Unlike other testers, these guy(s?) are systems programmer(s) and are very familiar with modern malware techniques.
Thats why cheaters failed !
Current version i.e. CPF 2.3.6.81, had a race condition bug which caused it to fail the leak test âCoatâ but beta versions are immune from this bug.
I canât believe the Outpost guys tried to cheat :o. Did they think they wouldnât get caught ::). I bet alot of Outpost userâs will deflect because of this and guess where they will be comingâŚ
Edit: I wonder why ZoneAlarm Free wasnât included in the tests or does it have similar protection as the paid version?
Here âcheatingâ means âinadequate defenseâ. So its defense is good enough to pass the leak tests. But when it comes to the real world, such a defense is hardly enough.
So please note that âCheatingâ does not mean âdeceptionâ in this context.
Do we know what Matousec means by âHighest Securityâ in regards to CPF? I realize the âDefaultâ is probably from an automatic install; CPFâs regular settings. What is their âHighestâ?
It should mean âDo not show alerts for the applications certified by COMODOâ option disabled. With this option enabled CPF fails wallbreaker(1,3,4) tests.
Other than that out of the box for anti-leak resistance should be as good. And for that test, we intentionally skipped further checks because it would generate unnecessarily large number of alerts. So when HIPS enabled CPF is released, it will ask before the process is executed as others do.
Currently, it does not pose a really serious risk because it is highly visible to the user(Otherwise CPF would catch).
In a way, cheating in this context does mean deception: deception of the end user. Outpost Pro wants the end user to feel fully ptotected by putting in measures that will get around the leak test. But in reality, the measures in place will not truly protect the end user from âreal worldâ malware.