in levels, if a product fails to pass one level then it is not allowed to continue to the next level of testing even though it could pass the next level.
2. Their tests is not a firewall test at all, they don't even tests many network protocols, ports, etc. They test only full advanced HIPS features. So if a products doesn't have full HIPS features included, they give that product a low score even though it could have excellent firewall network control.
3. The Security Software Testing Suite used in their testing contains mostly methods that are no longer used by most malware today, so even if a product get top score, it really doesn't mean much.
4. Many users believe that Comodo secretly owns matousec.com and uses it to advertise their own product. Awhile back many years ago, matousec.com announced that they were bought by another company. The new company was unknown and hide its registrant with Proxies because nobody could find out who really bought it. You can click- here and see they still hide their ownership using Whois Protection Guard. Before they announced that they were bought, the Whois info was available to the public. Matousec.com was bought right after the fact of their last test where Comodo took 3rd place below PC Tools Firewall and Online Armor. After the buyout Comodo has been on top every since.
5. The Online Armor controversy- TallEmu was the owner and original developer of Online Armor before he sold it to Emsisoft. Somehow TallEmu and matousec.com (under new ownership after it was sold) got into a disagreement about payments for testing. Online Armor had got top score twice in a roll and PC Tools Firewall also got better scores on previous tests compared to Comodo, but now PC Tools was getting discontinued and the only competitor left was Online Armor. The disagreement did not get settled between TallEmu and matousec.com, so they removed all previous tests that showed that Online Armor had got better scores than Comodo twice in a roll. This happened right after Emsisoft bought Online Armor and it was not the responsibility of Emsisoft to pay the testing fees. Never the less all tests by matousec.com completely removed all references to Online Armor (even the ones that were paid for). Online Armor is still not available on their testing. Some users see this as a way Comodo got rid of their only competitor that could beat them on these tests.

There is even much more to find I'm not going to list everything or I would have to write a book, search on Wilder's Security Forum.
Lets say you probably will never see another product besides Comodo get top honors on their testing results unless matousec.com changes ownership.

Enjoy!!

 

[Tony Cole]

Thanks Littlebits

 

[Deleted member 178]

Matousec is not trustworthy because if a vendor fail a test , Matousec contact the vendor and offer a new one in exchange of a fee (aka $$$$).
Then if the vendor agree, they redo the test, the trick is that the vendor analyze the failed test , fix the holes , pay for the new test (of course successful this time) and publish it.

btw, matousec test HIPS modules not really the Firewall.

 

[Tony Cole]

Thanks Umbra!

 

[Tony Cole]

I wonder if that would cause a huge stir on Comodo's forum if I asked did Melih buy Matousec

 

[Ulikedat]

But one would think that if Matousec is a scam then surely all the recognised and respectable vendors participating in their testing (Eset,etc.) would not participate and expose it for what it is. I think in the end we will never know but i do love a good conspiracy theory now and then altho it wouldn't hold up in any court of law.

 

[Deleted member 178]

But one would think that if Matousec is a scam then surely all the recognised and respectable vendors participating in their testing (Eset,etc.) would not participate and expose it for what it is.

they don't ask to participate, Matousec just test then publish; this is why good softs got bad results, if you observe carefully , all the Low ranked vendors do not have HIPS or BB. Then it is to the vendor to decide to pay or not.

 

[Tony Cole]

Very true, but you cannot beat a good conspiracy theory

 

[Deleted member 178]

i love conspiracies ^^

 

[Tony Cole]

It's good this isn't Comodo's forum we would all be banned!

 

[Ulikedat]

they don't ask to participate, Matousec just test then publish; this is why good softs got bad results, if you observe carefully , all the Low ranked vendors do not have HIPS or BB. Then it is to the vendor to decide to pay or not.

I'm pretty sure if it is a scam, all the respected top vendors would sue the shiznit out of this guy yet they don't so he must be doing something right, in this case making a great living out of exposing security software flaws, dated or not. My point is, if he's not legit and giving great vendors bad publicity they would not take this lightly at all and def at least try to something publicly to discredit him in one way or another.

 

[Deleted member 178]

you have to know that in marketing , "better have a bad score than be absent"; because many visitors will think , "this vendor is so bad that he don't want be tested".

 

[Ulikedat]

i love conspiracies ^^

9-11 was perpetrated by cinderella and a gang of smurfs but this is naturally classified information but due to Umbra Security software sneak a peak i was able to distract this. Thanks, Umbra!

People pre-order now at a special 10% off promo for lifetime insurrance.

 

[Tony Cole]

It's just weird that, as Umbra stated all those who receive poor results i.e., avast! G Data, eset do not have a HIP's engine or BB

 

[Ulikedat]

you have to know that in marketing , "better have a bad score than be absent"; because many visitors will think , "this vendor is so bad that he don't want be tested".

But those handfull of security geek visitors do not make up for the mass market income. Average Joe don't go to check out Matousec on a regular basis.

 

[Tony Cole]

Thanks Ulikedat for all the likes!!!

 

[Ulikedat]

Dude those likes come with a price, i will send the bill later like Matousec

 

[Tony Cole]

Haha How much do I have to pay, but remember we must do it so no one else see's or finds out