Agnitum win 7 ready

[itsmejjj]

Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro v.6.7 32-bit - Win 7 ready!

[itsmejjj]

http://www.pctools.com/firewall/ ready

[Maxxwire]

jjj- These are both excellent suggestions that you have made in that both Outpost and PC Tools scored very high on the latest Matousec Proactive Securtiy Challenge...

 

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr44/Maxxwire_Photos/Album%202/Matousec10-09.png

 

And the fact that they are each XP, Vista and Win 7 compatible is an extra bonus!

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

------00000000000000000000000

[Maxxwire]

jjj- In the world of Internet Security Matousec has long been considered one of the most respected Proactive Security Tests published on the internet, and even though they give the products you mentioned a very high rating you still trash them??? Man, you really make it hard to complement your recommendations both for me and for some of the most proven and widely published experts on Internet Security in the entire world!

 

The Rigerous Matousec Proactive Security Challenge

 

Methodology and rules

Installation and configuration

 

The tested products are installed on Windows XP Service Pack 3 with Internet Explorer 8 set as the default browser. The products are configured to their highest usable security settings and tested with this configuration only. We define the highest security settings as settings that the user is able to set without advanced knowledge of the operating system. This means that the user, with the skills and knowledge we assume, is able to go through all forms of the graphic user interface of the product and enable or disable or choose among several therein given options, but is not able to think out names of devices, directories, files, registry entries etc. to add to some table of protected objects manually, not even if such a configuration is suggested on the product's support forum or website.

 

Testing levels

 

There are several testing levels in Proactive Security Challenge. Each level contains a selected set of tests and it also contains a score limit that is necessary to pass this level. All products are tested with the level 1 set of tests. Those products that reach the score limit of level 1 and thus pass this level will be tested in level 2 and so on until they reach the highest level or until they fail a limit of some level.

 

Testing suite and scoring

 

Most of the tests are part of Security Software Testing Suite, which is a set of small tests that are all available with source codes. Using this open suite makes the testing transparent as much as possible. For each test the tested product can get a score between 0% and 100%. Many of the tests can be simply passed or failed only and so the firewall can get 0% or 100% score only. A few tests have two different levels of failure, so there is a possibility to get 50% score from them. The rest of the tests have their specific scoring mapped between 0% and 100%. It should be noted that the testing programs are not perfect and in many cases they use methods, that are not reliable on 100%, to recognize whether the tested system passes or failed the test. This means that it might happen that the testing program reports that the tested system passed the test even if it failed, this is called a false positive result. The official result of the test is always set by an experienced human tester in order to filter false positive results. The opposite situations of false negative results should be rare but are also eliminated by the tester.

 

To be able to make right decisions in disputable situations, we define the test types. Every test has a defined type. Tests of the same type usually attempt to achieve the same goal. Here is a list of the defined types and their goals:

 

General bypassing test: These tests are designed to bypass the protection of the tested product generally, they do not target a specific component or feature. This is why they attempt to perform various privileged actions to verify that the protection was bypassed. These tests succeed if at least one of the privileged action succeeds. General bypassing tests can not be used without proper modifications of the configuration file.

 

Leak-test: Leak-tests attempt to send data to the Internet server, this is called leaking. Most of the leak-tests from Security Software Testing Suite are configured to use a script on our website that logs leaks to our database by default. For such tests, you can use My leaks page to see whether the test was able to transmit the data. For leak-tests that do not use this script, we use a packet sniffer in unclear situations. In order to pass many leak-tests, the tested product has to implement some host protection features.

 

Spying test: These tests attempt to spy on users' input or data. Keyloggers and packet sniffers are typical examples of spying tests. Every piece of the data they obtain is searched for a pattern, which is defined in the configuration file. These tests usually succeed if the given pattern has been found.

Termination test: These tests attempt to terminate or somehow damage processes, or their parts, of the tested product. The termination test usually succeeds if at least one of the target processes, or at least one of their parts, was terminated or damaged. All the termination tests from our suite must be configured properly using the configuration file before they can be used for tests.

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Maxxwire]

I'm sad that you consider complements crap. I feel even sadder that you have no respect whatsoever for the opinions of the Computer Security Community at large. I guess its much safer for you surrounded by your own opinion and your own opinion only. I wish you would have spoken sooner because I already just spent a 1/2 hour doing research and compiling a post in response to your Macrium Reflect Win 7 Rescue CD dilemma.

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Maxxwire]

I'm shocked that a member of the IObit Forum would post such filthy and degrading language for the rest of the world to read and know IObit by! This kind of abusive language should not be tolerated on this otherwise fine and friendly Forum! May this be a warning to all who would try to befriend you and spend their time going out of their way to find an answer to a question that you asked.

 

~Maxx~

[solbjerg]

reminiscense

 

When I was a child many roads were covered with gravel, and in the summer we often went around barefooted.

Therefore we often utilized the dried out cowpies (crap from cows) to jump from one to another in order to avoid walking on the gravel.

Sometimes though it was almost impossible to tell if the cowpie was really dried out, so we once in a while got real shit between our toes :-).

Cheers

solbjerg

[Maxxwire]

solbjerg- Thanks for the thought. I've been posting here for almost a year and I've never had any of the Members here actually throw wet cow pies at me like this before. I'm still shocked that a grown man would stoop to using such vulgarity right out in the open where the search engines can pick it and disseminate it all over the internet shedding a bad light on IObit and its Membership.

