We are pleased to announce that Outpost Security Suite Pro with the acclaimed firewall built-in has won two gold awards for protection against internal attacks.
The test conducted by Anti-Malware.ru, the leading Russia-based testing laboratory, in September 2011 shows that Outpost Security Suite Pro is the only Internet security suite to win gold awards in Maximum and Standard security configurations. Outpost Security Suite Pro 7.5 scored 91% and 84% with "Maximum" and "Standard" security levels, respectively with 40 out of 40 scores.
Read more
Best regards,
Natalia Solovyeva
The test conducted by Anti-Malware.ru, the leading Russia-based testing laboratory, in September 2011 shows that Outpost Security Suite Pro is the only Internet security suite to win gold awards in Maximum and Standard security configurations. Outpost Security Suite Pro 7.5 scored 91% and 84% with "Maximum" and "Standard" security levels, respectively with 40 out of 40 scores.
Read more
Best regards,
Natalia Solovyeva
4 comments:
Quote:
"... Outpost Security Suite Pro is the only Internet security suite to win gold awards in Maximum and Standard security configurations."
True, but misleading, probably intentionally.
Strangely the "gold award" isn't the first place, the "platinum award" is, and Comodo got two platinum awards, with scores 100% with max settings and 98% with std settings.
I'm a long-time Agnitum firewall user, that's why I bother writing this note to suggest the PR department, you had better not try to play such tricks, just be honest and humble, let the product speak for itself, not the PR staff.
Although the user interface of Agnitum is superior, the HIPS is still a few steps away from the first place. Come on and beat Comodo.
Dear Outpost user, thank you for your interest.
We have a criticism of this test methodology which is already published in Russian blog (see http://goo.gl/HhXw0 - it's shortened link).
Nobody can check if Comodo and other software did their job with NO "false positives". Utilities and methodology cannot be proofed by independent persons, even by software vendors.
Probably, we should publish our comments on "firewall outbound protection test" methodology in English right after English publication of test results (originally published in Russian only).
Thanks for your discussion and I just read your blog entry. Totally agreed that it is MUCH EASIER to totally lock down a system (even the Windows built-in policy system can do this), or auto-sandbox whatever exe it doesn't recognize, but this is not the elegant and intelligent approach.
My previous comment emphasized the misleading PR wording of your mentioning that test result, which is not totally open to the user. You know why firefox is so popular? It's PR is very open and honest to its users. I know security products are rarely open source, but at least the users should know what's going on. Why don't you post on what your R&D department is working on, or is going to work on, even on a very high level without going into too much detailed info? That would be more interesting than publishing those test results alone, as you just said, no test result is totally fair.
Any PR message should not be complicated.
So, we have stated that we have received 2 gold awards and blocked all techniques.
But we have not made the PR message complicated, because we are not sure how competing products, except one, were really tested and what were false positives percentages.
Post a Comment