Matousec refused to test Defensewall

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Hawkwind on 5/5/2010, 16:46

avatar
Hawkwind
Member
Member

Posts : 29
Join date : 2010-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by ssj100 on 6/5/2010, 00:38

Well, regardless, we know it's not going to do much better than CIS 4 haha.

_________________
Sandboxie + LUA + SRP + DEP + SuRun
Windows Firewall + NAT Router + IPSec (on-demand)
VirtualBox (on-demand)
Drive SnapShot (on-demand)
avatar
ssj100
Administrator
Administrator

Posts : 1389
Join date : 2010-04-14

View user profile http://ssj100.fullsubject.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Hawkwind on 7/5/2010, 15:36

Franklin has tested this and it would appear that Matousec ran the test as trusted lol.
avatar
Hawkwind
Member
Member

Posts : 29
Join date : 2010-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by farmer on 28/1/2011, 18:25

Yet little is Comodo has no serious competition. Online Armor is, DefenseWall. Why this happens?
avatar
farmer
New Member
New Member

Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Poland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by ssj100 on 28/1/2011, 18:38

farmer wrote:Yet little is Comodo has no serious competition. Online Armor is, DefenseWall. Why this happens?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.

_________________
Sandboxie + LUA + SRP + DEP + SuRun
Windows Firewall + NAT Router + IPSec (on-demand)
VirtualBox (on-demand)
Drive SnapShot (on-demand)
avatar
ssj100
Administrator
Administrator

Posts : 1389
Join date : 2010-04-14

View user profile http://ssj100.fullsubject.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Ruhe on 28/1/2011, 18:43

I didn't understand it too.

Do you mean why OA and DW weren't tested by Matousec?
avatar
Ruhe
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 261
Join date : 2010-04-16
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by p2u on 28/1/2011, 18:48

farmer wrote:Why this happens?
Matousec doesn't want to test programs that block [or contain] (almost) everything silently with default settings. That would spoil his business deal with all the other partners, whose products are tested with maximum settings.
Instead, he wants "user interaction" and alerts; not too many, but just enough. At the same time, he assumes quite something when it comes to the poor users he is trying to push those products to:
1) they have to be too stupid to tweak the OS and installed programs themselves
BUT
2) they have to be smart enough to always reply correctly to all the cryptic alerts those "HIPS" solutions pop up.

Paul

p2u
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 211
Join date : 2010-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by farmer on 28/1/2011, 18:51

so I thought I knew the. only that after the acquisition of OA by the Emisisoft.The company may not with intent as to the Matousec tests.
ps: sorry for my English I am using the translator
avatar
farmer
New Member
New Member

Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Poland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by p2u on 28/1/2011, 18:55

farmer wrote:so I thought I knew the. only that after the acquisition of OA by the Emisisoft.The company may not with intent as to the Matousec tests.
There seems to have been some conflict between Matousec and OA over money when OA was taken over, but I don't know the details. Who cares anyway? When I tested it, OA came out as a first-class product. Smile

Paul

p2u
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 211
Join date : 2010-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by ssj100 on 28/1/2011, 18:55

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but you're basically wondering also why OA is no longer tested by Matousec. I personally don't know the exact reason(s), and I personally don't care haha.

_________________
Sandboxie + LUA + SRP + DEP + SuRun
Windows Firewall + NAT Router + IPSec (on-demand)
VirtualBox (on-demand)
Drive SnapShot (on-demand)
avatar
ssj100
Administrator
Administrator

Posts : 1389
Join date : 2010-04-14

View user profile http://ssj100.fullsubject.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Ruhe on 28/1/2011, 18:58

farmer wrote:ps: sorry for my English I am using the translator
Ok...but you should change your translator Very Happy
avatar
Ruhe
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 261
Join date : 2010-04-16
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by farmer on 28/1/2011, 19:02

I use all the time, OA and not so:)
and official position regarding the participation of OA in Emsisoft tests Matouska-post number 2 http://support.online-armor.com/showthread.php?t=14020
avatar
farmer
New Member
New Member

Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Poland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by farmer on 28/1/2011, 19:03

Ruhe wrote:
farmer wrote:ps: sorry for my English I am using the translator
Ok...but you should change your translator Very Happy
can any hints as to the translator? I was grateful
avatar
farmer
New Member
New Member

Posts : 7
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Poland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Rico on 28/1/2011, 19:33

So I am guessing that they wont test Sandboxie either? -- Probably because such protection is way to smart and powerful for them to fathom Laughing

Rico
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Posts : 118
Join date : 2010-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Ruhe on 28/1/2011, 19:41

You won't see Sandboxie there, also because of the needed configuration of the used sandbox.
avatar
Ruhe
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 261
Join date : 2010-04-16
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by p2u on 28/1/2011, 20:08

My main reason to hate such tests is: you can point at certain problems in certain products, but you have to offer an alternative or at least explain to the user how certain threats *can* be blocked, for example by changing an admin account into a limited one.

Instead we get: "Fail" - "Not Recommended" and "Passed", "Recommended" with a download link to paid products only. I would call that extortion, especially if you keep in mind that most users just can't work with HIPS in maximum settings. For all winners of that contest I can show at least one video where those products are easily defeated at default settings without user interference. And for all products that offer "Poor" protection, I can easily show the settings to pass most of the tests.

A nice analysis of the flaws and general unfairness in Matousec tests you can read here

Paul

p2u
Valued Member
Valued Member

Posts : 211
Join date : 2010-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Matousec refused to test Defensewall

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum