New leader on matousec site...

it seems we’re not first anymore, some other competitor took the lead, we’ll see for how long… :slight_smile:
i see it’s the shareware version that took the lead…
let’s bet, it will be for one day or two? :slight_smile:
and i see it’s not the last comodo build that is tested…
maybe we should test it too to see how it is.

Hi ailef,

Thanks for info.
We should have 100% believes neither in their 98% nor in 95%
We should not believe in anything :wink: … except in how CFP protects our PC in real life … but…

Let’s hope developers will comment on each FAILED test: SSS; SockSnif; SSS4

Cheers (B)

P.S. for me that “one day or two” passed already (:WIN)

In fact there is much more days from passed already, (Version 3.0.23.364) 22nd May, 2008 is date from which count should start for SSS and SSS4 problems…

SSS tests are the one that simulate a shutdown of the system?
last time i tried those tests, comodo didnt block that.
but it was not on the last version.
can’t tell how it is now.
is it fixed?

SSS - finds out whether your firewall can be terminated by initiating a user logout.
SSS4 - waits for a system shutdown and then it checks whether your firewall protects your system until all untrusted applications are terminated.

I tested it and passed, but it gives me some errors after I edited conf. file and perform tests (see test result down), but from release notes (FIXED! COMODO Firewall can be terminated when Windows XP is being shutdown.) I also can tell issues are solved.

Security Software Testing Suite - SSS
Copyright by Matousec - Transparent security
http://www.matousec.com/


ERROR: Unable to open "Inspect.sys" service.
Error code: 1060
Error message: The specified service does not exist as an installed service.


ERROR: Unable to open "cmdagent.exe" service.
Error code: 1060
Error message: The specified service does not exist as an installed service.



ERROR: Unable to open Internet page "http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/test.php?U1NTOkkgaGF2ZSBmYWlsZWQgdGhlIHRlc3Q=" using InternetOpenUrl.
Unable to format error message for code 12029.

YOUR SYSTEM PASSED THE TEST!
Security Software Testing Suite - SSS4
Copyright by Matousec - Transparent security
http://www.matousec.com/


ERROR: Unable to connect service manager.
Error code: 1722
Error message: The RPC server is unavailable.


ERROR: Unable to connect service manager.
Error code: 1722
Error message: The RPC server is unavailable.



ERROR: Unable to open Internet page "http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/test.php?U1NTNDpJIGhhdmUgZmFpbGVkIHRoZSB0ZXN0" using InternetOpenUrl.
Unable to format error message for code 12007.

YOUR SYSTEM PASSED THE TEST!

I also tried real SSS from ZeroDay Software and I passed of course :slight_smile: (see pic)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ok lets see here.

Online Armor = $40
Comodo = $00

I would rather keep Comodo and suffer the 3% difference in protection. But then again Comodo got a 10+ score. Read this line at the bottom of the results.
"The paid version of Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.131 leads the challenge with 98% followed by the best free product – Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0.22.349 with 95%. ". Paid is in bold lettering.

I believe these have been fixed right after this CFP 3 build was tested. Besides, It is a much older version off CFP 3 tested.

So there is nothing to worry about IMO. We need to focus on stability, usage, etc… Not leak tests every time they are out! If you spend your whole life worrying about passing leak tests, Think how bad CFP 3’s stability will be.

Josh

Hi salmonela,

That’s what I meant by winking (:WIN).
And thanks all for inputs (R)

that’s strange to take the lead when the product crash so fast by flooding the network.
this product got no flood protection, i crashed it each times i tried to.
does this new build got a flood protection? or maybe they found some fix?

If there were Threat to users, we would respond immediately.

Our interest is to protect YOU! Anything that we perceive as a threat to you will be dealt with, at a lighting speed in a Comodo fashion, rest assured!

thanks

Melih

Passing leak tests as a POCs for real malware is no1 thing why I have installed CFP, anyway egemen already answered about SSS issue at Matoušek as a response to previous testing:

Comodo Group – the vendor of Comodo Firewall Pro

2008-05-21 (Comodo Firewall Pro scored 95% and took 1st place): Thank you very much for pointing out the “windows shutdown race condition” bug introduced with the tested version, which is the main reason for failing in SSS tests. We will be addressing this with the planned release on 05/20/2008. Keep up the good work.

Egemen TAS,
Sr. Research Scientist,
COMODO CP Inc

There is something strange about that test.
I do not mean that Tall Emu requested a free test as it was done according to Matousec rules but since OA was tested why perftcp and perfudp scores were not provided?

It makes no sense. ???

Will those result be displayed only when other product will face those two tests?

Were they not displayed because they would affect the comparative ranking as the other products were tested before those new tests were released?
If so testing an updated product an inserting it in the same outdated ranking wouldn’t pose the same concern?

EDIT: it turned out perfudp and perftcp were introduced on 2008/05/06 before a new release of matousec challenge was provided (2008/05/17)

Those two test scores weren’t provided that time also.

Maybe some product had issues with these tests and Matousec found a vulnerability and could not provide these results.

Great, so another firewall can pass some leaktests, about time :smiley:

These other “firewalls” are playing a game of catch-up. Comodo releases new features, other other “firewalls” mimic them.