Matousec RETEST !! COMODO DOES NOT pass 100% !!

Heya guys !!

Matousec updated their tests today (05-17-08) and decided to retest COMODO and Online Armor for their latest rounds of test to see if they still score 100%. Apparently, they did not, but COMODO FWv3 still came out on top (95%) !! Now, COMODO team, start working !!

# 2008-05-17: Results for these products and versions were published:
* Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0.22.349
* F-Secure Internet Security 2008 8.00.101
* Lavasoft Personal Firewall 3.0.2293.8822
* Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.131 Free
* Panda Internet Security 2008 12.01.00
* Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 16.10.0.1106
* Webroot Desktop Firewall 5.5.10.20 

After the implementation of several new tests, we have decided to retest Comodo Firewall Pro and Online Armor Personal Firewall Free to see if they can still score 100% in our challenge. Both these products lost the perfect score, but Comodo Firewall Pro remained on the first position in our challenge. The odd thing is that the new version of Comodo Firewall Pro did not pass two tests, namely SSS and SSS4, that its previously tested version passed. This firewall has no problems with our new keylogger tests but failed SockSnif test. It also lost a few points in performance tests but its results are still excellent and almost perfect, 95% in total. Online Armor Personal Firewall Free lost more points, especially in keylogger tests. The classification of its protection is now Very good with 89%, close to the Excellent protection, which starts on 90%.

Lavasoft Personal Firewall uses the engine of Agnitum’s Outpost and its score for today is 70%. Webroot Desktop Firewall, a free product that uses the old version of the engine of Privatefirewall, scored 60%.

F-Secure Internet Security 2008, Panda Internet Security 2008 and Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 are security suits with very high hardware requirements but their protection is noticeably worse than of other products tested today.

http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php

LOL. I bet Mike Nash inst happy. Poor Mike Nash…awwwwwwwww. (R) (B)

LOL

OA only stands 4th now ;D.

Now back to the Comodo part

SSS failes they say, it passed here on my laptop ???
And then the’re 2 new tests (well… I’ve never seen them before) Socksnif and SSS4. Which he failes also.

SO …

I don’t know what these test do but I’m sure it’s nothing special. Certainly as you see that Prosecurity passes them…

BTW : you want to know which other tests it failes ? Deletevolume, panic (and than I don’t mean the moderator :wink: !!! ;D

Xan

You know what? I just realized something on a similar threat that I posted on www.wilderssecurity.com :

COMODO didn’t do horribly on the tests (though it should be worked on eventually). Other than the traditional builds for bugfixes and such, how about some performance tweaks/enhancements instead? After Matousec’s introduction into the firewall strength testing (or any other 3rd party company tests), vendors have been focused on making their products pass ALL tests (let it be leaktests or Matousec’s challenge tests).

Yeah, that’s great an all, but some of these tests don’t have “traditional” malware attacking/infecting traits. Some test methods aren’t widespread or of imminent concern. Of course, the eventual -fixing- of the program to pass the tests should be planned, but making the program simply function better and become more practical should be the thing that vendors should seek out for the end user.

So, COMODO FW team, let’s not worry about passing 100% yet again. All your users know the firewall is great and such. You guys will no doubt -patch- up the firewall eventually, but for now, seek out ways to make COMODO’s memory footprint smaller, better compatibility, better performance, and just simpler/easier to use.

I’m so with you Happy-Dude. :slight_smile: :-TU I vote with both my hands and toes for this ;D

(V) (R) (B) (L)

I think Comodo agree as well. They have previously stated many times before that they are not very keen (I’m seriously understating that) on fixing, so called, “security threats” that are not actual vulnerabilities (ie. a real threat to the user).

I’m sure they’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

it’s also important though not to sacrifice security for new features.

Melih has stated it is the last time to FIX these stupid things!

We need to focus on REALThreats, and continue to make sure CFP 3 is reliable, stable & usable! And this is what COMODO is doing. We are on the right track :slight_smile:

Josh

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Remember that those test are just what they are, tests. Comodo should focus on fighting real malware, and not tests.

How about ignoring the OP last statement,and make Defence + more easy to understand.I don’t care about this tests,of course many will disagree,but IMO they are a waiste of time.CFP,does a great job ,preventing all intrusions,but with the cost of annoying pop-ups,who don’t distinguish write for wrong only ask.The only 2 software firewalls that i liked cfp2.4 &sygate are discontinued.

Excuse me but D+ is very easy to understand and not annoying. I don’t get any pop ups on either of my pc’s unless I am installing something new. This thread is not a Comodo 3.0 bash.

It’s good Comodo is on top, but there is a major flaw with the test results that I see. Under recommendation, it says NA, where as other’s have a link, so why doesn’t CFP have one when it’s on top? :stuck_out_tongue: in a lighthearted voice This is the most serious flaw of them all. :stuck_out_tongue: hehe.

Cheers to the matousec testers. These are very great tests. :slight_smile:

Because the others pay them to…

Xan

No, it’s because CFP 3 is free, so they can’t sell it :slight_smile:

For products that score at least 80% in Firewall Challenge, the Recommendation column contains links to the online stores or products' webpages of the vendors that we have affiliate agreements with.[b]If you click on any of these links and then buy the target product or other product offered on the target webpage, we will profit from it.[/b]

From here : http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php

Greetz, red.

congratulations to comodo FW coders :slight_smile:

…and please sort out SSS problems, it can be done w/o loosing compatibility…

i think Matousec need to add this Level 1 test :

Support SNORT/advanced SNORT rules.

IF PASS all fine, if FAIL then it can’t advance to LEVEL 2 …

no mercy !

Whoooa there. Oh my god guys first of all TAKE IT EASY on account of what this means for CFP - failing SSS, SSS4 and SockSniff still means CFP is an extremly solid firewall. I believe this means next to nothing for the firewall itself, plus it would be very easy to patch up. CFP 3.0.22 passed the new and ruthless ShadowHook test which is what should matter in it all. A new build, build 355 is apparently coming out soon, I think they could squeeze in a fix for these 3 tests or at least 1 or 2 of them. Grats COMODO again!

Was the 5% of the test that didnt passed fixed?

one of the tests was. It’s the one that fixes CFP being able to be stopped on Win XP shutdown. I forget which test that fixes though.