Advice Request What happened to Matousec.com?

[Pico]

The man has said to his detractors many times that he could care less. Don't like it, then you can go use something else. Complaining and criticizing COMODO has zero affect. While people are exerting energy complaining, nobody at COMODO is listening. The ones that have to face the complaints are the COMODO forum moderators, and they've become ambivalent to it. It has been that way since day 1 at COMODO.

Yep, the Comodo forum acts as one big giant concrete wall where frustrated Comodo users can come to bang their heads.

 

[ForgottenSeer 98186]

Yep, the Comodo forum acts as one big giant concrete wall where frustrated Comodo users can come to bang their heads.

Using anything more than the sandbox and outbound firewall alerts is a futile enterprise. Unfortunately.

 

[ichito]

Xcitium's article seams to be a stinky joke and no matter how Comodo and Matousec's lab were connected and no matter how both treat opponents in discuss. Invoking on test which results aren't published and accessible to verify is pure marketing and big medial halo. To say it's not professional that's to say nothing.

 

[Trident]

Xcitium's article seams to be a stinky joke and no matter how Comodo and Matousec's lab were connected and no matter how both treat opponents in discuss. Invoking on test which results aren't published and accessible to verify is pure marketing and big medial halo. To say it's not professional that's to say nothing.

That matousec test was never of any credibility or reliability in the first place and I am not aware of any serious vendor using, or quoting it anywhere.

Edit: I see it being mentioned once by Kaspersky in 2010.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 achieves top results in testing conducted by the Matousec Transparent Security laboratory

Kaspersky Lab announces that its newly released personal product, Kaspersky Internet Security 2010, is awarded the highest possible rating, 10+, in recent comparative tests.

www.kaspersky.com

 

[ichito]

Yas I know about it but ca 10 years ago and more it was probably one of the most famous and influential pages with quite regular test od security apps. Actually every vendor was interested in good score in those tests up to some procedural failures like e.g. testing Look'n'Stop as HIPS or ThreatFire as firewall. They were a lot of complains from vendors that Matousec prepares tests to get fine result by Comodo what effected by preparing by Symantec special version of PCTools FW to score 100% what was earlier announced on tests page. Such practice was also the cause of removing Online Armor in Sept-2010 (Tall Emu era) from tests with all archived results.

 

[Trident]

testing Look'n'Stop as HIPS or ThreatFire as firewall

ThreatFire was an app fundamentally very different than firewall/HIPS and not sure why anyone would want to include it on such test - it falls into the group of anti-malware.
It was an early behavioural blocker with 5 levels of aggressiveness and back then, on the levels 3-5 was very effective. It used to be really good at removing malware entirely (with all the junk it has created), it displayed a list of what’s been removed. But it included no features to control inbound and outbound traffic or ask the user what’s allowed to connect to the network.

I don’t remember the Symantec/PCTools fiasco but the Matousec test was widely criticised on various forums and websites.

 

[Pico]

Xcitium's article seams to be a stinky joke and no matter how Comodo and Matousec's lab were connected and no matter how both treat opponents in discuss. Invoking on test which results aren't published and accessible to verify is pure marketing and big medial halo. To say it's not professional that's to say nothing.

It's pure fake news. It's the same as selling lies.

 

[ichito]

ThreatFire was an app fundamentally very different than firewall/HIPS and not sure why anyone would want to include it on such test - it falls into the group of anti-malware.
It was an early behavioural blocker with 5 levels of aggressiveness and back then, on the levels 3-5 was very effective. It used to be really good at removing malware entirely (with all the junk it has created), it displayed a list of what’s been removed. But it included no features to control inbound and outbound traffic or ask the user what’s allowed to connect to the network.

Actually no...TF have very configurable "advanced settings" in which you can enable more strict protection like e.g. registry, specific files and folders and action like port listening and making outbound connection

I don’t remember the Symantec/PCTools fiasco but the Matousec test was widely criticised on various forums and websites.

It's from topic from Polish SG.pl forum where such tests and results were discussed.

"# 2011-01-25: A single product update:

* PC Tools Internet Security 2011 8.0.0.623

PC Tools Internet Security replaces PC Tools Firewall Plus in our challenge. The last version of PC Tools Firewall Pluswe have tested in Proactive Security Challenge scored 51 % . PC Tools Internet Security 2011 8.0.0.623 scored 99 % – great improvementsin the product''s security led to the Excellent level of protection. PC Tools Internet Security is now on the second place in Proactive Security Challenge. Well done!"

 

[Trident]

You remember ThreatFire better than me, I never used it to restrict programmes from connecting to be honest, but even if it had these features, it is more similar to application control than HIPS or firewall. A firewall must have a set of policies how traffic/ports are controlled whilst this just allows/denies connections for each individual program.
It still makes no sense to include such app in a firewall leak test.