As promised earlier here is the first in a series of Proactive Security Challenge discussions from Matousec Ltd. Latest tests were performed on June 29th and involved 8 updated security products. Only 11 out of 42 security applications passed sufficient number of tests to be recommended for usage. At least this is according to Matousec rules which are very strict and does not involve just pure firewall capabilities but extend further to keyloggers, crash-proof and anti-termination capabilities of each participant in Matousec Firewall Challenge.The result chart reveals that three quarters of products are not capable of protecting computers from modern cyber threats, including ZoneAlarm PRO 8, F-Secure Internet Security, McAfee Internet Security 2009, Eset Smart Security 4, Avira Internet Security 9, AVG Internet Security 8 to name a few. As we can see these are all the most popular commercial security products used in majority of computers world wide. No wonder there are so many malware spreading through the web if people are "protected" with incompetent products. Many of those products were once excellent at protecting computer from viruses but today they are just hiding behind their famous names. Thanx to matousec.com their effectiveness is tested in unbiased and objective manner.
click to zoom
One tiny but significant detail come to mind when I look at these non-recommended applications. Majority of them does not have HIPS which obviously heavily lowers their protection level. This talks in favor of host intrusion prevention system as being the only sufficient way to combat security threats these days.
Undisputed winner in Proactive Security Challenge remains paid version of famous Online Armor Personal 3.5 surprisingly followed by Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 which did really well this time in contrast to the past poor results. Free Comodo Internet Security remains in third place thanks to its excellent network protection and powerful HIPS followed by both free and paid version of Outpost Firewalls. One sharp eye may notice a strange thing that Paid version of Outpost firewall scores lower than it's free version. This is because Outpost Security Suite Pro incorporates anti-virus and antispyware which does not pass level 9 tests and consequently score lower. Otherwise firewall capabilities are exactly the same in both versions so if you are in the market for pure firewall without anti-virus, this is your chance to get fully working Outpost Firewall for free.
click to zoom
Why doesn't these famous security products pass Proactive Security Challenge tests! Let's take a look at McAfee Internet Security 2009 e.g. one of those not recommended neither by matousec.com nor PC Territory. Quick look at details of performed tests reveals McAfee Internet Security to incorporate heavily leaky firewall. Further it can not protect itself against termination attempts such as wellbreaker 1, kill 1 and 2, DNStest, Ghost leak tests and more. Does this mean McAfee can not detect any viruses! Of course not. We do not talk about viruses here but about firewalls which many internet security suits offer.
Final thoughts does not talk in favor of McAfee's firewall and self-protection abilities as they are simply not good enough to protect network from intrusions.
The same applies to other products that failed to pass performed tests.
Detailed results and explanation
4 Comments:
Many security companies are so keen on making money these days that they added way too much poorly-performing features to their antivirus software...i love Kaspersky & Agnitum Outpost's offerings and is glad that they made it pass the test with flying colors (incidentally, both are Russian-based companies)...=D
The best thing is still to install separate security solutions on a PC. Instead of going for an entire package with nice yet deceiving names such as 'Total Security','Smart Security' bla bla bla, we should instead go for separate software such as a separate antivirus, firewall, HIPS, antispyware etc to protect our PC...
@Be James
I know what you mean by separate. One obvious advantage of having separate security defense systems is if one goes down, the others remain which does not apply for internet sucurity suits - if one module fails, all will and computer becomes totaly open to network attacks.
For casual users I advice good firewall and antivirus with spyware capabilities but not HIPS. One of the drawbacks HIPS has is requirement of certain computer knowledge when you are asked to intervene. For advanced users HIPS is a way to go and if properly installed, understood and combined wiht UAC in Vista/Win 7, there is no need for additional antivirus application at all. My primary computers are configured pretty much that way, and I haven't had infection for a long time.
Otherwise you have the point James.
nice post. Thank for your information. Wish there is one era to clean all virus attack.
@gadget
There will most probably never be. There are simple too many talanted, clever, curios and mean programmers out there. One of the best solution to security as I see is to employ arrested hackers instead of sending them to jail. Their knowledge is priceless and they could continue their work - just on the right side of the law - by defending networks against other hackers. Thus they would be challanged and would do what they were said. Prime example is Great Britain which is doing that.
However there are far more dangerous things that are viruses. We know DDos attacks that almost knocked out internet arround the globe 2 or 3 years ago - but majority does not know that. DOD(department of defense) is constantly under network attacks from hackers. China is recruiting hundreds of new hackers by funding their trainings to combat cyber war for them.
Majority of crime is going online, including war to some extent. Knocking out communications of the enemy (internet, satelite, tv....) makes war half won...
Post a Comment