 

~Maxx~

[Maxxwire]

solbjerg- Here's an interview of another person that jjj has poo-poo'd-

 

David Matoušek (Matousec Transparent Security) shares his views of Internet security

 

by Igor Pankov Agnitum Security Insight Author

 

Opening the series of our interviews with security experts, David Matoušek, the founder and head of Matousec Transparent Security lab has agreed to answer our questions. Anyone who has ever compared and assessed personal firewalls and their protection qualities will benefit from reading the reports of this Czech-based team. Security vendors are best acquainted with Matousec leaktests, however, the team is involved in a number of different projects. Now let’s give the stage to David Matoušek himself…

 

Q.: Hi David, the first question is: How did you get started? Could you tell us a few words about your team and its goals?

 

A.: From the beginning, we have focused on the security on the Internet, especially on the related software for Windows NT platform. We found out that any of the top desktop security products really achieved what its vendor promised. There always were easy methods to bypass some of its important functionality. And this was true not only for personal firewall products that we chose to focus on a bit more. We have decided to try to change this situation. So, our main goal has been to help to create solid security products. Another goal is to reveal which vendors really care about their customers and which care about the profit only. We would also like to help end-users to choose the best products for them.

 

Q.: What made you become a security researcher; how did you arrive at an idea of setting up a website that would measure up-to-date security programs’ performance and maintain current scores of their robustness? Was that a pioneering project?

 

A.: In the computer world, there are countless extremely interesting topics. Security and internet, however, are also very current topics that have real impact on many people today. Almost every computer owner deals with these topics. This is why one may become a security researcher.

 

Our website has been set up for various reasons. There are many factors connected to each other. We wanted not only to deal with vendors but also to offer something interesting to end-users. When you have something for end-users, you can get the attention, which is needed if you want to deal with the vendors. It is also an instrument that you can use to push on vendors in case they ignore you, because they may ignore you, but they can hardly ignore their customers who are interested in software they use, support or pay for. All these things are connected and work well together.

 

A good and extensible scoring system is what makes it manageable to compare as many products as we want to. I have to admit that we did not come with such a system at first. We have found a good way to deeply examine personal firewalls and related software but the main problem is that it is extremely time-consuming to test a single product with it.

 

We fully recognized this when we started with leak-testing, which converts to reasonable results much faster. Our original methods are good for extensive software testing and we still use them for commercial testing where they help us to find many security holes in every tested product. But these methods are not suitable for comparing tens of products. This is why we are working on a new testing system now, which should be ready in a few weeks.

 

The idea to analyze and compare security solutions was not new when we started but our approach was. Most of the comparisons available even today are ad-like reviews of people that do not understand the software they are testing deeply.

 

We go to the lowest level and that is what makes our research unique.

 

Q.: You conduct extensive research of firewalls’ functionality. Can you name the five top features that should be present in every firewall of choice?

 

A.: It should be noted that the products we mostly focus on are not common firewalls. We work with products that implement process-based security, we call them personal firewalls.

 

There are many software firewalls that do not do that and just filter packets. These firewalls are not worse than personal firewalls, they are just different kind of software - for different kind of users. We require personal firewalls to include host protection features too.

 

Now, if it is clear what kind of products we are talking about, we can discuss what we expect from them.

 

In our opinion, personal firewalls should prevent spying and data and identity theft.

 

Naming the top five features, personal firewalls should implement packet filter functionality to prevent direct online attacks - i.e. not to let malware get in. Personal firewalls should control software installed on the computer to prevent malware to integrate into the operating system.

 

Then the malware should not be able to get the user’s private data, thus anti-sniffing, anti-keylogging and personal data protection features should be implemented too. And even if the malware succeeded to collect the information it should not be allowed to send it outside the protected system and this means implementation of the outbound network traffic control.

 

To achieve all these is much harder a task than it seems. The protection system also has to prevent attacking trusted process and other components in the system. Otherwise, the malware would be able to use trusted parts of the system to integrate into the operating system, to collect or steal sensitive data and/or to send the data outside the system without being noticed. So the next feature that is required here is control of untrusted processes’ activities and that is the hardest task for personal firewalls. It also includes the implementation of self-protection mechanisms because the malware should not be able to terminate the protection, which implies some other features to be implemented and so on. It is very difficult to design and implement a solution that really works.

 

Q.: What in your opinion are the most promising security technologies of the nearest future, how do you think the security industry should evolve to address the threats that are obviously getting out of hand?

 

A.: As for the desktop security products, we are involved in several projects, but I can not give you the names. Among these, there are a few brand-new ideas that might work against today’s malware very well. And this also is a good way to go in security industry in general - to implement and use new ideas and to get rid of old unsecure technologies. We should not be afraid of big steps that may hurt at first, but in long term, they may result in excellent results. Take IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) as an example of this.

 

On the other hand, there are many rooted technologies that are insecure by design and should not be used at all. Again, these are used because people are afraid of big steps. An example of such technology is today’s credit cards or today’s email service. The biggest security problems exist just because of using the old rooted technologies that we are scared to replace.

 

Q.: In your regular activity, do you personally use security software and what types of it?

 

A: Personally, I base my PC security on encryption, virtualization and use of alternative software products. There are many high-quality and often free products that can be used for this purpose. I also use various utilities for system monitoring including custom-made tools and, finally, I use a packet-filtering firewall. However, I would not recommend this configuration to anyone who is not familiar with the system internals.

 

*********

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rid this thank you---- i shall fix the links in a new heading

sorry readers it went stupid and i just lost it --my temper over took my sensibilities- been a long time i lost the plot!

 

i think its resolved now -there is no need for this sort of thing on my part

 

 

and now settled down get on with enjoying the forum --

 

itsmejjj

[enoskype]

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED