Matousec 更新ZoneAlarm Pro 2009 拿到10+ very good

發表時間: 2008-10-02 06:25    作者: skyboy1101    來源: AVPClub Security Home

字體: 小 中 大 | 打印

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


[ 本帖最後由 skyboy1101 於 2008-10-2 06:27 編輯 ]

我也來說兩句 查看全部評論 相關評論

• skyboy1101 (2008-10-02 06:59:46)

  
  BitDefender 2008 scored 4% (against 70 tests) and its 2009 version scored 7% (against 73 tests) remaining on None Protection level.
  McAfee version 2009 finished with the final score of 12% (against 73 tests), its previously tested version scored 6% (against 70 tests).

• megakotaro (2008-10-02 11:58:56)

  前五名都沒變....
  會改進的有改進，趨勢還是沒進步，紅傘和上次一樣
  mcafee竟然那麼弱
  現在號稱三大廠除了symantec拿到good，其他的......

• skyboy1101 (2008-10-14 22:23:08)

  Latest news
  
      * 2008-10-14: New results have been published for:
            o ESET Smart Security 3.0.672.0
            o Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 17.0.1224
  
        Neither of these two products can be recommended if we consider Firewall Challenge results. ESET Smart Security failed totally with 4% final score, which is one of the worst results we have seen so far. Trend Micro Internet Security Pro scored much better, but it finished with the same score as its previously tested version, which means 27%
  http://www.matousec.com/projects ... p#firewalls-ratings

• ㄚ一 (2008-10-14 22:26:41)

  實在是很難相信ESS連kill1跟kill2都過不了．．．

• 天氣預報 (2008-10-14 22:38:35)

  QUOTE:

  原帖由 skyboy1101 於 2008-10-14 22:23 發表
  Latest news
  
      * 2008-10-14: New results have been published for:
            o ESET Smart Security 3.0.672.0
            o Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 17.0.1224
  
        Neither of these two ...

  意思就是Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009防火牆分數沒有進步?

• sun88990 (2008-10-14 22:39:16)

  McAfee的防火牆本來就很弱了..
  不過Symantec這次有進步喔!!

• skyboy1101 (2008-10-14 23:01:36)

  QUOTE:

  原帖由 天氣預報 於 2008-10-14 22:38 發表
  
  
  意思就是Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009防火牆分數沒有進步?

  上次和这一次都同分只是TEST的版本不同
  
  
  
  

• 000110 (2008-10-14 23:11:39)

  小弟測試 ESS 並沒有 Fail

  QUOTE:

  C:\Documents and Settings\VMware\桌面\ssts\bin\Level 01>Kill1.exe
  Security Software Testing Suite - Kill1
  Copyright by Matousec - Transparent security
  http://www.matousec.com/
  
  
  YOUR SYSTEM PASSED THE TEST!
  
  C:\Documents and Settings\VMware\桌面\ssts\bin\Level 01>Pause
  請按任意鍵繼續 . . .
  
  C:\Documents and Settings\VMware\桌面\ssts\bin\Level 01>Kill2.exe
  Security Software Testing Suite - Kill2
  Copyright by Matousec - Transparent security
  http://www.matousec.com/
  
  
  YOUR SYSTEM PASSED THE TEST!
  
  C:\Documents and Settings\VMware\桌面\ssts\bin\Level 01>Pause
  請按任意鍵繼續 . . .

  而且對於 AFAIK Matousec 的測試, Eset 有這樣的回應

  QUOTE:

  ESET Smart Security was created as a complete security solution that is designed to prevent the computer from becoming infected. It uses several different kinds of protection layers to achieve this. ESET Personal Firewall is just one of those layers.
  There are many different schemes for testing firewalls. Some of them test the firewall’s ability to block attacks coming from outside of the tested computer and some coming from inside of it. The inside testing includes “leak tests.” A leak test analyzes the ability of a firewall to prevent running applications from performing actions allowing them to silently gain access to and transfer confidential data.
  Specialized tools that simulate such behavior are used to perform leak tests. These types of firewall testing tools do not present an actual threat and are neither detected nor blocked as infected files. Because applications are allowed to run on test machines, it may lead to the erroneous conclusion that the computer is not protected, even though it is against actual threats.
  In contrast with test cases, in situations where a computer is exposed to real threats, ESET Smart Security immediately blocks malicious code before allowing it to execute.
  Classical stand-alone firewalls, on the other hand, work by trying to block certain behaviors from already-running applications as they have no other layers to prevent data loss. This can not only cause false-positive alarm warnings for legitimate applications but since the malicious code is already running with full access to the system, attempting to deal with the consequences of its execution might be just too late.

  最後, 啟動 Interactive Mode 可以大大提高 LeakTest 的分數

• ㄚ一 (2008-10-14 23:17:43)

  這說明Matousec的測試本身有問題
  之前我自己做的一些Leaktest就發現了一些問題
  包括KIS 8還有DSA的成績都與Matousec公佈的有出入．．

• 000110 (2008-10-14 23:26:44)

  嗯嗯
  而且有個奇怪的現象:
  重覆使用 Level 1 的 Leaktest.exe 測試 ESS 會有不同的結果
  第一次可以攔截
  其後就不可以了

• ㄚ一 (2008-10-14 23:44:59)

  那這樣還是通過測試了
  只是之後會被中斷就是ESS本身的問題
  確定連服務也掛了嗎？

• 000110 (2008-10-14 23:48:44)

  服務應該沒有掛, 即時防護仍然繼續運作