Latest Matousec firewall tests/2008

[Lemon law]

I just found this on the comodo forum. The latest Matousec firewall tests for 2008.

http://www.matousec.com/projec...-challenge/results.php

The previous Matousec tests were circa early November/2007 and came out to early to include
the newly introduced comodo version 3. And also while onlinearmor was in a state of relative
infancy. With both online armor and comodo, which are both being actively developed, many versions have come out since 11/07.

But these tests should now go a long way towards settling any arguments on who has the best firewall even if the number rated this year is far less than the number rated last November. I do not know if more firewall companies will be later included or not.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

Very cool. Good job to the free ones.

 

[Mojoed]

The ratings chart has once again been updated today (3-25) and Online Armor Personal Firewall has now edged Comodo as the top performing firewall.

They're both excellent firewalls, but I figured I'd bump this thread for the update.

 

[Lemon law]

Yep, Mojoed is right in what amounts to a still contenable difference on one test in 77 that on line armor was said to flunk on. Because it was a level nine test, it cost bonus points on the scoring system and really shot up the scores of on line armor and putting it past comodo 3.

But comodo is already one version past the tested version and works on vista. And on line armor does not yet but promises to do so soon. And on line armor works on a few OS's that comodo does not work under. So the choice may be both fleeting and OS dependent. And either way, the consumer wins.

Still the top two rated firewalls are free. And as a comodo users, I am so ashamed of second place that I will demand triple my money back.

 

[Muadib]

I was just looking for a firewall that works under Vista x64. Thanks Lemon!

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks, Lemon law, I didn't realize Matousec had done an update. It is time to jettison Sunbelt. Too bad, it is one of the easiest to configure.

By the way, there are many independent tests done. How respected is Matousec's testing and conclusions?

 

[Lemon law]

To Ultralight,

Right now Matousec is being savaged on the comodo forums for in essence accepting bribe money to retest on line armor.
And there is another non commercial outfit called testmypcsecurity.com that also tests firewalls and other aspects of PC security. And there comodo3 does out preform on line armor when different tests are used. Its somewhat my opinion that its impossible to really test just a firewall in a real world test because a firewall is just a part of a layered defense we all should all have.

But the bone of contention the best I can understand it in the Matousec tests involved one level 9 dll injection test. In their initial tests on line armor failed the test because it only popped up a warning. And if the user did not then select block, after two minutes the dll injection succeeded. On line armor was allowed to change their tested version and the default became block in that version. And because comodo failed just one non threat level 10 test that OA passed, on line armor went from second to first place.

But now the plot thickens, comodo will pay the bribe money to Matousec for the retest challenge, they fixed the non threat, and now both comodo and on line armor should be at 100% and tied. And Matousec tested only 77 threat types when there are many more out in the wild. And worse yet, more are being dreamed up by very nasty people.

As far as I am concerned, these firewall tests are indications, I happen to use the comodo firewall, I am gambling that it will better protect me, but no matter what firewall you use, you are gambling also. And I sure will not bash on line armor. Or even per say the sunbelt firewall. Because its partly no accident that on line armor and comodo scored the highest because they represent what amounts to the firewall trend of the future. Which is to incorporate HIPS and other
security functions into the firewall itself. And you might be able to use the low footprint sunbelt firewall and add the HIPs and other functions by adding HIPS and other protections using freely available other security programs. But that defeats the purpose of a low footprint firewall, you lose weight in one place and gain it back in another place.

In short, the results are far less clear cut than they appear. And we all are taking unknowable future gambles when those level 11 threats start coming. A firewall will remain as just part of my security.

 

[Ultralight]

To Lemon law,

I am in total agreement with you concerning layered protection. One thing I have noticed in the security sector is that software firewalls, IMO, have far more issues/debates than anti-virus and antispyware combined.

I think all that any of us want is a good, dependable firewall but this seems to be an elusive beast and probably as your rightly point out due to the ever involving creations of people who have nothing betteer to do then to create another infection. My experience with Sunbelt was a BSOD nightmare through five different versions -- on two different PCs. It was the same driver every time. It wasn't until my suscription ran out and it went to the free version without HIPS that brought stability. I haven't had a BSOD since. I learned to read minidumps because of that firewall! But there are those that had no issues whatsover.

The very best place that I have found concerning firewalls is www.wilderssecurity.com (it is the official ESET forum) and their Other Firewalls forum. There is a lot of good advice, information, and as you can imagine lively debate. Comodo and Online Armor are discussed extensively.

If you know a decent HIPS program I am all ears.