Josh, I was thinking of making a quote of your post, but I’ll pass. 
Excellent Comodo! :-TU
LA
How to pass the folowing tests by using CFP V3?
Schedtest series and NewClass.
Congratulations and a big thank you from me for helping keep the bad guys away from my work.
Matousec says Comodo Firewall is the best.
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
Sorry, I should have read down a little further than I did, duplicate post.
I merged your topic with the thread you address.
LA
good. what I call this, the return of the king
(V) comodo for life!!! congrats :-TU (R)
The question left hanging from the last Matousec tests of early 11/07 is now answered.
By a quirk of timing, the earlier Matousec tests came out just before comodo3 was released. And some what gave online armor the bragging rights. And those November tests may have caused the somewhat premature release of
comodo3. As someone who lived through the early bug fixings of comodo3, it was not pretty, but in hind sight its impressive how rapidly comodo programming team addressed and fixed the early problems.
On the plus side, both on line armor and comodo have aggressively tried to improve their products with the introduction of many new versions since.
And now the results are in and indisputable. Its comodo is number one and by a wide margin. Especially when you look at the 1-x scores. Comodo falls only 2% short, on line armor comes in at 3x that or 6% short, and thereafter its 3.5x short, and then 4.5x short. And no one else makes the excellent cut with the next tier starting at 7.5x short. More impressive are the responses of the top tier. Best summed up by we will continue to improve and thank you for exposing where we fell short.
Excellent news for end users. And in that race, its comodo that found the extra gear. It a huge tribute to the comodo programming team and make no mistake about that.
Osage… you certainly get what software development is about and thank you recognising the hard but brilliant work that Comodo devs have done!
thank you
Melih
Now this is funny…
Now that OA have updated their version so it pass 100%, they do a re-test very fast. But when Comodo Firewall Pro 3 was released, they waited for months before it was tested (the old tests was done with CFP 2.4).
No worries ! Eventually Comodo will be the best ! (L)
But I agree with Ragwing - strange how Matousec reacted so quickly :THNK
this is how:
“the vendor ordered a paid testing of its product”
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/
Melih
Yep. I thought of that But it’s kinda not fair :-\
Well Matousec wants to make money from testing products.
Thats why our users run www.testmypcsecurity.com . Its not commercial, its independent and its run by users with no influence of any commercial interest. And more importantly it has more leak tests than Matousec! A test is as good as the breadth of the tests. Do check to see what kind of things firewalls fail! (here are the results Test My PC Security )
Also this site differentiates between HIPS tests vs Firewall tests in order to fairly test a product! It differentiates between
Firewall only tests
HIPS only tests
and tests that applies to both Firewall and HIPS together.
etc etc etc…
Go ahead and register to be a tester and test and publish your own results too! Its your voice!
Melih
No whats odd here. Mike Nash is so quick ti fix his Matousec results but not too qucik to fix real problems like people complaining about explorer.exe issues. That has been a complaint for months now including my buddy. I sent Melih a PM about the huge lag in pings with version 318 and 48 hours later out came version 320. Thats what I call customer service.
Whats the sense in making Matousec happy. Make your customers happy by making a version that doesn’t give pople explorer.exe errors. Thats more important then scores over at Matousec. This going out to Mike Nash.
In my mind, the criteria used for re scoring has dubious logic. If the user is jonney on the spot, they can tell on line armor to block, if they snooze, it sails right by.
But it would have been nice to retain the #1 spot, but its still an ever moving target with comodo already moved one version past the tested version. As others have already correctly pointed out, the results are quite different when other testing criteria are used. And long odds, the one test comodo failed on will SOON be corrected. Bring on those tier 11 tests next time as comodo will just keep raising the bar. We already see everyone except on line armor falling by the way side and according to other tests it already has.
But still Melih, that tears it, I DEMAND TRIPLE MY MONEY BACK ON COMODO 3.
he he…
You see, the way we look at leak tests are vulnerabilities and the way we fix them according to threat levels. Eg: there are many PoC leaks out there but some are very unlikely to succeed in the real life. So instead of fixing those immedietly and depriving our users of other bug fixes or features is not what we do in development. Matousec has introduced this on demand paid testing. Now, because its a quick fix we have fixed and will make cpf 100% as well, but lets look at what will happen.
We will ask Matousec to test we will get 100% too, then Matousec will get new tests and vendors will go pay to be tested again and now we have created a commercial testing platform with no standards. Its just someone applying a list of publicly available tests (subset of publicly available test not even all) and coming up with some of their own tests too. But as I said there is no standard and just paying someone to run some public tests and publish it on their website!
Now then…
here is the question
Should we support this commercial Entity where it will cost thousands of dollars at every test? (And we have seen that with these on demand tests, it can be a weekly occurance)
Afterall there is FREE and a user driven TestMyPCSecurity.com site. And look at who corrected Matousec in their latest update where Matousec apologised to everyone due to this mistake:
Latest news
2008-03-25: We have received an email from ailef with information about a security weakness in Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.112 Free that was tested in our challenge recently. We have successfully verified the information that the tested version of Online Armor automatically allows various privileged actions if it receives no response from the user in a few minutes after the alert is shown. We would like to thank ailef for his findings, we would like to apologize to our visitors and other vendors for possibly wrong results in case of Online Armor.
And Ailef is a Testmypcsecurity.com tester who tested Online armor and CPF!
As you can see I am finding it harder to support Matousec in their endavours where this whole thing has turned into a money drain for the top spot! I rather spend those thousands of dollars on my developers to be honest and let the quality of the software sell itself. And taking public tests and creating a website already exist with www.testmypcsecurity.com so why pay for it?
Anwyay, my 2cents worth
Melih
imo…it’s only fair that on testmypcsecurity.com that you make online armour appear as a freeware firewall, since as far as i know, their paid version doesn’t offer any more firewall functionality.
Here is the post from wilders…
Adric
Regular Poster Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 57
Re: Matousec Firewall Challenge = new Test
I find it commendable that the information responsible for the following bulletin was given to Matousec and Mike Nash by ailef who is a volunteer and member of the Comodo Computer Security Testing Group.
2008-03-25: “We have received an email from ailef with information about a security weakness in Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.112 Free that was tested in our challenge recently. We have successfully verified the information that the tested version of Online Armor automatically allows various privileged actions if it receives no response from the user in a few minutes after the alert is shown. We would like to thank ailef for his findings, we would like to apologize to our visitors and other vendors for possibly wrong results in case of Online Armor.”
“We have contacted the vendor of Online Armor and received the information that the latest version of this product, Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.119 Free, does not suffer from the problem any more. To solve the problem with possibly wrong results, the vendor ordered a paid testing of its product. We have tested Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.119 Free and found that the security hole was fixed and also that it passes all current Firewall Challenge tests. Online Armor is thus the first product with the perfect result in Firewall Challenge tests. We are going to implement new tests to the testing system in next months and try to violate its perfect score.”
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/
Al
It shows how independent and how willing to help the very people that makes up www.testmypcsecurity.com in looking after end user interests! Whether from this or other vendors!
Congrats to the Test My PC Security Team!!!
PS: you can identify these guys by seeing their tag as “Computer Security Testing Group” .
Thank you guys! You are a great service to all end users!!
Melih