AFAIK Matousec always tested CFP for free because CFP is a widely acclaimed product nor Comodo needed to pay for a retest thus far.
(V)
AFAIRemember Comodo has payed at least once, but I may be wrong. Melih knows of course.
Anyhow it’s VERY expensive. 
If you found one (or more) way around D+, please post it.
And Iam sure if its a real threat it will get fixed some time soon since these things are high priority.
Of course nothing is 100% complete protection, but how do you mean that its always a way to bypass D+?
I think what they meant with bullet proof is that founded flaws has been fixed.
security is never 100% but comparitive…
so compared to all the protection out there CIS is the best protection imo…(thats why I personally use it and thats why I build it… cos everything else was simply not acceptable to me)
Melih
I too feel very confident in CIS as for now.
Cheers.
Iam glad you sorted that out for us. :■■■■
But I feel pretty sure that a power user with proper knowledge can browse the net and do the most stuff online these day with a less than 0,001% risk of getting infected or hijacked the coming 4-5 years from now.
In my presentations I used to say there is no 100% security… but I said… there is one place known to man that offers 100% security…
A Black Hole
http://www.nmg-uk.com/blog/black-holes/Black-hole.jpg
…
cos you can put stuff in it (like password etc 
) and you can never get it back…
But even that is no longer the case as Blackholes do eminate radiation based on what goes in it…so even a black hole leaks information :)…
So now, I know of no way that can provide 100% security!
Melih
Maybe that’s a good thing, else you wouldn’t have to develop anything new. 
At least that’s how I look upon work in my career: I don’t want to do the exact same thing over and over again, I want new challenges!
Transmission of information via entangled quantums is considered safe by the actual physics knowledge IIRC.
I read that somewhere must be “white holes” where all that stuff from “black holes” burst out… for example I think ganda is fired out from one of those things :-*
The article doesn’t say that they exist. They may exist.
what’s better ? some firewall that scores better in some website, as i can crash it in no time, yes, and it’s not a new info, i was able to crash the GUI for long time, and i can still crash it on the last version, i tried to flood comodo and never succeeded to crash it and i tried a lot of times.
but the first FW on matousec got a GUI that is bad, there’s no flood protection, i just did a port scan at 100Mbits and the FW froze after some seconds then the system was no more stable anymore too.
the leader of matousec is logging all but the prob is that at 100Mbits after some seconds, the FW is no more able to log the activity and it takes like 5 seconds to crash the FW, it’s a prob i allready mentionned when i was in betatesting with OA, it seems they didnt care about this prob, cause 1 year after i still can overflood the FW and kill it in no time.
so about those tests, comodo is not first but comodo doesnt fail in seconds and froze and a result for the OS that is just bad cause u have to reboot, the FW receives a port scan at 100Mbits and instead of blocking the activity, it lets the portscanner overflood and crash its,
if u want to test it, it’s easy, just get superscan and launch it with OA, it will log maybe the firsts 200 or 300 ports then u’re dead, try the same with comodo, u allow the prog to run and launch a full portscan in local aera, comodo will stop the flood directly even if the app is allowed to run, cause it has a flood detection and protection.
so for me, OA is not good if it cannot protect itself from that kind of crash so easy to do.
so it’s strange to see some product at first place when u’re able to smoke it in 5 seconds with a simple tool.
so are u protected? what can u do when your FW freezes and crash and make the system unable to use, nothing, cause u cant control anything anymore.
i tried it with the version 3 on xp pro sp3,
we cant use a FW unable to simply block that kind of activity, OA got lot of good results in lot of parts, it should be a good FW but this failure is so big that all the good things that come with OA are useless if it’s that easy to crash the firewall and the system,
if they dont fix this problem, this FW is not a good choice,
all other competitors are able to block that type of simple attack, they detect something wrong coming and they dont care if the scanner is allowed or not to run, they block this full speed scan or it’s sure u’ll crash or if not, your system will become so slow, that it will be unusable,
so about the result of matousec, yes OA is good in some parts, but this failure is not possible for a security prog,
imagine comodo without flood detection, crashing in 5 seconds, would u use it ? even if someone says it’s the best FW ?
comodo is clearly the best choice, u cant trust a product that easy to crash,
i always try to crash my security progs by any methods i can find on google,
actually i cant crash comodo and i cant crash KAV, i was able to kill KAV a year ago but with the version 8.0, they coded a complete stable AV, there’s not a lot of things u can do to crash the AV, and with comodo it’s the same, it’s a strong code and u cant play with it in no time and defeat completly all the system.
so, if people somewhere think i’m just telling stupid things, there’s no prob, i got an OA license, i can install it , take screenshots, u’ll see the UI freeze in 5 sec then nothing is able to work, the crash of the FW hurts the system and if by luck u can end the FW and restart it with a stable system, so play the lotery, i tried so many times, it’s 100% sure, there’s no possibility of error, u’ll see OA beginning to log the flood activity and end of the story.
then u do the same on comodo, all is fine, the app is not able to do what it wants even if it’s allowed in the FW and D+, u see the log with a start of portscan then nothing more in 5 seconds, and u can continue using your system your firewall, using the internet, the app is locked, no scan, no flood, no failure,
so how big is this failure ? do u think it’s nothing important ? or maybe a little important or just incredible and not tolerable for a FW ? would u give it the first place as u can crash it in 5 seconds ?
it’s so simple, anyone is able to do it,
so there’s a score on matousec, ok, but, there’s this huge bug, so huge that anyone can overflood u and terminate your OS when he wants, with 100mbits it took 5 sec, but with 1Gbit, how long?
and i tested the last build with license, so i dont know what u 're waiting for with a FW, but in my case, i want it to block all type of flood, and all the rest of course, but this bug is something u can do today in 2009 as u know all that ■■■■ that is present from the begining, i sometimes had that kind of troubles over irc years ago and there’s nothing i could do cause of the FW i was using, was unable to detect a simple ping of the death and my machine was no more usable, the modem reseted, until i found things to prevent that kind of activity.
when someone is on u and got a big army, u can be sure u’re going to pass a bad time, but it’s the past, today all apps easely detect those activities and do nothing to your apps and OS, and this OA FW is not able to protect user from a so known old thing and classified number one ??!!! is it me that miss something or is it the OA team ?
my opinion is until this enormous failure is not fixed, it’s not possible to claim u’re safe and use the best FW ever!
one FW i will never use cause i just think it’s ■■■■ (zone alarm) , i’m sure it’s able to protect me from flooding,
is there a firewall tested unable to block that except OA ? i’m not sure but it remembers me something i tried years ago with some AV named norton, was a long time ago, i dled a virus, i scan it, it’s detected , no prob, i change the icon of the virus and the AV was no more able to detect the virus…incredible but true,
actually it’s incredible for OA to be able to protect u from most of exploits but u can crash it with some tool that was coded many years ago to scan ports over the network, u just set it to full speed scanning all ports and some seconds after your protection is just no more existing, your FW is dead and your system follows it the same way.
so until this easy way to crash OA is not fixed, for me OA is not a trustable solution,
if there’s some doubt about that point, i’ll install OA licensed version in no time , ran superscan , took screenshots and post them, u’ll see some FW dead and some system unable to use,
sometimes i suceeded to use the system again but i was not able to have control anymore on OA.
number 1 ? nope, impossible. fix your FW, make it stable , unable to crash by this poor method cause it’s what a FW should be able to do first, control the trafic and chose the right decision to not crash the protection and the OS.
with comodo, the scanner is not even able to work, it tries to scan but it scans nothing, and there’s nothing to notice about the stability of the FW and the OS and all the rest. the scanner is unable to do anything.
so in january 2009 we got the FW that scores the best and people think it’s the best as i crash it at home in five seconds… ok, if people say it… but in my case, i’ll use a FW that stays stable, able to detect a huge flood that will crash the protection, blocking immediatly that and let me continue using my system and internet without any kind of little problem just cause of some flood that wants to crash your all machine.
OA team, it’s maybe time to include something in your app to prevent your product from crashing that easy.
if u look at your forum in the beta section, if u didnt delete my posts, u’ll see that i posted about that very long time ago, and the probleme is still there today.
ailef, email matousec about this, and see if they will add it as a new test since it is very important that the FW doesn’t crash. If a FW crashes, then you are at risk of malware attacks and if malware knows to just portscan at that speed, then writers will do that. So, write up a nice document about how you tested, all the Firewalls you tested, the results of the test, how long this has been an issue for Online Armor, why it is bad that the firewall crashes, and why they should add this test to the next round of testing.
Matousec wants to test security and they believe in security, so I think if your paper is detailed enough and you state your reasons well enough they will listen and add the test in. You need to tell them precisely how you replicate the test. Just let us know what they say. I emailed them once and they were really friendly and they even did my suggestion! So, they do listen. This is a new test that they need to know about because it’s really easy to write some malware code to crash the FW. The coder literally needs an if else statement checking to see if the firewall is OA and if so, run the crash code. If you do not email matousec about this, I will, with your permission of course. 
Seems like you’ve done some good testing there ailef, +1 (:HUG)
Very nice for pointing that out. +1 again! (:LOV)
I always has had doubts about the “Online Armor Personal” and the “Outpost Firewall” guys.
They focuses all (or almost all) on those matousec tests and YET always fails to deliver a 100/100 product.
Iam 100 % sure that if comodo was willing to go down and play it dirty and add ugly code and the unessesary protection they are willing to add, then we would almost certainly pass those tests 100/100.
Maby their coders are not as skilled as those working at comodo.
Maby they focus on something else than security.
They know matousec tests equals publicity.
So instead of focusing on making the product safe, they put the effort in making it look safe, PR.
I know guys at my school that are fully confident that Norton has the best firewall and overall protection, since they read that in a PC magazine. So PR does count for something, at least if you want many users.
Word of mouth counts for more.
I thought they had fixed that a long time ago
X
Nurr. Ya know a black hole’s security comes with considerable drawbacks. Just thought I’d let y’all know. o.=.x
I voted first option simply because I don’t have an appropriate one to fully reflect what I think.
Yes I DO think Comodo can reach 100%. I am positive about it. CFP is close to the very top and a product this solid has the potential to overcome 7% with relative ease. My thoughts on this is that scoring perfect in matousec should be a goal viewed with enthusiasm.
There may be no practical reason to do so but as long as it’s an achievement waiting to be claimed, I’m rooting for Comodo and their potential. ^.=.^
i sent a mail about this longtime ago to matousec, now they do what they want. they cant say they dont know about it.