Hmm, so what does that mean then..? Outpost is a lier?!
It would seem so.
From the page about the leak test:
Another important result of our tests is firewall scoring against FPR. FPR stands for Fake Protection Revealer. This leak-test was implemented to reveal cheating on leak-tests. Outpost Firewall PRO 4.0 (971.584.079) was convicted of such cheating. It passes all leak-tests except FPR because of the implementation of user mode hooks (ring3) for security purposes. Our article Design of ideal personal firewall clearly says that ring3 hooks can not be used for security critical features. FPR does nothing but unhooks ring3 hooks which is always possible and thus bypasses such protection. This means that Outpost Firewall PRO cheats to be very strong against leak-tests but in fact it is very weak against real malware.
(The emphasised text is from the original article, not from me.)
As implied on others threads, I am an Outpost user and fan - so maybe I read this test with different eyes than you. Of course also Outpost should be made to stand real life attacks better, they all need that. But if you read all of the test, you will notice that ZoneAlarm and Outpost
are both a lot better than the rest - and that these two are almost equal. The accuse on cheating is of course a problem, but do not forget that at least they are trying
to stop leaking - many firewalls are not even trying! I am confident that the next major update from Agnitum will improve this even more.
One can quote: "Outpost Firewall PRO cheats to be very strong against leak-tests but in fact it is very weak against real malware" - but can one quote anyone saying Matousec's methods are accepted by anyone other that himself? Are his methods a true picture of "real malware"? Guess what: Agnitum thinks not!
And if one thinks not, on this tese
, then the conclusion must be that Outpost did very well in the test. In fact, it did fine!http://www.matousec....analysis/results.php
(Smaller values of overall ratings mean better products.)